A picture worth a thousand Squatters

It began as a gaggle of unnoticed activists, grew to national status, and became a cesspool of licentiousness, crime, lewdness, and violent threats right before our eyes. Big Labor and the Communist Party USA support its murky agenda, as do domestic and international statists right up to President Obama. Welcome to Squatting Any Street.

Amidst the slogans and chants emanating from impromptu communes across the country, the only clear message from Squatting is that banks suck and Squatters are entitled. Other than that, Squatting Any Street's message has been incoherent. Yet no internal chant or external criticism can define Squatting with the clarity of a single photo taken at Squatting Los Angeles.

Plainly, this protester is upset. His sign implies that the greedy banks, the greedy rich, and the responsible people all suck. The wealthy become rich when everyone else gets hosed. End of discussion.

His view is common among Squatters. The mythical possibility of legislating economic fairness has consumed leftist orthodoxy since hotdogs became synonymous with ballpark concessions. Yet foreclosure, while an undesirable course, is the natural result of an unpaid mortgage. Squatters may believe banks foreclose indiscriminately to pad their bottom line. But with real estate values in decline, what profit is there for banks to possess properties worth less than their liens?

Notice the Squatter's contrasting message. If the banks got rich while homeowners were unfairly foreclosed, from what were the banks bailed out? Their profits? One Squatter with one sign exposes a fatal flaw common to Squatters. It's impossible for banks to simultaneously be both rich and poor. Expressing anger toward both circumstances is putting two and two together and coming up with six.

Only a failing bank can receive a government bailout. When a solvent institution receives government funds it is a subsidy. Truly, neither subsidies nor bailouts are part of a free market economy. But there's a distinction between them. Is it too much to ask Squatters to determine their message before they protest? Anyway, TEA Partiers were railing against both personal and corporate entitlement long before the first Squatters pitched their tents.

A single sign has illustrated the degree to which Squatters have missed the point. They blame free markets and capitalism for bank profiteering on both sides of the housing bubble. But banks can't simultaneously be rich enough to be greedy corporations and poor enough for bailouts. The concept contradicts itself. Government's "fair" lending regulations drove banks to issue risky loans. Government then mitigated the risk with subsidy assurances. The housing crash wasn't the fault of free markets or capitalism. It began, grew, and culminated with government's usurping of the free market.

Squatters should realize that without the federal government's politically-driven manipulation of the housing market the banks wouldn't have issued so many ill-advised loans, the housing bubble would never have existed as it did, and Squatting Any Street would be as academic as the nearest tent city.

America's useful idiots cheer their attackers

Imperfections notwithstanding, humans are a rather forgiving bunch. We've been known to forgive people who've stolen from us, damaged our property, or attacked us outright. We've forgiven con artists, robbers, and swindlers of all stripes. The more magnanimous among us can even forgive their rapist, or their loved one's murderer. A big heart is essential to granting absolution in lieu of vengeance. Therefore, when such forgiveness is accorded, the gracious party rightly earns public respect.

To revere a forgiving victim is one thing. But what would we think of someone who encouraged their assailant? What would we think of a woman who cheered her attacker during a sexual assault? How about someone who applauds while their neighbor is being murdered, or roots for the thief who's burglarizing their home, or praises the thug who's vandalizing their property? We'd think them foolish, if not tetched.

"C'mon," you say, "no one is stupid enough to cheer their attacker."

You could lose the farm on that bet. Blindly crediting people for common sense and rationality is a risky proposition. Americans regularly cheer their attackers, especially when the consequences from the attack aren't immediately perceptible or experienced.

Washington has been herding America into centralized despotism for generations and the Obama administration is quickening the pace. Eventually, we'll be left groveling before government for our every need, or begging from the foreign nations to whom our so-called leaders have indebted us. Who would cheer the charlatans who are selling us down the river? Listen to the audience at an Obama rally.



Whenever President Obama proposes increased federal spending or another bankrupting entitlement program his supporters shower him with adulation. He promises a few hundred billion dollars for "shovel ready" jobs, or "green energy," or to keep teachers, police, and firemen on the job, and his audience glorifies him like a redeemer, as if he were riding a donkey down a road paved with palm branches. Such was the case when the President touted his $447 billion jobs proposal during a speech at North Carolina State University.

The President invariably claims his spending initiatives will be "paid for." The rhetoric is deceptive, if not a full-blown lie. Washington is overspending by $1.5 trillion annually, has accumulated a debt ten times that amount, and holds long-term benefit obligations that exceed our total national assets. No federal spending is "paid for." Every dime is borrowed against the future incomes of the people who cheer Obama, like the students at N.C. State. Obama pledged debt to them and their children and they showered him with love and adulation in return.

Obama is sinking the country even further into unsustainable programs and unimaginable debts. His attack on our fiscal future is a repeated punch in the gut. And the "useful idiots" cheer him wildly, as if he is delivering us from evil.

Occupy Wall Street protests capitalism and liberty

Opposition to crony capitalism, we're told, is motivating Occupy Wall Street. The protesters, we're told, are simply fed up with a business cycle wherein politicians push legislation to benefit large corporations, receiving campaign cash and other perks in return. In this the age of TARP bailouts, stimulus packages, and quantitative easing the complaint sounds reasonable, if we accept what we're told.

Many large corporations are unquestionably in bed with the federal government. Strange as it sounds, onerous government regulations offer some benefits to big businesses. For instance, regulations hinder start-up companies, preventing competition. Established companies possess the regulatory and legal experience, along with the political connections, necessary to navigate government's red tape. Small companies struggle just to gain a toehold, much less keep pace. Therefore, large companies have opportunity to bury small competitors beneath bureaucratic compliance and regulatory paperwork, and it's easier than direct competition.

However, a longing for free market competition isn't driving Occupy Wall Street. A movement dedicated to restoring market forces to our economy and breaking the bond between government and business already exists. If the occupiers actually supported such worthwhile goals they would ally the TEA Party. Yet TEA Party activists are routinely demeaned as racist, sexist, and obsessively phobic.

Pundits can compare Occupy Wall Street (OWS) to the TEA Party if they want. But the proof is in the pudding; occupiers have little in common with TEA Partiers. OWS may indeed hold corporate welfare in disdain, as does the TEA Party. But the similarity ends there. TEA Partiers also oppose the personal welfare state, the entitlement mentality that perpetuates said state, and the lack of personal responsibility that forms its foundation. Occupiers revel in entitlement, irresponsibility, envy, and wealth redistribution.

The occupations represent a segment of Americans diametrically opposite the TEA Party, a segment that is either oblivious to its surroundings or can't comprehend what it sees. Their motivations are similar to the demonstrators we've seen in European socialist democracies, notably Greece and Britain, where the economies crumble under entitlement's weight while the marchers demand even more.

