The Lie at the Base of Obama's Heart

If you want to know the big lie underlying Resident Obama's politics, look no further than this interview in the house organ of the Democratic National Committee, Rolling Stone.

You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it — that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there's some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we'll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life — as one in which we're all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves — that's a view that has made America great and allowed us to stitch together a sense of national identity out of all these different immigrant groups who have come here in waves throughout our history.

I submit that for Obama to invoke the intrinsic worth of every individual, Lincoln, and the abolition of slavery in order to enslave every individual under socialism is obscene. But that's not the big lie.

"That view of life — as one in which we're all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves" — this is the lie at the base of Obama's heart, the false dichotomy that permits him and his Obamabots to pursue the enslavement of man to men in the name of "freedom."

The question is not whether we do things together, or are all isolated and looking out only for ourselves.

The question is whether we do things together as free, voluntarily cooperating individuals, or do things together at the point of a bureaucrat's gun.

What's more, that bureaucrat forcing us to cooperate according to his notions would in a free country be found barely competent to clean toilets. Nevertheless, he got his spot in the bureaucracy because he's a friend or donor of Obama. That's why government programs are usually boondoggles.

The question is whether we work together as free men, or as the slaves of Obama, the government, and the majority that elected those rapscallions.

Obama Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Make my day and vote for Romney.

Why? Why should anyone care one way or the other?

"America is assured her independence, mankind's cause is won, and liberty is no longer homeless on earth." — Lafayette.

Don't let Obama undo this. Don't let him make liberty homeless on earth again. Don't let that socialist turn America into another European-style welfare state.

No honest person has anything to win from socialism.

Obama tells you he will take the money from the rich and give it to you. But the rich don't have that much money if you divide it among 300 million people. Particularly not if you first have to pay for multiple trillions of government waste.

You may think that you're not rich and that you'll get a share of the spoils.

But if your country goes down the road to socialism, if your government has bled the rich dry and killed the engine of productivity, your government will soon turn to you to confiscate your money to pay off those poorer than you.

Look at Greece. Look at Cuba. Look at North Korea.

Of course, socialism doesn't have to get that bad. Chances are that it will get stuck somewhere in the middle of the road.

Then you get a country like Germany, where you still have to pay the high taxes and comply with statist regulations, but find that your government — having killed off innovation and progress and having spent all the confiscated money on bureaucrats and wasteful projects that the free market rightly rejected as pointless — has no money to give you the freebies it promised.

And even that uneasy truce, that semi-socialism, where you pay and get nothing back, can only last if whatever productive people are left are altruistic enough to pay the high taxes to fund the waste. It seems to work, badly, in France, Germany, and Scandinavia.

It doesn't work in Greece. I doubt it will work in the US.

Look at their two respective deficits. Does it look like anybody is willing to pay for the welfare state?

Don't go there. It is not a nice place to be.

The only ones that profit from the welfare state are politicians, bureaucrats, and corrupt "businessmen." Look at Solyndra.

The needy are better off with private charity, even though that means they will have to say "please" and "thank you" when they want help, as they should, instead of demanding that the non-needy be their slaves by birthright. And no productive person has any use for a government that takes a dollar from him to give him fifty cents back.

No honest person has anything to win from the welfare state. Go for a standard to which honest men can repair.

"America is assured her independence, mankind's cause is won, and liberty is no longer homeless on earth."

Don't sell this for a handout you'll never get.

Lance Armstrong Backdraft

The single item in common for these is that people outside the involved communities are astounded that anyone could care enough about the issue to get in any kind of argument about it at all, much less a big argument.

I'll never, ever understand the (anti?-)concept of spectator sports. It's fine if someone does sports to stay fit or because he enjoys it.

But I'll never understand how anyone can enjoy watching sports, let alone get excited about sports or get in any kind of argument about sports, or about any athlete cheating or taking drugs to cheat. Or how anyone could call in the pigs to convene grand juries, investigate, and enforce judgments at the point of a gun.

If anyone brought a case involving any sorts of sports to me to judge, I would consider any breach of contract, cheating, or doping in sports de minimis and beneath the dignity of the court.

The only sane judgment in a case involving sports is, "Kids, be nice, go back to the playground, and don't hit each other."

If anyone wants to ruin his health to cycle faster, that's his problem. If you want a fair competition free of doping, you want something that never was and never will be.

The war on drugs failed, and so must the war on doping.

Get a life, and find something worthwhile to do with your time instead of watching sports and threatening the use of lethal force against people for cheating at an activity that's inane to begin with. If you want to push human capacity to the limit, cultivate your brain, not your brawn.