Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?


This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

Freedom’s Not Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose

I awoke this morning with Janice Joplin’s rendition of Me and Bobby McGee stuck in my head.  I’m not sure why that song, exactly, was on my sleeping mind enough to last into my waking, but it may have something to do with my watching Braveheart last night for the millionth time.  The contrast between Joplin soulfully cranking out that desolate line “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” and Mel Gibson’s William Wallace shouting a defiant “Freedom!” with his dying breath is so stark, so complete, that I haven’t been able to get it out of my head all morning.

There is something so impenetrably sad about thinking of freedom as “just another word for nothing left to lose.”  It evokes such a hopelessness, such a lostness, that it’s almost overpowering.  You had something (a house, maybe, as the lyrics suggest, a lover, a family, whatever), and then you lost it.  That thing you had–that house, lover, family, whatever–tied you down and kept you tethered to the world, to society.  It was the opposite of freedom.  You can only be free when you have absolutely nothing, nothing to lose, nothing that matters to you. Freedom becomes a burden with roots firmly planted in isolation and loneliness, and because it comes at such a high price–you lose everything, after all–it’s unwanted.  Freedom, when it’s just another word for nothing left to lose, means despair.

I cannot comprehend freedom in this way because it is so alien to me, so tragically wrong on so many levels.  Freedom, to me, is much more that thing that William Wallace fought and died for: he died a free man, never the subject of a tyrannical English monarch.  Freedom isn’t despair and hopelessness; it’s strength and hope.  Freedom is the rich soil in which a people blossom.  Being free doesn’t mean you have nothing left to lose; it means you have everything to fight for, to nurture, to cherish.

I think, though, that in many ways, the very idea of freedom is frightening to lefties.  Not just to the hippies of the ’60s but also to today’s new batch of freedom-haters.  The idea of being free and of the social and familial responsibility that comes with it is just too much for them; it’s so terrifying that they’d rather be beholden to a state that will take care of them from cradle to grave, that will tell them what to think, say, and do, and that will–they hope–ensure they never know the despair of having nothing left to lose. The Gimme! crowd needs the government to hand them their living, their food, their shelter, their education, their everything. They need it so much that they willingly trade their freedom for tyranny.

They equate freedom with loss, with loneliness, with despair, so they’re happy to trade it away.  This faulty equation is also why they whine so often that conservatives are “selfish” and too “individualistic.”  They are simply incapable of imagining–not in their wildest dreams–that freedom for us means selflessness and community.  Oh, and not those fake “communities” they slap a label on and forget until it’s time to vote or time to stir up some social tension on demand.  American freedom has always been the freak, but it’s also always been deeply rooted in family, faith, and community.  Without those things, it wouldn’t work, it couldn’t work.  And to their minds, they are simply saving America from a feeding frenzy in which everyone is out only for themselves, where freedom means get what you can, while you can, because, after all, you have nothing to lose.

Of course, freedom to us means something completely different than the sort of violent, free-for-all criminal state they envision.  I think their misconception is rooted largely in leftists’ unparalleled ability to project their own thoughts, fears, plans, actions onto others.  The left is essentially violent, they believe that laws should only be obeyed or applied as they see fit–ironically, enough, often as individuals, they are the ones who riot in the streets, break windows, poop on and turn over cop cars.  Of course they assume that everyone would act like them given enough of that scary scary freedom.

They cannot comprehend a good people, a decent people who will do the right thing (at least more often than not), who can and have functioned perfectly lawfully to build their neighborhoods and communities, and who can and have done so without mountains of laws and regulations.  Leftists’ profound fear of freedom is what motivates them to limit Second Amendment rights, to limit our free expression of religion, and to limit every modicum of freedom we still have.  Freedom to have guns?!  That can’t be!  Freedom of (not from) religion?!  The horror! That freedom can only mean those right wing nuts have nothing left to lose, after all, and they’ll go on some shooting spree or force the country into a Judeo-Christian theocracy.  You know, or something.

If the state can supplant God and guns, get those bitter clingers to cling to something else (i.e. the state), then they believe they will have their utopia where that scary, desolate, horrific freedom is kept in check.  This is why they are so confused when we don’t “vote for our best interests”–to them, everyone’s best interest is in ensuring that the state has total control over the people, that the state, like a comforting nanny, will keep the terrors of freedom under the bed and shine the dim bulb of tyranny into every corner to ensure that freedom isn’t spawning out of range of the omnipresent eye of the state.

Freedom for us means something much more profound.  Freedom isn’t the despair of or after losing everything, it is the loss of freedom that causes despair.  Freedom doesn’t mean there’s nothing left to lose, for without freedom, we have nothing.

Mourning For America and the End of (Political) Fuzzy–Updated

I’ve been writing for years about America, about the American Spirit and the American Dream.  It was all for nothing, all about something that simply no longer exists.  I was delusional, in denial, stooopid.  America is no longer the America of my youth, of my dreams, of my spirit.  The American people have re-elected 0, and that tells me all I need to know about the country I’ve always loved and been proud of, about my fellow countrymen and women who rejected all that is good and decent and admirable about our great country and embrace all that is bad and failed and shameful about her and her century-long flirtation with communism.