Huddled in their de facto communes, the occupiers have no qualms with government choosing winners and losers, or funding more entitlement programs. They consider social spending obligatory and student loans are a basic human right. Punitive taxation on the "1-percent" is a matter of economic justice and everyone should have the job they like at the wage they desire. In short, occupiers expect Utopian results from more of the same irresponsible government spending and regulatory burdens that created the current budgetary and economic chaos.

The "99-percenters" aren't marching for freedom; they're clueless on the concept. Private property rights are a cornerstone of personal liberty. Yet they are anathema to the occupiers' worldview. The New York protesters see no contradiction in squatting on private property, dishonoring the desires of the owner, and refusing to recognize the property owner's legal and moral right to tell the occupiers to pack up their autumn of love and head for the hills. Despite an agreement that zoned Zuccotti Park for public use, the park remains privately owned. Occupiers can chant, shout, and drum about freedom until the cows come home, but it means nothing until they've shed their open contempt for property rights.

The occupiers just can't grasp the contradiction in marching for freedom while demanding more government. As previously stated, Occupy Wall Street is about government growth. The only way to achieve their goals is to centralize authority, redistribute wealth, expand the entitlement attitude, and trust in a false promise. In the name of freedom the Wall Street occupiers are demanding cradle-to-grave collectivism. They're serving government at the expense of liberty, both for their fellow citizens and themselves.

The concept is unpopular, but you can judge people -- or in this case, a gathering of people -- by the company they attract. A quick glance at organizations aligning with OWS reads like a who's who of collectivism, from labor unions and MoveOn.org to the Communist Party USA. Some of the world's most repressive regimes are lending support, too. A general in Iran's Revolutionary Guard endorsed the OWS movement as a means to end Western capitalism. And Venezuela's socialist dictator Hugo Chavez has nothing but kind words for the occupiers.

Doubtful the typical occupier is a genuine, card-carrying communist. Most occupiers would likely balk at the idea of promoting communism, or even socialism. But progressivism, labor unions, militant strongmen, and dictators don't line up on the side of human liberty, and each has cast its lot with OWS. Can we then conclude that authoritarians see Occupy Wall Street's true nature much clearer than do the occupiers themselves? I think so.

The "99-percent" are a deluded bunch. First, 99-percent of our country isn't consumed with class envy or "economic justice," however it's defined. Second, OWS protesters are simply the fertilizer from which state control of our economy, our culture, and the population overall will continue to grow. Occupy Wall Street is an instrument, a means to an end, with the typical occupier personifying everything Vladimir Lenin could've wanted in a useful idiot.

Dick Durbin tests the Water Balloon Theory

No one likes high bank fees, especially in an era of bailouts, Wall Street occupations, and Washington deciding which banks survive. So a $5 monthly debit card fee creates an ideal situation for a manipulative politician, and Sen. Dick Durbin is ready to reap the populist hay.

Bank of America initiated the $5 debit card fee and you'd have thought they'd reinstated debtor's prison. No sooner was the fee announced than Durbin pounced.

Bank of America customer, vote with your feet. Get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won't gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.

Did Durbin forget that Bank of America never charged a monthly debit card fee until he legislated "fairness" into the banking industry? No, he didn't forget. He's just a hypocrite. Then, to cover his trail, this dim bulb encouraged a bank run that would, if fulfilled, result in Bank of America's insolvency.

Yesterday the federal government bailed out "too big to fail" Bank of America with 45-billion taxpayer dollars. Today Dick Durbin has declared B of A expendable. I don't know which is more insulting: the inconsistency, or Durbin's belief that Bank of America customers need his prompt to seek a new bank if they find the debit card fee egregious.

How can Durbin feign such self-righteous indignation over the debit card fee anyway? He created it. Durbin's amendment to the Dodd-Frank banking reform legislation placed an artificial cease-and-desist order on the debit card fees banks once charged. Bank of America predictably sought new revenue streams to replace those Durbin's amendment disallows. It's the natural action for an institution whose revenue is disrupted.

When a business is squeezed in one area it will redirect its quest for profits, a phenomenon clearly illustrated in my Water Balloon Theory. If you fill a long balloon with water and compress one area, the water will be forced to a new location. No matter how hard you squeeze, you can't contain the water in one place. It will always move to a spot of lesser resistance. The only way to stop the process is to compress the balloon until it bursts.

Sen. Durbin tried to disprove my Water Balloon Theory, but he failed. His attempt to constrain the bank's fee structure simply forced those fees to a new location. At Bank of America the bulge appeared in the form of a $5 monthly charge for debit card use.

The Water Balloon Theory remains intact. Exerting political pressure on businesses will push their hunt for profits in a new direction. Continually increasing said pressure will cause businesses to fail, just like a balloon. We should apply this theory whenever we're tempted to demand congressional action on a perceived unfairness. Otherwise we, like Durbin, will end up all wet.

The curtain rises on Obama Theatre

When the curtain went up on Obama Theatre's latest presentation, staged at a town hall meeting sponsored by LinkedIn.com, the performance was the same as it has always been. A theatre critic would describe Obama's act as tired, tedious, and repetitive. The President delivered the same stale routines and predictable themes upon which he's long relied. There was nothing new, nothing creative. His message was inescapably vacant and laughably sophomoric.

Yet one scene stood out, wherein an obvious cast member sheepishly asked Obama, "Will you raise my taxes?"

Shouldn't we expect more dynamic dialogue from an Obama production? And such a tepid delivery on the part of the supporting actor! Where's the feeling? Where's the enunciation? Even a theatrical novice realizes that persuading Obama to raise taxes is like persuading Lindsay Lohan to party, Charlie Sheen to toot his own horn, or Pamela Anderson to take off her clothes.

The tax masochist recited his lines and relinquished the spotlight, which is common for co-stars in an Obama production. He was simply another supporting actor in the class envy song and dance Obama has performed on every stage short of Broadway. The leading man -- President Obama, defender of the powerless and champion of the downtrodden -- boasts a substantial résumé of similar performances. The LinkedIn.com town hall meeting was just his latest credit.

When Obama plays the advocate for affordable housing there's a Henrietta Hughes in the audience. When Obama needs to demonstrate his powerful personality a smitten supporter swoons like a teenage girl at a Beatles concert. When Obama bullies the rich about paying their "fair share" a wealthy capitulator begs for a tax hike. And we're supposed to believe these displays aren't staged? Obama and his entourage of conspirators are as natural as FD&C Yellow No. 10 and as predictable as a date with Jenna Jameson.

The Obama Show grows more tiresome with each performance, especially when it includes wealthy stooges begging pathetically for an opportunity to pay higher taxes. For the umpteenth time, any rich person who thinks they own too little stock in the federal treasury can write a check to Uncle Sam any time they choose, and for any amount they deem fair. The fact is that Obama's affluent fawners aren't at all interested in paying more taxes. But they don't mind everyone else paying a little extra to support the Obama agenda.

Obama and his interchangeable troupe of supporting characters are playing us for suckers and we should be up in arms. Yet a goodly number or our countrymen gobble up this indigestible tripe and beg for an encore.

