Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Tom Maguire deconstructs Barack Obama's latest musings on matters great and small with his usual "heh"-worthy wit, so go get your morning chuckle. While there, digest this bit of presidential wisdom:
So I'm always interested in people who are able to bring about change, not through violence, not through money, but through the force of their personality and their ethical and moral stances. And that's somebody that I'd love to sit down and talk to.
It should not surprise us that the president believes that "violence," "money" and "personality" are the only choices for bringing about change. I propose a fourth: "Invention, production, and enterprise," by which I mean the creative, risky, and profitable activities of capitalism, which has done more to transform the world for the better than violence, money, and personality combined. That enterprise does not make the president's list is a "tell" of no small significance.
Lefties wonder why conservatives accuse Barack Obama of being a socialist. Well, one reason is that he does not think of the ordinary economic activity of free men and women as the fountainhead -- and I use that word advisedly -- of a great society.
There is a term for people with compelling personalities minus any willingness to do any of the "heavy lifting" associated with production of material and knowledge that advanced civilization over the millennia...
...they're known as con artists.
" Well, one reason is that he does not think of the ordinary economic activity of free men and women as the fountainhead ". Well, of course not, in his mind, and minds of those similar, the government will always provide all that one needs. Where the money and the "product" comes from is irrelavent. It's all manna from the government.
Obama has always had some sort of "Sugar Daddy" in his life, from the Annenberg days to his community organizing to his life in politics and on the campaign trail. Money has flowed to him because of his personality and presence. I am sure he considers these endeavors "work," but they are not. They are a form of consumption rather than production. Real "work" creates value, as TH notes, in the form of innovation, products, or services. Someone actually did work, and then gave money to these various political groups who consume it. Sadly, many if not most, of the current Washington politicos fit the mold of Rand's "moochers" rather than producers, and have had successful careers on the consumption side of the spectrum. Until we can rein in the idea that government is there to "spread the wealth," we are never going to move away from the moocher mentality. Obama is in many ways just a symptom of our increasingly consumption oriented culture. Why should I vote for someone who says I will have to work for healthcare when the other candidate says he will give it to me for free?
Obama is not alone. His attitude may bewilder those of us who actually produce real change, but people like Tom Freidman have the same strange viewpoint.
So, yesterday Obama encouraged the students of America to stay in school, get a good education and become good producers. Why would he say such a hypocritical thing? Isn’t he the man for the people? Aren’t capitalistic producers and executives evil? As far as I can tell, Obama only wants the students to be successful so he can tax the crap out of them and redistribute to those who deserve it the most – the uneducated, lazy underperformers who helped get him elected.
Good post, TH. This is all in line with Dubya's No Child Left Behind mentality: shower money on the underperforming left hand tail at the expense of the overperforming right hand tail. All these horrible programs reflect a general expectation (of both the left and the right) that the government be our centralized conscience. Local churches used to have this function (provide for soup kitchens, sermonize about the need to sacrifice, give to the needy, etc.) Too bad they lost their relevance and moral credibility.
What is driving you to grab your guns, store food, and plan to defend freedom? Begin a free speech discussion, educate others, and together let us start the revolution. If we do not start to govern ourselves and continue to hand over our freedom to others we will fade to the history books of other nations who claim us a once powerful nation. If I’d be the only I will let the innate yelp for freedom and God bring their bullets and I will die a martyr to what was America. Join me brothers and let the revolution rain on the seeds of liberalism. We are not done, beat, silent, or forgetful. When the house the liberal’s built burns to the ground, yes, we will build it back based on freedom and the responsibility to govern ourselves.
I found this on http://pledgeamerica.org/blog/ pretty cool opinions there...