The American people have spoken, and it’s a sad sad day for our endangered Republic.

As for me and this blog . . . I’m done.  This blog is done, at least as a political blog.  Because I love to write, I may come back at some time to write about whatever interests me, but it won’t be politics.  I’ll stay a constitutional conservative (it’s who I am), and I’ll still vote, of course, still resist in the culture war and stay informed, but I see no point at all in torturing myself for four more years, of agonizing over 0 and his shameful anti- and unAmerican policies when, apparently, he’s just what the American people want.  Well, they have him.  We have him.

I’m heartsick.

And done.


Okay, maybe “And done” isn’t quite correct.  Both my conservative blogger friends here and a very special one over at Hack’s place (*waves at Sol, the great mind behind Wisdom of Soloman*) have reminded me that . . . well, they’ve reminded me of who I am and what I care about.  I will continue to blog, perhaps not as focused on politics (I need to keep some semblance of sanity, and four more years of 0 are guaranteed to deprive me of that if I let them), but I will be here, and yes, I’ll definitely engage in the political arena when it seems useful and wise (or, hey, when I feel like it! Heh).

Pledging Allegiance To The Republic, Not Servitude To The President

Oh dear, I feel a rant coming on.  Yes, again. I just read this headline “Actress Jessica Alba asks voters to pledge allegiance to Obama” and my head almost exploded.  Before I even clicked the link, I was transported back to the truly creepy, truly awful Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher Stepford “pledge” to be “a servant to our president” (meaning, of course, 0):

And I remembered this bicep-kissing guy (no idea who he is, but I guess he’s someone famous to people who like that sort of thing) pledging to be “of service to Barack [weird bicep-kiss] Obama [weirdly kisses other bicep].  At the 0:51ish mark:

This put me in mind–again, before I even clicked the Alba link above–of a conversation I had with a 0-supporter on Twitter.  It was some leftist who originally seemed sane, so I followed him back. Briefly. (As most of you know, I don’t follow leftists as a rule: I gave up any fantasy that they were open to any ideas but their own ages ago, and as I’m certainly and proudly not open to their commie-crazy ideas, well . . . what’s the point?  Oh, I did try, for ages, to engage with leftists, but it really was just an exercise in futility, so now I don’t follow them on Twitter or even read their comments when they wander onto my blog.  I just block, ignore, delete forever.  Yes, I know, many conservatives still engage with them in the spirit of the great Andrew Breitbart, but I just can’t be bothered. Anyway, back to the point. . . ) This leftist guy on Twitter wrote to me in a lengthy-ish pm exchange that I should support 0 and his agenda because (get this!) the president is our “boss” (his word), and just as we wouldn’t “disobey” (his word again) our boss in the workplace, we shouldn’t (and you can’t make this stuff up) “disobey” 0.

50-foot statue of Dear Leader anyone?

Well, you can imagine my response.  I pointed out that the American president is not “our boss,” that his job is not to “rule,” and that the American people pledge allegiance to no man , to no office–not even to the office of the presidency.  We pledge allegiance to our flag, and to the republic for which it stands.  Period.  I also noted that our military and elected officials pledge to protect and defend the United States Constitution, not the president, not the office of the president.

So it turns out that Alba wasn’t actually saying, as that bicep-kissing moron and Demi Moore most certainly did, that we should pledge allegiance to 0, to a mere man, to a relative nothing in the great scheme of our beloved republic.  Instead she likened pledging allegiance to our flag to pledging allegiance to communism, or at least to a version of it as expressed in the old Soviet constitution and in FDR’s commie Second Bill of Rights.

“Growing up, my classmates and I started every day with a ritual: We’d stand up, put our right hand over our hearts, and say the Pledge of Allegiance,” explains Alba. “To me, that gesture was a promise. A promise to be involved and engaged in this country’s future. A promise to work for liberty and justice — and for affordable education, health care, and equality — for all.”

Maybe that’s the same thing as pledging allegiance to 0?  And we all know that to 0, as to all leftists, “equality” is exclusive, not inclusive.  Leftists have a long list of “justices”: social justice, green justice, racial justice, and on and on.  But nowhere in their list is “equal justice.”  Conservatives, in this construct, aren’t “equal” and aren’t deserving, to their totalitarian beliefs, of free speech, freedom of religion, nor of any other liberty they claim for themselves.  This is the danger of government-granted rights and is exactly why our Founders specified that our rights are unalienable, granted by our Creator, not by government.  Totalitarian states–the regressive leftists’ ideal–do not permit true liberty, and they certainly are not built on equal justice for all.  Every instance of “social” or “green” or “racial” justice is built, inherently, on injustice to others.

We know this.  And as I recently posted, they know this even if their useful idiots do not.  And there can be no clearer evidence of useful idiocy than of their pledging allegiance, actual servitude, to the president of these United States.  Americans are not servants, obedient or otherwise, to any elected official, to any man (or woman).  We are a free people, and we will, despite their best efforts, remain so.

Make no mistake about that.