The curtain goes up on Obama Theatre every time a wealthy person begs the President for the privilege of making greater contributions to the IRS. The intent is to convince Americans that surrendering their production to big government is both sensible and patriotic. But each dramatization is pure fiction, staged for the immature and gullible patron.

Investing in government is a losing proposition

There's no questioning Warren Buffett's ability to invest. People who sink their money in dry oil wells and earthworm farms don't become billionaires. Buffett is one of those rare people who can spot a winner, act on it, and turn a tidy profit. Thus he's amassed a sizeable fortune. What's wrong with that? Ask Warren Buffett.

Buffett is one of the "super rich." He controls vast capital resources and he enjoys his wealth. But he doesn't believe he or his super rich friends pay enough federal income tax. The tax code, according to Buffett, includes too many loopholes through which the super rich can shelter their earnings. According to Buffett's own assessment, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than do the people who work for him. To rectify that disparity he looks to the federal government -- under the leadership of Barack Obama, the man he endorsed for president -- to equalize the playing field.

Right on cue, one of America's wealthiest men echoes the White House's call for "shared sacrifice." However, Buffett's apparent love for taxation isn't new. The Oracle of Omaha is known for endorsing higher income taxes and the estate tax, as are many of his super rich friends. But there's something dangerously wrong with this mindset. If the super rich are indeed concerned with the fiscal struggles lower economic classes face, they have the means to singly address the issue. Why do they need government to do for them what is well within their individual power?

Buffett lamented his "low" tax bracket in a recent New York Times editorial. According to Buffet's numbers, America's 400 richest people reported a combined taxable income of $90.9 billion in 2008, an average of $227 million each. If the top 400 contributed half their incomes to people of lesser means, they could make instant millionaires out of 45,450 of their countrymen. Such charity would be private and voluntary, without a dime being filtered through the federal government, except for the gift taxes of course.

I'm not suggesting wealthy people actually surrender any portion of their fortunes to anyone for any reason, nor am I denying their authority to do so. Indeed wealthy people, including Warren Buffett, have entered a compact to contribute at least half their fortunes to charitable causes. That's fine; their wealth is theirs to disperse as they please. But no wealthy person need lobby government to tax their incomes and redistribute their wealth when they alone are perfectly capable of doing so.

On the other hand, let's suppose Buffett succeeds in raising taxes on America's top earners. What then? Well, for starters, even if the federal government had confiscated every nickel of the $90.9 billion the top 400 earned in 2008 it would barely dent the federal deficit and wouldn't scratch the national debt. In fact, $90.9 billion dollars will fund government spending, which exceeds $3.6 trillion annually, for only nine days. We can share the sacrifice until everyone sings Kum Ba Yah and still not solve our fiscal ills.

For Warren Buffett to scratch out an editorial about being under-taxed is utter nonsense. No one who pays a tax based on their earnings, whether great or meager, is under-taxed. Washington receives enormous revenues no matter the income tax rate. Buffett's own numbers prove that lower tax rates create more revenue for government. Decide for yourself if that's beneficial.

Citing IRS data, Buffett points out how the top 400 earners in 1992 produced $16.9 billion in taxable income and paid 29.2-percent in taxes. As mentioned earlier, the top 400 earned $90.9 billion in 2008, but paid only 21.5-percent in taxes. In using these numbers Mr. Buffett misled his readers, prompting them to believe the rich paid fewer taxes in 2008 than in 1992. Actually, only $4.93 billion in taxes were collected on the 1992 incomes while $19.54 billion were collected on the 2008 incomes.

The highest earners obviously netted more income and paid a lower percentage in taxes in 2008 than in 1992. But they paid more in real taxes, meaning Washington received more actual dollars. Furthermore, America's wealthiest people have for years shouldered the highest percentage of the tax burden.

There's nothing to be gained in demonizing wealthy Americans. As long as their wealth isn't the product of criminal endeavor, shady dealing, or government cronyism, it's no one's business how the rich became rich or how rich they became. Class envy dogma is as disingenuous as it is deceptive, and it's equally disingenuous for multi-billionaires like Warren Buffett to preen and crow about the need to pay more taxes. Such rhetoric seeks public admiration for offering a fraudulent solution that ignores our fundamental fiscal problems, government's profligate spending.

If Mr. Buffett harbors guilt over his vast wealth he can write a check to the U.S. Treasury anytime he wants for any amount he deems suitable. There are other options at his disposal, too. He can shun the tax loopholes and shelters he considers an unfair advantage. He can ignore the accountants and lawyers whose advice reduces his taxable income. Each action is unilateral and voluntary; each can be pursued without infringing on his neighbor's liberties. There's no need for Buffett, or anyone else, to invoke government's heavy hand to dispense private wealth.

The rich are too poor to satisfy Washington's spending appetite. Like a gluttonous eater, Washington gorges on the fruits of productive Americans from all income levels. The federal government could gobble up Warren Buffett's net worth in less than a week with room left for a hearty dessert.

Even if raising taxes on the rich increased government revenues there's no evidence to suggest Washington would properly manage those funds. Warren Buffett is a wise investor. But he's dead wrong if he truly believes higher taxes on the rich will improve life for the lower or middle income classes.

Judge Judy tackles entitlements

Arguments persist over just how America arrived at insolvency's precipice. There may not be a single reason, program, agency, policy, or bureaucracy to shoulder the entire blame. The fact that we're here is the culmination of a methodical, long-term process. However, there's one culprit that is central to nearly all government expansions, and thus to our fiscal deterioration. It's one that every productive member of society from the street sweeper to the CEO should blame . . . the bum.

A bum is everything the name implies, from irresponsible slacker to societal parasite. However, America is afraid to blame bums for their lowly condition; it's politically incorrect. People who were yesterday's bums, loafers, and freeloaders are today's disenfranchised and less fortunate. They are the losers of life's lottery, relegated to poverty because someone else stole a disproportionate share of America's prosperity.

Thank God for television's Judge Judy. She isn't afraid to blame the bum for being, well, a bum. Her public courage has earned my respect and gratitude. She should earn yours, too. Watch the video and you'll agree.



Judge Judy is 100-percent correct in her assessment of both the plaintiff and defendant. The two parties in this case exemplify greed in its purest form, the "me" attitude that hampers America's economic growth and leads to fiscal insanity. Their general disdain for self-sufficiency reflects the core of the entitlement mentality. One sues to collect rent that she herself never paid. And the other considers government grants and subsidies a birthright. These two people, and millions like them, are drains on society, contributing nothing while believing themselves entitled to their heart's desire.

According to a quote attributed to economist Arthur Laffer, "When you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it." Liberal politicians have done a thorough job of taxing productivity and subsidizing unproductiveness. Therefore they have generated an ever-increasing segment of the population with no compunction about living off the production of their neighbor, as the two people in Judge Judy's court demonstrate. And Judge Judy wants to send the aforementioned video to Congress, as if most members care?

