Let’s take the socialist Kumbaya-ists at their word. Let’s pretend, for a moment, the apologists at the New Obama Times and the Washington Compost have the story right. The Obama administration knew the Iranians were building a secret nuclear reactor, the object of this reactor was to build nuclear weaponry, and the Obama administration’s policy of ‘engagement’ was in full play. Let’s presume they knew what they were doing and the president was playing an international game of chess with the Iranians. If we put this knowledge into the context the writers are suggesting, the president is a master at the game. If we think an actual reality-based timeline, Obama is a moron.

David E. Sanger and William J. Broad of the New Obama Times, in a piece entitled “Obama: Iran had secret nuke site,” report “Obama said he had withheld making the intelligence public for months because it ‘is very important in these kind of high-stakes situations to make sure the intelligence is right.” In essence, the president is asserting he knew about the facility when his presidency was very new, at the beginning. He didn’t say anything about it because he wanted to make sure the intelligence community was proof-positive the facility actually existed. We can presume, from the president’s own words, the actions engaged in by this administration reflected that caution. While building a case concerning the Iranian facility, he was acting to counter this threat to Israel and the Middle East. To have such insight and not prepare for its eventuality would be utterly ridiculous. Here’s what they have done.

In the past few months, during which time the Obama administration knew about the facility, the Iranians had an election. It certainly wasn’t a democratic election since the mullahs chose those who could run and who could not, but it was an election. That election, of the preselected candidates, was marred by inconsistencies and problems. The Iranian people stood up and demonstrated in the streets against the outcome and process. Even while knowing about the nuclear facility’s possibility, Obama’s teleprompter gave a speech in which it said the United States wouldn’t ‘meddle’ in other countries’ election processes. It refused to condemn the Iranian establishment when it cracked down on the dissidents by rounding up and killing them. He did this presumably for reasons of being able to ‘engage’ them in talks. So, he knew they were possibly building nuclear armament capabilities but was willing to let them gun down their opponents but believed they’d act rationally and responsibly. Strike one.

Obama’s theory of Kumbaya international policy is euphemistically called ‘engagment.’ This is a theory that involves making the ‘bad actor’ a part of the discussions where the other parties will shame the offender into acting properly. The socialists and pacifists in this internationalist theory believe if we all just sit down and talk and respect one another, the renegades will appreciate the gesture so much they won’t misbehave any more. The more groups you can get to be on the side of ‘good’ the more pressure there will be on the ‘bad guys.’ In other words, we can presume the ‘smart’ policymakers in the Obama administration were planning for this eventuality all along. They were getting more and more countries ready to ‘engage’ the Iranians. So, the Obama administration’s actions in the past few months should have more players at the table.

Obama unilaterally took land-based defensive missiles in Eastern Europe off the table. It so angered the Poles, their president refused to speak with Secretary of Nagging Clinton. He demanded to speak personally with Obama as head of state. The Russians were thrilled they wouldn’t be encumbered with missiles that could impede their domination of the region. They had words of praise for this administration’s actions. Obama made a friend, right?

Glenn Kessler, of the Washington Compost, wrote, “Now the question is whether Russia – which has long had close ties with Iran – will be prepared to take even tougher action if Tehran resists full disclosure, such as canceling fuel shipments to the Bushehr reactor, which Moscow constructed.” In reality, will the former Soviets stop sending nuclear materials to a facility they built. Will the discovery of a second facility, which they may or may have not known about, stop their support of Iran? Obama cashed in his chips and is now begging the Russians to step up to his fantasy of engagement. Will that happen? Is the recognition of the second facility enough to change Moscow’s view of Iran after they built them a first nuclear plant? Please. This is too laughable to even consider. And so we come to the revelation of this second facility at Qom. 

Obama spoke to the United Nations this week and even chaired the Security Council, a first for an American president. During this time, his aides worked feverishly on the Iranian problem. Questions such as when and where to reveal this development floated and bobbed throughout the week. We are enlightened to this developing story by a story by Helene Copper and Mark Mazzetti of the New Obama Times. “How Obama went public with secret intelligenc,” is the seductive name of the piece. It suggests the Obama administration knew exactly what it was doing and why it chose its course of behavior. 

