As has been the wont of the progressives, they can’t help but find a word not to corrupt. To my pleasant surprise, most recently Americans rightly called out Barack Obama for his contortion of one of these words: “investment.” Those who have repudiated this President’s socialist agenda were incensed that the President barely paid lip service to addressing our fiscal ills while proposing a host of pie in the sky programs, all centering on leading the world with the panacea of clean energy jobs. I could go into a long diatribe about the ridiculousness of emphasizing bullet trains and solar panels while our enemies grow increasingly strong and the true unemployment rate continues to hover north of 15%. But that’s for another time.
What I would like to emphasize is that so-called “investment” is not just a problem because it represents more spending. There is a fundamental problem with all government spending, and this is that it represents other people spending your money for you. Anecdotally, it is akin to the way a teenager drives a car he buys versus one bequeathed to him by his parents. Believe me, I know.
And like the reckless teen, the politician will rarely have the interest of those who entrust him with the fruits of labor at heart. In the case of the taxpayer, while you want to be happy, healthy and prosperous, all but the most principled politicians solely want to be re-elected. Re-election requires buying votes. When politicians “invest” in various projects, even if they are the savviest capitalists, caring for nothing more than seeing the best return on the taxpayer’s capital possible, their spending could at the very best represent a diversion of resources. Almost universally, the result is certain parties getting payoffs, and you and I getting plundered.
Government spending will always be suboptimal to the extent that while you labor for your income and choose to spend it out of your own volition and for the things that you, the individual value, directing businesses to provide the goods you want in the quantities you require, the government spends for the collective — amorphous masses of voters who will never see that the X months of the year that they must work to pay the government goes toward things like rebuilding the Gaza strip or paying the salary of the son of a politician in his cushy, unionized job.
The individual takes responsibility for what he spends because he earns it. The politician has no such responsibility, and his incentives in spending are often diametrically opposed to yours. But to the groups he spends on, the politician’s charitable investment is invaluable.
To the extent that we delegate to the government the power to spend money on our behalf, within the strictures of a Constitution properly understood, I propose a simple standard for evaluating the merit of public benevolence. Does federal spending benefit one group at the expense of another? If yes, then you cannot in good faith accept such a taking.
This principle may seem removed from reality today. Spending is out of all proportion to anything our forefathers could have imagined. Sure they had debt and currency crises, but they did not share a behemoth welfare state, nor did they ever shift such massive private burdens onto the back of the public. But I believe that there will come a time when this system will reset, and we will have a choice between a centrally planned banana republic and a capitalist system made up of responsible individuals who seek to produce, live in peace and maintain the most limited government possible because there will be no alternative. But if we can’t start to have these fundamental conversations now, how will we ever have a cogent message after the state implodes.
Most important, one must recognize that it is not just that government spending is economically harmful. Except in the narrow areas circumscribed in the Constitution, it is immoral. It represents your neighbor reaching into your pocket and taking money from you, with legitimization simply because a politician plays the middle man.
Perhaps we can all take solace in the fact that regardless of what happens during the next 10 or 20 years, there will truly be economic and social justice. Those who have driven us to this point will pay a price for their tyrannical will to dictate our lives, as their grand experiment fails as it has always and wherever it has been tried. So let us not fret. With knowledge that what has to happen will inevitably happen, let us stride ever more confidently and arm ourselves with truth because it will set us free.
Suddenly the American public is shocked. Perhaps there is no economic recovery. Perhaps the One really does favor Islam.
Democrats and Republicans shake their heads and wonder, how could our President pursue such divisive and unpopular policies? What is the rationale for this President’s decisions? Is he incompetent? Is he naive?
The answer is none of the above.
I have said before and I will say again, Barack Obama does not share the values of Americans. His vision is completely anathema to an America based on individualism, private property rights and Judeo-Christian morality.
When one argues that Barack Obama is merely mistaken in his economic program, they completely discount the notion that he knows exactly what he is doing and that he has been 100% successful in achieving his policies and their intended ends, means and ends that any objective viewer would realize were insane. After all, an economy is nothing more than the collection of mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges of labor and the fruits of labor. Anything that impedes one’s labor, or the trading of its fruits is necessarily bad for the economy. Hence, almost everything a government does to try to stimulate an economy, impeding the natural spontaneous harmony of such a system necessarily postpones any recovery.
We were in major trouble with unsustainable public and private debt prior to this President, coupled with a completely insolvent financial system, a destined to fail monetary system and numerous stagnant businesses sucking up economic resources. A real financial restructuring would have taken significant time, and even the most “fiscally conservative” President and Congress would not have been able to move enough roadblocks out of the way to make this recovery painless or quick. I question whether or not anything could change the direction of the economy in the long run, save for a collapse that would force us to let the free market work and liquidate the welfare state. But this President ensures that there will not even be a chance for recovery for many many years, regardless of who the next President is.
And it is all by design.
If you are Barack Obama, your plans are working perfectly. You are driving the economy into the ground, fueling turmoil in the Middle East, weakening our nuclear defenses and supporting the enemies of civilization, and you are lining the pockets of your constituency and pushing us towards such great crises that a society already addicted to government may be forced to its knees wrongfully begging for an even greater paternal one. If you doubt my argument that the American people are still not awake enough to cause any meaningful change, consider that for all the talk of a backlash against this government, if you look at the Republicans that will take over Congress, almost none of them them would truly be willing to do the things necessary to make our government solvent, break the chains off of our private sector and defend us against our enemies and their abetters, starting with calling them by name, not a tactic like terrorism.
This brings us to Barack Obama’s stance on the Ground Zero mosque. Months ago I argued that Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense. I argued that as Islam is a theo-political system, it should not deserve the same Constitutional protections as other religions with a strictly spiritual component. In effect, to support Islam in this country would be to support a political system incompatible with ours, and intolerant of our pluralistic Judeo-Christian society. To support Islamic institutions would be to weaken America’s freedom, not strengthen it. And this is because Islam and America cannot coexist because America is a threat to the Ummah; us infidels would have to be converted by the sword or forced to live as second-class citizens under Islamic law, like Spaniards once did in Cordoba. Hence the Cordoba Initiative.
Yet Barack Obama consistently sides with Muslims; makes it a point to bow down to Muslims at every turn and has since the start of his Presidency and throughout his public life. He also studied in the madrass as a child, has had the backing of major players in the Muslim community during his academic and political career and attended Reverend Wright’s church which parrots the same narrative as Imams worldwide. His true colors showed when he made the Ground Zero mosque a national issue by supporting it. Howard Dean has gone on record as questioning what Barack Obama could have been thinking politically. Of course he found it to be a political disaster, lest he should care about its destructiveness on principle.
Barack Obama had to know the firestorm he would create, but he did not care. He could not help himself when it came to something he truly believed in, jumping to say something unpopular to the American people but instinctive for him. Just like he did not care about creating fertile soil for economic growth, just like he does not care in my opinion about defending American lives as reflected by his policies. And when he speaks and says inflammatory things that make political pundits shake their heads in wonder, it is because he is showing who he is, and where his passions lie. This President is a principled politician, but he supports principles that are crushing the American people. He is a third world man who gives a second rate speech and believes in the First Amendment as a suicide pact.
This is the most destructive President since FDR, and that it is intentionally so makes it all the more demoralizing. Until more people realize this, we won’t even have a fighting chance. We are going to be poorer, weaker and less likely to ever rekindle the flame of freedom in this nation, and I fear that our differences with our political opposition will prove irreconcilable.