Congress, through 40-plus years of various welfare, entitlement, and Not-so-Great Society programs, created the parasites in her courtroom, people who believe they're entitled to enjoy life's necessities, pleasures, and perks at someone else's expense. Such entitlement parasites are the liberal voting base, and an exponential expense to the rest of us. Not only has the entitlement mentality become a drain on federal revenues, it has deprived the marketplace of what the entitlement recipient would've otherwise produced. We lose on both counts.

Go ahead and send the video Judge Judy, with my blessings. But frankly, you're wasting your stamp.

The Left wages war on the poor

Professor Walter E. Williams’ writings are required reading for anyone interested in preserving individual liberty and a free economy. Prof. Williams has long promoted both doctrines with a no-holds-barred approach, rendering big government proponents defenseless. In his pursuit, he recently targeted the nefariousness of the minimum wage.

Williams derides the minimum wage for its inherent discrimination. Minimum wage laws establish pay scales above the productivity levels of youthful and inexperienced workers. Therefore unskilled workers are denied the experiences necessary to climb the employment ladder. Williams believes a minimum wage discriminates against the poor, especially young black men.

Prof. Williams summarized his position thusly:

The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools, is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.

Minimum wage laws have massive political support, including that of black politicians. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America's permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.

The minimum wage’s deleterious consequences for those it purportedly serves are disastrous even if unintentional. If purposeful, wage manipulation is downright sinister. And the results are intentional, for the minimum wage isn’t the only area in which progressive policies have suppressed the poor.

Who stands to profit when the poor -- whom the Left constantly references but never bothers to define -- are priced out of the labor market? If you answered, "Politicians, big government activists, and social engineers," take a gold star. Advocates for an expansive welfare state find their perfect pawn in the poor. The perpetually impoverished have an equally perpetual need to blame someone for their status. Leftist leaders manipulate the needy to enhance their own political and social positions.

The Left utilizes poverty and leverages "the deserving poor" against "the greedy rich" to create an electoral advantage. Leftist politicians preach grand solutions to the impoverished voter. Such voters can attain quality schools, crime-free neighborhoods, affordable and adequate housing, and an equal piece of the wealth. All the poor need do is elect Leftist politicians and each desirable outcome is theirs for the taking. But where are the results?

Once the votes are tabulated and the poverty-fighting politicians take office the poor are no better off than they were beforehand. Programs will be initiated and money will be spent. Yet, the poor will realize no distinguishable improvement in their condition. Scholastic achievement doesn’t increase, housing remains substandard, the destitute often resort to crime, and wealth continues to flow to more productive individuals.

Left-wing policies, sold under the misnomer of compassion, have created a disastrous scenario and declared a de facto war on the poor. Conservatism, free markets, and right-wing ideologues, aren't responsible, despite the Left’s demagoguery. The poor suffer as a direct result of Leftist populism, which brings destruction on the very people wealth redistribution policies pretend to benefit. The poor receive nothing in terms of upward mobility. Instead, indigence warrants only enough benefit to ensure continued dependence on government.

The impoverished aren’t merely victims of inadequate central planning; they are prisoners of war. The Left has convinced the poor that government programs and policies are the antidote to poverty. In reality the opposite is true and the poor are relieved of nothing but their liberty and self-esteem.

If the intent behind government anti-poverty initiatives is to alleviate poverty the programs are miserable failures. However, entitlements are an unrivaled success in weakening the individual and empowering the Left. Leftists have generated a growing and perpetual voting bloc inextricably bound to big government. To genuinely solve the poverty issues on which progressives campaign would equal political suicide.

While robbing a population of their initiative, confidence, and motivation is a cowardly and dastardly strategy, the effectiveness is inarguable. For instance, the poverty rate declined steadily following World War II until Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society declared war on the poor. Poverty’s decline came to an abrupt halt and the rate has since remained constant, as has the impoverished voter’s allegiance to the Democrat Party.

No matter the topic -- education, housing, healthcare, or wages -- you can bank on government’s lofty assurances never producing the promised results. Anti-poverty programs are designed to malfunction. Accepting the Left’s anti-poverty rhetoric is as sensible as accepting a train ticket from Heinrich Himmler. In supporting the Left's initiatives, the impoverished are purchasing the shackles for their own restraint.

Nancy Pelosi: A ruler of fools

Nancy Pelosi isn’t long as Speaker of the House. But if there’s one constant in our ever-changing world it’s that Pelosi will prove unconscionable until the gavel is wrested from her hand. During a recent speech on the House floor she expressed opinions about unemployment insurance and tax policy that seem irrational even for her.

Pelosi supports extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 99 week limit. To substantiate her position she touted unemployment benefits as a burgeoning economic catalyst. All we need do is and tap into their power. Pelosi informed Congress, “Unemployment insurance . . . returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there.”

A two dollar return for every one invested is a lofty promise. No financial advisor would make such a guarantee, especially in these days of stagnant stocks, miniscule interest rates and sunken real estate values. Not even a gold-plated, platinum diamond could augur a 100-percent return on investment.

Is Pelosi a pecuniary Nostradamus? If so, it’s imprudent to squander her financial perception. To realize the full economic impact unemployment insurance portends, every American from restaurant bus boys to Fortune 500 CEOs should cease work immediately. According to Pelosi’s two-for-one estimations, living on unemployment alone would boost our gross domestic product from 2009’s $14.1 trillion to $28.2 trillion. In an instant the U.S. economy would exceed that of the European Union, China and Japan combined. And this can be accomplished while we sit home watching reruns of Hogan’s Heroes.

Does Pelosi sound crazy? As the old saying goes, “Brother, you ain’t seen nothing yet.” If Pelosi’s take on unemployment benefits has your blood boiling, you’ll erupt over her thoughts on taxation.

“Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion to the deficit,” Pelosi claims. Of course, extending the current tax rates gives nothing to anyone. Furthermore, Congress doesn’t have to “pay” for tax cuts even when reductions are on the table. But remember, in Pelosi’s world a static tax rate equals a cut because all wealth is first and foremost government property.

Even the casual observer knows that when tax rates are static, or reduced, Congress doesn’t send the taxpayer a check. Tax rates simply determine the percentage of wealth that remains with its rightful producer instead of going to Washington. Money that never arrives in Washington cannot add to the deficit. The $700 billion budget hole that Pelosi laments--superficially, I might add--didn’t result from insufficient taxation but from Washington’s lust to spend like drunken sailors in foreign ports.

At this point it’s natural to conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the stupidest woman on earth. If not stupid, she must certainly be ignorant. Would that either case were true, for both stupidity and ignorance are correctable.

If Pelosi is stupid, teaching her will be yeoman’s work, for she knows very little and resists learning. Yet she can learn if her teacher is patient and persistent. It will be difficult, but not impossible. Correcting an ignorant Pelosi is much easier. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge or understanding, nothing more. Expose an ignorant Pelosi to facts and the ignorance dissipates like vapor.