The Iranians learned of the West’s intelligence and preemptively sent a terse letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency admitting to the facility. This confirmed the administration’s suspicions. The Iranian facility was a real-life example of that country’s perfidy. The Iranian’s claimed it was just a power plant and not a complex for developing and fueling nuclear weapons. The West knew better. 

“European officials urged speed, saying that Obama should accuse Iran of developing the secret facility first thing Thursday morning, when he chaired the Security Council leaders meeting for the first time. It would have been a dramatic and confrontational moment.” However, the Obama administration wanted to wait. Like Neville Chamberlain, they only wanted to meet and discuss and persuade the Holocaust denier of their lies in a private forum. Engagement doesn’t work if it is public and open. Engagement is based on developing a warm and fuzzy feeling of belonging. The group has power based on peer-pressure and isolating or confronting the Iranians wouldn’t achieve that goal. Obama wanted to highlight his fantasy of a nuclear-free world. He didn’t want to be distracted by Iranian misconduct. It was his moment in the spotlight, once again. The American waffled and the Iranians walked. 

We now have a situation where the Iranians have facilities. The world knows about it. The United States has balked at the chance to do something about it. The West, like the Cheese, stands alone. Russia and China are giggling behind our backs. We are confronted with an enraged Israel and a defiant Iran. The whole world knows this president is a cream puff. Finally, there is little we can do except go to the negotiating table with our hands tied behind our back next week. 

They played us like a fiddle. We were caught flat-footed and we know it. Now, the Democratic Party-run press tries to hide the real story. This is pathetic.

Believing his magnificence and awesomeness were enough to sway the Middle East towards peace and friendship, The Great Prevaricator threw the United States’ prestige under the bus. His first move was back with the first European tour. He single handedly connected every world problem directly back to the West. When some European leaders weren’t too happy with that act, he followed it with an even bigger, super-sized ‘Blame America and the West’ tour part two.   After all, to make sure the entire world believed him, he had to do it again. Achieving worldwide shame isn’t that easy. The tin pot dictators and tyrants of the world aren’t easily dissuaded concerning the prestige of the United States. But, when you are determined, you can really make the world a more dangerous place. 

Embarrassed by the lack of mullah response to his Cairo speech, Obama became more determined to abase our national stature. It is only when we stand as equals with autocrats that they will take us seriously. That is the world view of the collectivists. Since they are confirmed oligarchs, they understand and respect other world leaders who also scorn common democratic beliefs. Only tacky, silly, simple, sophomoric average Americans still believe in liberty and democracy. That is so last century. Power elites and ruling classes are today’s black. But, let’s get back to the bungler-in-chief. 

Since it was obvious the mullahs had threw the election to the present president as an affront to Obama’s prediction, Abu Hussein would do the best he could with the situation. That meant just accepting the non-election’s pseudo-results and to hell with the idea of democracy. In fact, the president is clearly impressed with the way the mullahs are handling this chaotic situation. Barry is giving them their space, which shows just how valid and legitimate he views their rule. To understand his thinking, you must accept how a collectivist views power and resistance to it. The mullahs are doing exactly what he sees as an acceptable response to political dissidents. Obama and the mullahs have that much in common.

Abu Hussein sees the conservative resistance to his socialist policies in precisely the same way the mullahs view their opposition. Obama looks at the opposition and sees traitors and agitators to his power. These sad little ‘teabaggers’ and ‘fringe’ groups are a tiny misguided group of miscreants who aren’t smart enough to understand his hold on power. “Resistance is futile,” is the mantra of collectivists. The mullahs are just dealing with the same kind of resistance. If he lets them handle these troublemakers, they will afford him the respect to negotiate with him. If he speaks out against the obviously faux election results, they will not deal with him. That’s where this bizarre choice of words comes into play.

Obama said we will not ‘meddle’ in Iranian affairs. He chose that word for two very good reasons. First, he believes the mullahs are a legitimate political force that resisting is foolish. Second, he honestly believes that if the rightful power elites are allowed to deal only with one another, the right political result will occur. If we allow the hoi polloi a hand in the system, they will do something stupid, like demand freedom, equality, and democracy. Collectivists only believe in the APPEARANCE of such things. You don’t actually LET the people make up their own minds. That’s for unsophisticated rubes and not for complex, highly evolved elites such as himself. He knows what’s best for you. You certainly don’t. The Iranian people cannot possible figure out what’s best for them. That’s why you have the Guardian Council, to protect the people from themselves. 