Nancy Pelosi will benefit from neither approach because she isn’t stupid or ignorant. She is a spin master, an epic fraud, an insufferable boor and a pathological liar. But she isn’t dumb. No one could attain her position while drinking the sociopolitical Kool-Aid she serves up. No, Pelosi isn’t stupid or ignorant. She does, however, credit those characteristics to her constituents. Sadly enough, she’s correct. Otherwise, her seat in Congress wouldn’t be so secure.

A people’s representative respects the intelligence of the people he or she represents. That may sound outdated, but it’s nonetheless true. A ruler expresses utter contempt for their subject’s intellect. Therefore rulers, unlike representatives, treat people like stooges and serfs. Rulers quickly become proficient in the artistry of condescension and falsehood, confident that the masses are too dense to discern the truth.

Is Nancy Pelosi a representative or a ruler? Anyone who can’t answer that simple question needn’t worry about representation. They should prepare to be ruled.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

The five myths of Regressive politics #2: Conservatives benefit from poverty.

Sometimes you have to hand it to your enemies. Regressives are masterful at portraying themselves as the administrators of “economic fairness.” No Regressive oration would be complete without a splash of class envy. Be it “tax cuts for the greedy rich” or “the rich getting wealthy on the backs of the poor,” the message is the same. Conservatives benefit from keeping poor Americans impoverished. But the Left’s advantage is nullified when conservatives meet their charge head-on.

Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.

The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.

The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.

Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.

If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.

The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.

Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.

Why do we go to the polls?

Tea Partiers have waited nearly two years for this Election Day. We’ve dreamed about it, worked toward it and suffered unsubstantiated slanders for our efforts. Our opponents, who live for the Washington establishment, call us racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and the sexually derisive “tea-baggers.” We’re Limbaugh’s, Beck’s and Hannity’s puppets, intellectually vapid and thoroughly Neanderthal.

Such derision is unwarranted but not surprising. When an ideology is under assault its adherents will fight. Therefore the Washington establishment--well represented in both dominant parties--is retaliating against the Tea Party, for we threaten to tear the playhouse down.

We’ve traveled a long road to this day and many a long road lies ahead. With polls showing large conservative gains across the electoral spectrum complacency becomes a danger. We must send a loud message on November 2nd. And our motivation lies in the reasons the Tea Party was born, why it grew, and why it’s redefining the two party system.

Our national balance sheet is corrupt. The debt is $13 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. That’s roughly an entire year’s worth of national production. Obama, who campaigned on reducing deficits, has proposed a $9.7 trillion increase in debt over the next ten years. Yet our federal “representatives” claim the answer lies in more government, higher taxes and an expansive cradle-to-grave welfare state. Therefore we go to the polls.

Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains hurtling toward a washed-out bridge. There is no Social Security trust fund and the touted “surplus” is but an accounting gimmick backed by worthless IOUs. Medicare is just as bad, if not worse. The Part D prescription drug plan and Obamacare only expand the problem.

Productive Americans--rich, poor and in between--are taxed to fund programs for the dependent. Politicians tantalize ignorant voters with promises to soak “evil” corporations and institute mythical visions of regulatory “fairness.” Yet the costs of such measures are paid by people, not legal entities. Each tax, each burdensome regulation is absorbed by the people, for the cost is passed to the consumer. Economists call this phenomenon the “unseen consequence.” It’s time we, the unseen consequences, were both seen and heard. Therefore we go to the polls.

We must repeal the onerous healthcare bill that promises high costs, poor service and shoddy results while granting enormous power--and the probability of abuse--to the central government. A majority of Americans, even if those who aren’t Tea Party activists, want this law repealed. Furthermore, it is another unconstitutional program sold to us “for our own good.” Therefore we go to the polls.

We are tired of arrogant “public servants” like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who invents Bible passages to promote her global warming agenda. She holds our freedom, the U.S. Constitution and her duty to both in utter contempt. Truth and honesty aren’t character traits for Nancy Pelosi; they are obstacles to overcome. This woman is unfit to hold public office, much less the Speaker’s gavel. Therefore we go to the polls.

Sen. Harry Reid thinks you and I stink. We, the great unwashed, are just too gamey for his aristocratic olfactory. When the Capitol Visitors Center opened Reid expressed his joy. A sensible, reasonable person would’ve been happy for the Americans who would no longer wait in the broiling sun to tour Congress. Not Reid! The air conditioned center meant no more smelly peasants near his office. Frankly, a herd of filthy goats couldn’t stink up the Capitol like Sen. Harry Reid and his ilk have done.

Reid ramrodded the healthcare overall into law despite deep objections from a sizeable number of Americans. Oppose amnesty and you’re racist in Harry Reid’s world. He is arrogant, unresponsive, sanctimonious and insulting. Even Reid’s own son views him as damaged goods, shunning the family name while running for the Nevada governorship. Therefore we go to the polls.

On Tuesday we strip power from the tyrants who kept the healthcare bill hidden, changed it indiscriminately, lied about its content and their pledge for an open review, and then passed it via a secretive, backroom vote. The bill itself was unreadable; a labyrinth of legalese, vagaries and cross references intended to prevent public understanding. Supporters of Obamacare blithely told us how wonderful the legislation would be for all Americans, yet said that the bill must pass before we can know what’s in it. Not even Sen. Max Baucus, the bill’s alleged author, bothered to read this nonsense before it became law. It’s naïve to think Congressmen and Senators read these large bills. But their contempt for our intelligence can’t go unchallenged. Therefore we go to the polls.

We go to the polls to prevent cap and trade from sacrificing our economy to an unproven theory. We go to the polls so card check won’t transform employer-employee relationships into one-sided AFL-CIO/SEIU playgrounds, which will ultimately fund our further demise. We go to the polls to correct our fiscal future and secure our national sovereignty.

Government is too large. It is unmanageable and unrestrained. Our representatives have stretched government far beyond its constitutional limits while scoffing at the Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty, property rights and individual liberty. We go to the polls to save the greatest hope for human liberty from a destructive Marxist agenda.

Ultimately, the reason we go to the polls is to fire the first salvos in a long and arduous revolution--fought each election cycle, as our Founders intended--to restore constitutional principles, fiscal sanity and common sense to American government at all levels. And we do this not only for ourselves. We go to the polls for our posterity, that future Americans may live as government’s masters, not its servants. We go to the polls because we are liberty’s last line of defense.

The Bad, the worse and the foolish: A frustrated look at recent events

Maxine Waters aided the sub-prime crisis

You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters’ funneling of TARP money to her husband’s friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public’s trust. Not so for her California constituents.

Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters’ for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn’t have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn‘t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?

Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.

Bad news from the Gulf

Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we’ve been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida’s beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.

That was then; this is now.

The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.

This isn’t the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it’s the word of scientists. And it’s bad news for environmentalists who’d hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.

So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?

Tyranny gets a makeover

A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn’t appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O’Neil, on Facebook.

“You’re not going far in this world,” Osbourne raged, “Hand over your crown.”

O’Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It’s not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn’t have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn’t beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?

Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler’s boot.

A new purpose for the Supreme Court

Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan’s judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.

A White House press release expressed Obama’s pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren’t prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion’s a little quaint these days.

Harry Reid is at it again

Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He’s at it again. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”

No Mr. Reid, you’ve said plenty. Let me talk for a while.

Frankly, I don’t see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don’t know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.

I don’t know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party’s policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don’t know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.

I don’t know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.

I could go on, Mr. Reid. Do I need to say more?

From Islam, peace by upon it

Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.

The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”

Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that’s not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.

This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?

It’s a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.

A parting dose of tolerance

Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can’t think of something nice to say it’s better to remain silent. Therefore I’ll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama’s trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.

Atlanta’s mob scene results from Democrat policy

One sure way to draw a crowd is to offer a benefit paid for with someone else’s money. That’s why 30-thousand people congregated in Atlanta to apply for taxpayer funded federal housing subsidies. You needn’t be an Old Testament prophet to foresee how such a gathering would unfold. There was shoving, pushing, cursing and a mob scene or two. Big surprise, huh?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution attributed the lack of public decency to impatience, frustration and confusion brought on by the high summer temperatures. The mercury hit the low 90s before the crowd dispersed around 2 PM.

You know what? Summer temperatures are hot in most cities at two in the afternoon. In fact, on the day Atlanta’s Section 8 housing chaos unfolded the temperature reached the mid to upper 90s for quite a few people whose day didn’t end at 2 PM. They were at a place they visit each and every day. It’s a place that helps them provide for their families and meet their financial obligations; a place called work.

Work serves another purpose, too. It’s allows productive people to earn the money their government will confiscate to construct the dependent mentality that prompts 30-thousand people to gather in search of a slice from their countrymen’s pie.

“But Hager,” you say, “times are tough and people need assistance.”

Yes, the economy is tough and I’m quite thankful for gainful employment during these down economic times. But the incivility and near-riots on display in Atlanta aren’t the result of the recession or of industrious people who’ve caught some bad breaks. They are the result of a long-standing problem that was created, apparently with malicious intent, when the welfare state was initiated.

Government has excused and rewarded a lack of productivity for so long that indolence has become a celebrated lifestyle. Subsidies, paid for with tax money, are now considered rights. The entitlement mentality these attitudes have fostered is a contributing factor to our nation’s fiscal abyss. It is a death knell for personal and economic liberty regardless of how Democrats spin it.

Don’t bother telling me about how your Uncle Joe spent his entire life working his fingers to the bone and is now dependent on government programs to make ends meet. The claim hasn’t been made that everyone seeking government assistance--even among the 30-thousand in Atlanta--is a worthless bum. But the mentality that produces the Atlanta episode isn’t compatible with people like your Uncle Joe. It is, however, compatible with your Uncle Joe if he votes based on which politician will best help him live at his neighbor’s expense.

There is no question that social welfare programs have created a dependency attitude wherein government is seen as lord and savior. There are indeed women who consider pregnancy an opportunity for a pay raise and men who bequeath to government their family responsibilities. There are people who have no qualm with having government provide for them from cradle to grave.

What happened in Atlanta, similar to the scenes in New Orleans following Katrina, is the predictable result of regressive social policy. Democrats have long preached dependence under the guise of civil rights. The lack of decorum at this gathering identifies people who have lost their moral compass, disregarded their talents, ignored their purpose for living and become comfortable with entitlements funded by their neighbor. No amount of federal subsidy or government program will change their social status.

The façade of elitist empathy

Few expressions are more vacant than the political elite’s public displays of empathy. Empathy is a vicarious emotion, allowing empathizers to feign compassion for other people’s hardships without the actual experience. It is a handy device, and one the elite class routinely utilizes.

Elitists relish the opportunity to parade their empathy before their underlings. Who better to provide an example than Vice President Biden?

Biden credits the administration with saving our financial system and preventing an economic disaster that would’ve sent Western Civilization spiraling toward a quasi-Stone Age existence. Everyone now has health care and the sewer called Wall Street--whose alleged abuses the federal government initiated, exacerbated and subsidized--has been thoroughly sanitized. These steps were necessary because Biden’s opponents (meaning Republicans) “are wildly out of touch” with America.

Mr. Biden has suffered yet another recurrence of foot-in-mouth disease, a chronic malady among elitist empathizers. Biden championed the administration’s achievements during a speech he delivered to $500-per-person Democrat donors in Chapel Hill, NC. How many truck drivers, welders, nurses and retail sales clerks attend $500 political fundraisers? Tell us again, Mr. Biden, who is out of touch?

The elitist’s empathic expressions are a façade intended to conceal their love for the private luxuries they publicly condemn. If only Biden were alone in is condescending attitudes. Sadly, he has ample company on Empathy Hill.

President Obama stands on that hill too, sided by the wealthy real estate potentate Neil Bluhm. Don’t let Bluhm’s apparent capitalist successes fool you. He is a Regressive to the core, having contributed more than $60,000 to various Democrat political causes over the last two years.

Mr. Bluhm also hosted a birthday party for our 44th President. But the downtrodden, toward whom Regressives extend their boundless empathy, didn’t attend. They couldn’t afford the prerequisite $30,000 donation to the Democrat National Committee that Bluhm assigned to his extravaganza. If the attendees were truly concerned about the unfortunate, why not make $30,000 contributions to the nearest children’s home? After all, to paraphrase ex-President Clinton, no donation to the DNC ever fed a hungry child.

The Clintons are also elitists in good standing. Chelsea’s recent nuptials are estimated to have cost between $3 and $6 million dollars. Chelsea herself was reportedly adorned with a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry. The driveways at the wedding’s plush mansion locale were widened, not to accommodate an influx of public transportation buses but swanky limousines.

The portable toilet facilities cost $15,000. Minimum wage employees--routine targets for elitist empathy--will barely earn that amount for a year’s labor. Even the electricians were instructed to wear tuxedos, perhaps with a combination cummerbund and tool belt. There was no word on the dress code for stand-by plumbers.

In all honesty, the Clintons, Obama and Bluhm can spend any sum they desire on their parties; it is their business. Their extravagances would be wholly inconsequential save for one small detail: their duplicity. Elitists, illuminated in the Clinton-Obama-Bluhm triumvirate, wallow in the wealth and luxury they condemn for anyone outside their clique. Small wonder Rasmussen polling finds an extensive disconnect between “regular” Americans and the ruling political elites.

Wealth is acceptable only when the elite class controls its use. A person must adhere to the elite political ideology; otherwise their attainments are attributed to avaricious philosophies. Achievers are deemed winners in life’s lottery, born to the silver spoon. The elites’ strategy is to divide and conquer, leaving the elites themselves to determine for whom wealth and luxury are acceptable.