Unfortunately, the use of the word ‘meddle’ has far-reaching implications and deeply troubling extenuations Abu Hussein didn’t intend. Meddle is a word that connotes pettiness and imposes upon another’s prerogative. While he considers American involvement in the Iranian election as a presumption and not worthy of consideration, many bad actors in the world heard that word and seized upon it. Any autocrat that hears this sentiment expressed will be emboldened to crush any nascent democratic movement with impunity. All democracy and freedom movements will be ‘handsoff’ from this administration’s radar. From now on, all movements that empower ordinary people and rob elites of exclusive power will be fair game. Any move by this administration will be branded as ‘meddling’ in their internal affairs. 

Meddling could be things as inconsequential as piracy. Somalia certainly has the right to govern its own citizen’s behaviors. Stopping pirates on the high seas is ‘meddling’ in their economic affairs. It certainly isn’t our business how the Somali people make a living. That is for their non-existent government to regulate.

Certainly, Sudan has jurisdictional control over its own country and those agitators in Darfur are only getting what’s coming to them. If the Obama administration condemns the genocide occurring there, they are certainly meddling in that country’s affairs. After all, it is their country and their prerogative how to deal with their citizenry. 

Venezuela is financing and supporting vicious gangs who are politically enslaving and violating people living in Columbia. They are doing so because of capitalist pigs who are exploiting people and making them feel bad. So, Venezuela is exercising its socialist prerogative and punishing the overlords in neighboring Columbia. Fuark is THEIR means of bringing about the people’s business. If America does condemn their raping and robbing of a people, they are clearly meddling in Venezuela’s foreign policy initiatives. That would be unfair to Chavez and his murderous thugs. 

So, in essence, the Obama administration has slipped on a pair of handcuffs, stepped into leg irons, closed up the locks, and threw away the key. From now on, their foreign policy will be hampered and dogged with accusations of American ‘meddling.’ No tyrant will pass on the chance to both blame the United States and limit their voice as an attempt at meddling. There is no argument that will sound either coherent or honest if we dare to condemn their actions. Any action by us will look as a petty power grab. Obama just ended any hope of success for his administration’s foreign policy. We are voiceless and sterile, all potency abandoned for a faithless, Iranian Hail Mary. 

Back in the seventies, the gay movement was powerless as a political force. The Stonewall riots in New York City in 1969 had unified gays, lesbians, and transgender people into a community of sorts relying on one another for political and legal cover. As a movement they achieved a win in 1973 when the psychiatric association removed homosexuality as a disease or disorder. This was done by more conservative consensus-makers and doctors. But, most of the self-styled leaders of the gay community were radicals. They were, for the most part, left wing fanatics that embraced socialist ideals and methods. Among these ideals is the idea of collectivism by which political power is gained through subsuming your own ideals into a larger group and facilitating changes by working in concert.

Most of the gay community wasn’t up for this at all. The gay community is as politically diverse as the rest of the nation. Most gays and lesbians, in the seventies, didn’t agree with the gay liberation ideals of destroying the institution of the family and freeing sexuality from the socially constructed labels of gay, straight, transgender, etc. An overwhelming majority of men want to be men and women want to be women and they just love and mate with others of the same sex. At first the radicals were marginalized and ignored. They protested and fomented and made outlandish statements while most gay people just lived their lives and quietly, in increments, came out to families, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. The fear of gay people eased with these broader movements but then AIDS reared its ugly head.

AIDS was especially scary because it crept into the population and had devastating consequences. The sexual liberators were the hardest hit, at first. But the gay population soon found they were pariahs in general society because of fear. The collectivist left saw this politically active group as being very tight-knit because of its shared reliance on other gay people for political and legal cover especially in the age of AIDS when they were marginalized further. The gay community had started losing their slow, hard-fought level of acceptance because of general fear of AIDS by the society as a whole.

The collectivist left saw the gay community as an opportunity to increase both their financial and political power in the country. If they ran political cover for the gay community, they argued, could the gay community be a reliable ally. Gay community leaders had been floundering about waiting for someone, anyone to offer this kind of deal. Liberal politicians started calling for more support for AIDS related problems. The gay community responded with votes and checks. A coalition had been completed. 

The collectivist left then told the gay community that this ‘marriage of convenience’ would work well for them both as long as the community was willing to pay their dues to the rest of the coalition. The gay community must faithfully support the collectivist agenda without complaining about their own issues just yet. Military service, partnering rights, non-discrimination in the workplace, and special criminal protections would have to wait. The collectivist agenda of special rights for women, racial minority and other various groups had to come first. Just patiently wait and follow our lead and you will eventually get something. It may not be for many years, but it is coming. The then leaders agreed and the bulk of the community followed. 

Throughout the eighties and early nineties, the gay community faithfully supported the collectivist agenda getting only support for AIDS research, outreach, and health care. That was the benefit they achieved for subsuming any other issues they wanted passed. The gay community became a central part of the Democratic Party mainly because of the volunteers, cash, and reliable votes they provided. The Democratic Party didn’t really pay them much mind because, after all, they had not yet ‘paid their dues’ like women and minorities and unions had. 

Finally, in the early nineties, some gay community members, sick of holding their noses and paying for and voting for these issues they didn’t agree with began caucusing and discussing a partnership with Republicans instead. It was absurd to vote for all these socialist programs if you don’t believe they are in the best interest of the country. The Log Cabin Republicans were born.

The Democrats were scared to death. They could not let one of the most reliable suppliers of volunteers and cash to slip away to the other party. Bill Clinton proposed a little sweetener to keep the gay community safely within the collectivist fold. He boldly backed letting gays serve openly in the military. That silenced many of the more reasonable and conservative voices in the movement. The right wing of the gay movement had only wanted equal opportunities and not a wholesale change in society. This gambit worked. They voted for and supported Clinton helping him achieve a narrow victory. The coalition was safe. 

Clinton proposed allowing gays to openly serve in the military and a firestorm of protest greeted the pronouncement. He gave in, almost without a fight, and proposed, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue’ as a policy. The gay community wasn’t exactly thrilled, but it was a little something. But Clinton, and especially his wife, gave the gay community something even better, at least in the minds of the gay political leaders. The president gave them access to his administration and a place at the table. Of course, he didn’t give them any concessions or actual progress. But the leaders of the gay movement were mollified. Finally, someone actually respected them as important parts of the collective. That was enough for these leaders. The Democratic Party had become their home. 

That didn’t placate the rank and file of the gay community. They still wanted equality and respect for all gay people, not just the leaders. So, the Democrats came up with a brilliant ruse to placate the rank and file. The age of political correctness became even more powerful. All gay people and stances on gay issues would become politically toxic if questioned by any one person or group. They spread this controlled speech dogma into other specialized groups in the eighties and it had worked so well it would be perfect for gay community groups also. As a well-coordinated machine, the collective would pounce upon anyone who dared question any in their tight coalition. They’d isolate, criticize and publicly humiliate any who would point out problems or inconsistencies. 

The gay community took the bait. They, along with feminists, minorities, unions, progressive socialists, and environmentalists would collectively rise and defend one of their own whether that group or person was right or wrong.  Such political cover was a joy to the leaders of the gay community. If a person dared to defy the collective, the power of all the assorted groups would descend like a cloud of locusts upon that person and chew them to shreds. No one dared to ask why political issues like same-sex partnerships or workplace protections weren’t being addressed. They’d be massacred immediately by the collectivist attack machine.

But, many rank and file gay people continued to defy these orders. They were ostracized by the greater collectivists and made to pay with ad hominem attacks and marginalization. The so-called leaders of the gay community made sure their allies knew exactly who needed ‘educating’ by not attacking the issue but instead attacking the person. This removed the question from the table. So now we come to Carrie Prejean.