The elites who lead the Regressive Movement are experts in smugness and sophistry. They think nothing of flaunting their wealth and status while claiming empathy with the poor and obscure. Elitists then ease their consciences with “charitable” government entitlement programs funded through legislative theft.

We of the great unwashed are to stoke the elitists’ egos, marvel at their wisdom, praise their compassion, beg their generosity and grovel for their acknowledgment. We are to unquestionably adhere to the diktats of our superiors, forsaking our individual goals for their vision of the collective good.

The elitists’ empathy extends only to the point that their agenda is served. Actually, elitist is a misnomer. They are the contemporary royalty, bidding us live as they decree while they indulge as they wish.

Home of the free? Or land of the slavish?

Americans take pride in being the world’s freest people. We celebrate freedom on Independence Day. We sing of it before our sporting events. But haven’t history’s most brutal regimes concealed tyranny behind veils of patriotism and rhetorical allusions to liberty? After all, dictators don’t gain power while pledging chains and slavery. They gain power with glowing promises to free the masses.

Any 20th Century communist regime you’d care to name has followed this model. Hitler did, too. Islamic republics boast of the liberation wrought via their revolutions. And Hugo Chavez is utilizing this game plan to solidify his hold on Venezuela, much as did his Cuban hero, Fidel Castro.

To argue that the United States now mirrors Venezuela or the defunct Soviet Union is premature. However, it’s seems clear that Americans have less regard for liberty--and less liberty for that disregard--than did our forebears. Certainly our political leadership holds individual liberty in low esteem. We have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom and surrendered large chunks of liberty in return for temporary security. Just as Franklin warned, we have less liberty and security to show for our submission. To confirm the point let’s look at traits common to the free and slavish mind.

Free people revere the rule of law and its role in preserving civility. Yet it’s also understood that law enforcement’s prime purpose is to investigate crime scenes after the fact. Seldom are police able to foil crimes in progress.

Liberty requires it’s possessors to shoulder the burden of self-defense. Toward that end free people rely on some combination of mental preparedness, physical strength and weapons proficiency. These qualities, especially regarding arms, are paramount to that defense.

The slavish mentality accepts nothing related to self-preservation. Personal protection means petitioning governments to restrict or abolish the legal possession of arms. Ignored is the reality that criminals, by definition, disregard such laws. In absence of self-preservation the slavish person will demand surveillance cameras on every street corner. The just and the unjust are then treated as equals, which is the greatest of inequalities.

Freedom asks nothing more than an opportunity; a free person seeks only a chance. Liberty’s desire is to utilize individual talent, ingenuity, initiative and intellect to their greatest capacity and profitability. There are no guarantees and success is unpredictable. Whatever the results may be, that which was gained was earned, not granted.

The slavish mentality wants government to alter the starting line. It isn’t opportunity that slavish minds demand; it is advantage based on known or arbitrary criteria. What’s more, there must be an artificial outcome. Predictability, even when producing poor returns, is preferable to the risks of an unknown future. The product is invariably the equal distribution of mediocrity, which is considered preferable to the “inequalities” of the bourgeois meritocracy.

Personal responsibility is tantamount to the free individual. Meeting obligations is as natural as drawing breath. That may mean working one job, two jobs, or launching a primary or secondary business. Conversely, one spouse may drop from the work force to raise children, accepting the corresponding loss of income and necessary reduction in expenditures.

No so for the slavish. Only so much responsibility is acceptable. They will generally tolerate the burden of providing for their leisure and entertainment. But beyond that the onus rests on government. Nearly everything under the sun has become a collective concern. It is the state’s responsibility to keep human needs adequately supplied.

The fact that government can provide nothing to the slavish and indolent without first confiscating it from the free and productive is immaterial. Tragically, the demands of the willingly dependent eventually enslave the free as well, despite their best efforts to maintain independence.

Whether America remains the land of the free or becomes the home of the slavish rests on which mentality prevails. The free must love, protect and incessantly preach liberty. We haven’t yet descended into irreconcilable servitude. But we stand at the precipice.

Thoughts and questions on various matters

Wisdom is measured in the depth of one’s questions and knowledge in one’s consciousness of facts. This collection of questions and thoughts is my latest attempt to improve in both areas and shine a little light into some dark corners.

Environmentalists demand that we pursue renewable energy sources and use recyclable materials. Why, then, are environmentalists so opposed to the timber industry? It utilizes and replenishes forests, one of nature’s most available, renewable and recyclable assets.

Can a person claim to be free while refusing to be accountable for their actions or responsible for their livelihood? Sadly, this view of liberty has become the rule rather than the exception.

What happens if every pet owner follows the animal rights crusader’s demand and has their pet spayed or neutered? Where will the next generation of pets come from?

When conservatives criticize a political opponent’s positions they are accused of partisanship, mean-spiritedness, or reckless attacks. But when a liberal does the same thing--or worse--to conservatives they are praised for “speaking truth to power.” Talk about your double standards.

I find it inexplicable that government can trace salmonella to a single jalapeño pepper and mad cow disease to a barn stall on a remote ranch, but can’t find millions of illegal aliens living right under our noses.

At the height of his messianic popularity Barack Obama visited the Middle East. I wondered at the time if he traversed the Atlantic by air or simply walked across on the water. If he takes a similar trip now he may have to fly coach and pay for his checked baggage.

When activists organize “gay pride” parades, are they trying to convince themselves or the rest of us?

If prostitution is illegal why are pornographic movies legal? The actors and actresses in those movies are selling sex, too. The only difference is their forum and their price.

The academics and pointy-headed intellectuals who influence public policy routinely praise the communist and socialist leaders who have starved millions of people in the name of social equality. They will also condemn capitalist farmers and grocery store owners, who have fed millions for a profit. Is there any wonder the economic world has capsized?

Driving 101: The Interstate Axiom. The driver in front of you will slow to a crawl a half-mile before reaching their exit ramp. The driver behind you will pass you like it’s the white flag lap of the Daytona 500, and then suddenly swerve across three lanes of traffic to exit at the same ramp.

I doubt the people who’ve continually praised the historic nature of Obama’s presidency would have similar feelings if J.C. Watts--the former Oklahoma congressman--had become the nation’s first black president.

What became of Monica Lewinsky? Which item should she donate to the Smithsonian Institution: her blue dress, or her lipstick?

Here is a prime example of hypocrisy. The same people who decry the influence of money in politics totally ignored the $600 million Obama raised during the 2008 campaign.

We will trust our health, retirement and livelihood to people who spend $100 million to win an elected office that pays between $200,000 and $400,000 annually. However, we’re skeptical of someone who spends $100,000 on an education to land a position that pays several million dollars per year. Will someone explain why this makes sense?