Perez Hilton wasn’t offended by her answer. He wasn’t even particularly interested in her answer. What he was annoyed by was her refusal to answer it in politically correct gobbledygook. She was not playing the game. She had the audacity to her own opinion. That simply isn’t allowed in the mind of the collectivist. His scree on YouTube was not against her belief in traditional marriage. His scree was personal. He signaled the attack on her. He let the collective know he was offended and that as payback she would have to be eliminated.

This, of course, misses the whole point of a political movement. It isn’t to make people who disagree with you to ‘go away.’ A political movement is to achieve certain goals and raise certain issues. The gay community has bought into this broader coalition that dares not give them their goals. The Democratic Party, which is in firm control of both the Congress and the presidency, could in a New York second pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), end gay military discharges, and repeal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). THEY CAN’T. If they pass those three pieces of legislation, the entire gay community will be free to vote their consciences instead of in concert. They’d lose those volunteers, contributors, and voters in a flash. Instead, by keeping the gay community hungry and in need of political cover, they preserve the collectivist coalition. 

Carrie Prejean is just a scrap of meat the collectivists have thrown to the gay community to keep them quiet. That is all. There is no politically motivated reason to attack her. There is not issue driving her simple answer. She was used as a political tool to keep the gay community firmly in the collectivist camp and wedged firmly away from the rest of the nation.. The great lie in all this is the idea the Democratic Party is the gay community’s friend. They are not. They are holding the community captive with hope and frightened with friendship. Sharp teeth lie behind the collectivist smile, and the gay community knows it. That is the only reason they made Carrie Prejean a martyr. She is a chit in a political shell game. 

David Letterman’s nasty characterization of Sarah Palin as a ‘slutty flight attendant’ was bad. But the collectivist media has been doing that for months now. They have acted in concert to diminish and marginalize the entire population of the country that doesn’t belong in the Hollywood-Media-Political clique. Their condescension isn’t limited to conservatives, or conservative women, or even non-Democrats. These people believe themselves a governing class who are the only people who can direct the resources and attention of this nation. What they are most appalled by, in Gov. Palin, is not her looks or her demeanor, or her politics. What they are most appalled by is her audacity to speak directly to the people without their permission. She is a vital threat to them because she isn’t cowed by their elitism. It galls and infuriates them. And, more importantly, it threatens their place.

What Davy did was give her a clear and noble example of just how seriously flawed their moral imperative is. You see, they can attack and belittle any who refuse to bow to their position as nobles. That is all. They consider themselves the ruling class in this country. John McCain never seriously concerned them because he took years playing the game and building relationships with the ruling class. He is part of them. But, Mrs. Palin, she is an upstart. That must be buried. You can’t have the hoi polloi upsetting their neatly arranged apple cart of hierarchies. That just isn’t done. 

So, Davy the Pervy made a sick, pathetic joke at Palin’s daughter’s expense. It would have flown just under the radar had he not made a tactical mistake. He presumed it would be the beleaguered Bristol who attended the Yankee game with her mother. He told the joke believing it would just further the filthy characterization the media carefully crafted concerning her. But it wasn’t Bristol at the game. It was the younger, fourteen-year-old Willow who attended that game with her mother. That gave Sarah the Brave the perfect opportunity.

She could have brushed it off, like so many have before. Palin knew, as did the rest of the nation, he meant to smear Bristol with more muck. But she bravely took the slight and called Old Pervy to the carpet. Davy, smugly, self-assuredly, tried to clarify. He invited the Palins to New York on his dime and to appear on his show. It only made him look worse. Instead of looking magnanimous and accommodating, he looked foolish and foxy. It was here the Palins really took the creep to task. 

Instead of letting it lie fallow, the Palins came back with the retort that first they wouldn’t go on and ‘improve his ratings’ which marginalizes the ever-diminishing returns of the has-been. Then, returned fire by saying it wouldn’t be wise to have their daughter within feet of the old bugger. They’re not concerned about Viagra boy in the least. But it paints him with the same muck he tried to smear them with. Beautiful.

The Ogler was on the ropes now. Sarah Palin went on the Today show this morning with Matt Lauer. Matty wanted to do his best to protect his fellow peer of the realm. He tried his darnedest to trip up Palin on her well-deserved outrage. Months of enduring this endless sideshow had taught her well. She gave back even better than she took. She demanded an apology from Creepy, not to her, but to all women. It was women who have been smeared by this classist garbage. Common, everyday women are being showered with reminders not to step out of their place or the self-styled nobility will destroy you. They will attack you and your family and your connections and your very existence if you have the temerity to stand up to the ruling class.

Sarah Palin did more for this country than just humiliate one sicko. She shot a warning across the bow of the establishment. You are not above us. You cannot act without reprove. You are not better than us. We, the American public are the rulers. Not you. This is a message I would hope those in power will take to heart. I think some direct hits wouldn’t hurt however. 

There is a great deal of sympathetic and defensive text being written to confuse and screen President Obama’s nominee for the High Court. Sonia Sotomayor, in a speech before a college, uttered this sentiment, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Many people are now trying to shield Ms. Sotomayor from the impact of her words. They are trying to minimize what she said as a misstatement or as meaning something quite different. As a white male, I am insulted by this philosophy and I will explain exactly why I’m offended and believe this nominee should be dropped.

David Brooks has opined that our grasp on reality is tenuous. We are nothing but a corporal body of fleeting and twirling emotions that are unable to grasp even the briefest glimpse of the law or the truth. He doesn’t believe in the law, per se. He believes the law is a chimera created out of thin air by hackneyed ideologues hell-bent on deceiving us. He believes ‘it is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason’ because he can find no reason in his own thinking. Everything and everyone, to Brooks, is but a dream.

Brooks asserts, we are all just a bunch of ‘emotional intuitionists’ grasping about in the world like we are blind and deaf to all logic and instead react knee-jerk to ideas from a romantic notion we have in our heads. These notions, models he calls them, are the apparatus that makes the world work. We are unable to identify any differences that may occur that would fly in the face of those notions. They are timeless and unbending.   He believes we are just machines that operate unthinkingly, without questioning or ability to use that imaginary system we call reason. Every one should understand this world is not real. It is just an illusion. 

David Brooks continues with how his mind works and therefore how all our minds work. “The mind tries on different solutions to see if they fit. Then – often while you’re in the shower or after a night’s sleep – the answer comes to you.” Truth, to David Brooks, is a random series of a collection of fleeting thoughts and emotions roiling around in one’s mind. Like Berkeley, the truth is a reflection of the mind and not a solution or application of law or precedents. 

Once David Brooks smashes this illusion that reality is, well, real, he goes on to defend the target of this column. “Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad type if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class.” Here is where the great David Brooks flails with the monster that is the justice system and loses. It is here where his lazy thinking and impetus defense of the nominee is lost. 

A finder of law must empathize with ALL types of people in so much as they don’t see color or gender or national origin as having ANY bearing on the case. The eyes should not deceive. The case, whatever case in question, should not hinge on the vagaries of class at all. The reason we have statues of justice wearing a blindfold is because the color or gender or national origin of the litigants should never be a factor. The ideas involved in the case need to be weighed, not the classes. The all-knowing David Brooks has created a philosophical nihilist model and then peopled it with a bunch of mental robots that react in predicable ways according to race, color, sex, and national origin. He has, in fact, exposed himself as a believer in chauvinism as a finder of law.

He continues with a bunch of claptrap about ‘love of institution’ as a defense for her. If you love the law, you will respect it. Please. That is the thinking of an elitist that believes if you follow a code of conduct, like chivalry, you will arrive at the truth. Only the elect need apply. Then, he continues that if she understands her murky, flawed mind, she will adapt to it. After all, if you understand nothing is real, then your decision making process will be freed. If nothing really matters, then we are free to fly, or some other such nonsense. 

Finally, David Brooks, speaker of the truth, concludes with evoking the ancients to buttress his meandering nihilism. He calls on Burke and Hayek to endorse his new emotionalism as justice. From the far grave, these philosophers will rise up and give evidence in support of his shifting shadows theory. ‘They argued as such, so my argument has merit’, he begs. Such is the fatal apologia for a biased mind. To defend the lady’s honor, he has shifted our rule of law into the rule of emotion. To support her nomination, he is willing to abase our legal philosophy into a morass of shifting sands. Bravo, David Brooks, Bravo.

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.