South Carolina Democrats are correct in claiming that Alvin M. Greene shouldn’t be their party’s candidate for U.S. Senate. Greene washed out of the army under unusual circumstances. He has no job, lives with his parents and is charged with a sexual offence. Actually, Greene should be either the Democrat’s presidential nominee or their climate change expert.

The perfect society: A land without wealth?

Utopia! It’s the holy grail of egalitarian busybodies far and wide. If only outcomes were equal, as defined by the egalitarians themselves, the world would become a place of balanced chi and seamless harmony. These societal engineers have long believed in their unique intellects and superlative abilities, which qualify them to distribute wealth and contentment to a longing world. Sadly, there’s no shortage of these do-gooders.

A New York State Assemblyman envisions an increased millionaire tax. If passed, high income earners--who already bear a disproportionate share of New York’s tax burden--will pitch in an additional 11-percent. The broken record known as Hillary Clinton still laments how “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes. Oregon, too, has joined the chorus.

Earlier this year Oregon voters passed Measures 66 and 67, raising taxes on individuals and businesses that wealth redistributors, in their profundity, have deemed excessive winners in life’s lottery. Typical class envy tactics preceded that electoral outcome. Proponents argued that education, public safety and health would suffer if the initiatives failed. The poor, naturally, would take it on the chin.

The entire premise of a perceived “fair share” is ambiguous at best. Would the egalitarian consider taxation equitable if the “rich” surrender, say, 75-percent of their income to government? Hillary Clinton, Oregon voters and New York assemblymen might think so. But anyone with a toehold on reality understands that productive people shoulder the tax burden now. The top one-percent of earners pays 28-percent of federal income taxes. Additionally, over the last 30 years the taxation on incomes above $75,000 has steadily increased while declining on incomes below that threshold.

Arguing that wealthier Americans pay little or no taxes is misleading. No, make that an outright lie. And that’s not the only mischaracterization offered by the “soak the rich” crowd.

In promoting Measures 66 and 67 the Oregon Center for Public Policy claimed that “asking” Oregonians to “contribute” more in taxes would improve the state’s fiscal structure. Certainly some taxation is necessary for governments to execute legitimate functions. But referring to tax increases as “asking” people to “contribute” is unadulterated spin, sufficient to strain even the strongest gastronomical constitution. And it’s so typical of the egalitarian social engineer.

Charitable organizations solicit contributions, and contributors alone determine their level of participation. No such choice exists with taxation. Tax levies aren’t a request on government’s part, and taxes aren’t contributed sans duress. Taxes are compulsory and their collection is ultimately a matter of force.

Sadly, there’s little to be achieved in arguing taxation with egalitarians. Redistributionists are so devoted to equalizing all incomes and imposing their Marxist vision on society that debate has become futile. Equally futile are the protests of the productive, whose incomes are sacrificed upon the perverse altar of egalitarianism. The producer’s right to their production will never match the needs of the oppressed when it comes to conjuring empathy. Therefore the “rich” are safely marginalized, demonized and dismissed.

What would happen if busybodies like Hillary Clinton, New York legislators and Oregon voters fulfill their collectivist dreams? If there were no private wealth the economy would become void of capital investment. Innovation and production would decelerate, with a corresponding decline in employment and living standards. The resulting misery would create greater demand on government, which puts the do-gooders in position to distribute the remaining wealth as they so determine. They will achieve their socialist dreams, but only for a season.

Such idealism has no foundation upon which to build. Since government produces little, and that which is produced is a case study in inefficiency, the egalitarian society is doomed to failure. Only the most influential busybodies will benefit from their societal and economic transformation. The rank and file do-gooder will be destined to impoverished servitude alongside their once-wealthy neighbors, whose property they helped confiscate.

So goes the nation without private wealth. Utopia? I think not.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.

Class envy and the selective war on success

There was a time when one generation wanted the next to achieve higher levels of success. Successful people served as role models for youth, a living testimony to the opportunities that freedom held. Somewhere along the way that became unfashionable. We now want to punish achievement, but only when it’s politically advantageous.

Remember when the Big Three auto executives flew to Washington aboard corporate jets? Congressional representatives roasted those CEO’s. It wasn’t entirely without cause, but not entirely just either.

The Big Three created a public relations nightmare no doubt. With the exception of Ford, they jetted to Washington and begged Congress to save their companies with an unborn generation’s money. Had the criticism ended right there it would’ve been warranted. Naturally, it didn’t end right there.

Those executives were held to represent anyone who has achieved a level of success that the anointed Left has deemed unfair. Soon it wasn’t only the Big Three’s jets but any corporate aircraft that was taboo. Leftists railed against private jets with the lusty zeal generally reserved for tax cuts.

The sentiment spread like wildfire. Despite a litany of logical arguments supporting corporate owned aircraft their existence was demonized as exemplary of greed and excess. It was a case study in political pandering. Unfortunately, it plays well to people who have recently lost jobs or are facing financial straits.

Why does anyone “need” a private jet? Why does anyone “need” a 25-room house? Does anyone “deserve” an eight-figure salary? Somewhere along the banks of the River Styx, Karl Marx must have felt vindicated.

Such class envy was born of a time when “the rich” were clearly defined. They were comprised of everyone who didn’t work at an hourly job, especially a unionized hourly job. Most people defined “the rich” as anyone appearing to have reached a greater level of success than their own. It was wrong, but at least understandable. Now even that line has been blurred.

Media reporters and political speechmakers excoriated any company or individual that owned a private jet, or had attained an unapproved level of success and wealth. They used the impression of automotive and banking miscreants--along with a recession rooted in the political manipulation of the mortgage and housing markets--to tar and feather achievers.

Instead of encouraging low and middle income people to adopt the attitudes of the successful, Leftists called them greedy crooks. Now, why aren’t those same people criticizing Oprah?

The talk show queen is one of the richest women in the world. She has a $42 million private jet. Luxury homes, fine cars and ornate jewelry aren’t strangers to Oprah. What’s more, she isn’t shy about liking the perks she has attained. In fact, she says it’s great to have nice homes and a private jet.

Where are the Leftists? Where is ACORN, the Rainbow Coalition and every other organization dedicated to eradicating success and private wealth? Why aren’t they shouting and protesting Oprah’s extravagant lifestyle? Their silence is deafening and their reason is plain. Oprah shares their political views; therefore her wealth is accepted, not reviled.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not condemning Oprah at all. She was truthful. She’s not ashamed to enjoy her posh lifestyle. This is one of the few moments in which I agree with Oprah, and I respect her honesty. I only wonder why other achievers don’t adopt her attitude.

No one who earns wealth through legitimate means should fear offending others. They shouldn’t have to defend their success against the pandering, power-seeking dogma of political hacks, talking head news anchors, or meddlesome activists.

We once considered high achievers and risk-takers to be icons of the American experiment. We now determine their legitimacy based on their political viewpoints. The rest must apologize for their performance, if only to soothe our petty jealousies.