47% v Redistribution

It's the battle of "secret" and "previously unreleased" recordings.  James E. Carter IV (grandson of former Pres. Jimmy Carter) provided to the Mother Jones website a video recording of Gov. Romney speaking at a private fundraiser in May (the recording appears to have been made clandestinely on a cell phone, in violation of Florida law.  No word on any legal action being considered).  In the snippet of the recording initially released, Gov. Romney is answering a question about motivating people to get behind his message of reduced taxes and reduced government spending:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
 
I mean the president starts off with 47, 48, 49, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income taxes. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income taxes.  So our message of tax cuts doesn't connect. He'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years.

So my job is not to worry about those people, I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what he looks like."

Objectively, what's wrong with this statement?  It's factually correct in it's evaluation of those who currently have no net Federal Income Tax liability.  If anything, he understated the situation (latest estimates are that the number of Americans who have no net Federal Income Tax liability could be as high as 49%!)  Predictably, the response from the President and various Democrat politicians has been to claim that Mr. Romney is out of touch and doesn't care about the poor, is only out for his millionaire friends and big business.  If you really look at what he said, however, you will find his statement to be true.  Perhaps uncomfortably so.

Whenever you have conditioned a group of people to become reliant on government handouts, subsidies, welfare benefits, food stamps, etc, you have also sown the seeds of helpless dependency and an eventual fear of possible cuts to those benefits, regardless of whether or not they are financially sustainable.  If you are dependent on welfare or other government benefits for your whole existence, for example, and a Democrat says that if you don't vote for him/her their Republican opponent is going to cut your benefits, or your Social Security, or your VA Pension, you are naturally going to be afraid to take the risk of losing your sole source of support and will vote Democrat.  That's the point Mr. Romney was addressing.  That those who feel dependent on government aren't likely to take the risk of not voting for the candidate/party promising continued or increased benefits and taking the chance that the other party might have a better long term solution for their situation. 

It is also unarguable that a large proportion of those on government assistance DO, in fact, believe that they are victims.  Victims of an unfair society, victims of bad luck, victims of greedy corporations and businesses, victims of the evil rich guys, etc.  Seeing themselves as victims, they reasonably believe that it is one of the primary functions of government to address their victimized status by making sure they get what they are entitled to, by whatever means necessary.  Including, but not limited to, increasing taxes on the so-called rich to provide more benefits to the less fortunate (a recent poll found that 73% of Democrats believe that it is one of the functions of government to provide a guaranteed minimum level food and shelter to people).

Anyone who has listened to more than two of Mr. Romney's speeches knows that the claim that he doesn't care about the poor and can't relate to anyone who has suffered hard times is an absurd mis-characterization of the man's position.  What he has stated numerous times in different ways is that his vision for America is one where we take care of the least fortunate among us, "Americans are a caring people, we have always taken care of each other and we always will", and where the government maintains a safety net for those who suffer misfortune or illness/injury, helps them back on their feet, and then "gets out of their way and allows them to create their own future prosperity."  The "getting out of the way" is key.  You will never do as well as a Ward of the State as you will if you are allowed to live up to your full potential.

You can access the full transcript of Mr. Romneys speech here

Not to be outdone, the Romney team responded quickly with the following recording (not clandestine) of a speech given by then-state Senator Obama in 1998 at Loyola University:

“I think that what we’re going to have do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, uh, I don’t think it’s too strong to call it propaganda campaign, uh, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy and I think some of it has been deserved. 

[The]Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making. And neither, necessarily, have been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together — leave nobody behind — we do have to be innovative in thinking, 'how…what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live?'
 
And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with (as opposed to just political issues) — I think the trick is figuring out 'how do we structure government systems that pool resources and, hence, facilitate some redistribution?'”
 
Because I actually believe in redistribution — at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot."

Gov. Romney immediately jumped on these remarks to illustrate Pres. Obama's supposed antipathy to American business and entrepreneurs.   And he was attacked in turn for doing so.  As we did with Mr. Romney's remarks, let's look a little closer at what appears to be a pattern of belief for Mr. Obama:

He believes "... in redistribution — at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot." and wants to "...structure government systems that pool resources..." but he doesn't specify what that certain level is, leaving it open to speculation.  No one has asked him to clarify at what level someone has a "fair shot" at being a success or exactly what resources he wants to "pool".  Maybe we should give everyone who doesn't have it a check for $100,000 and tell them, "Here's your chance, make the best of it."?  What is most likely to happen in that circumstance is that a large majority of those who had nothing when they received the hundred grand would be broke within six months, due to poor decisions and wasteful spending (although they would place the blame on someone, or something, else), while those who already had some measure of success would have leveraged their money towards greater success and security  (There's a parable in the Bible that illustrates this lesson particularly well).  What would be the answer to the new problem of those who failed to succeed, even when they were given such a huge step up?  Do we make this redistribution an annual event?  At what point does the redistribution accomplish it's stated goal of "making sure everybody's got a shot"?  (Here's a clue:  Progressives equate having equal opportunity with experiencing equal results.)

You can access the Loyola speech here.

Does his belief in redistribution indicate at least a sympathetic leaning towards Socialism or Marxism?  Well, we do have a history of Pres. Obama's quotes on the subject, including "I just think that when you spread the wealth around, it's better for everybody"--Obama, speaking to "Joe the Plumber", "There will be a time for profits, a time for bonuses, but that time is not now."--Obama, on corporation's profitability during the financial crisis of 2008.  "The rich are going to have to do with a little bit less, so the rest can have a little bit more"--Michelle Obama, on increasing taxation on the rich.  "I didn't run for President to help out the fat cats and rich bankers on Wall Street"--Obama, speaking on his desire to increase regulation on banks and businesses.  "If you've got a successful business, you didn't build that!  Someone else...made that happen."--Obama, pointing to government assistance and infrastructure spending as the basis for success in business.  And finally, you have the biggest example of Pres. Obama's belief in centralized governmental power, Obamacare, which many have said is a back-door attempt to institute single payer (ie, government-run) healthcare:  “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world....cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."--Obama, speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO June, 2003

Click here to access the healthcare recording.

While no recordings have as yet come to light of Barack Obama plainly saying "I believe in Socialism" or "I believe in Marxist ideals", the above at least seems to indicate beliefs directly at odds with the traditional American system of individualism, being able to enjoy the fruits of one's success and providing for one's self.  Especially when combined with his own assertion that his youth was spent in close association with various communists, anarchists, and student radicals as well as mentors the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis.

So it would seem that we will, indeed, have a clear choice between two sharply contrasting ideologies concerning the type of country we will be going forward.  Will we choose the path of freedom, exceptionalism and self-determination?  Or the path of mediocrity, complacency and dependency on others?  Will we choose the uncertainty of attempting to achieve our own individual success?  Or will we give up independence in favor of a perception of security?  As I've written in earlier posts, we are near to the tipping point warned of by Alexis de Tocqueville, and others that the failure of the great American experiment will not come about from a foreign invader, but from within, once the population receiving from (and depending on) government matches or exceeds those whose labor and treasure supply government.  The balance is now 51% to 49%.

Which side are you on?

Fruits of a Policy of Appeasement

Before I get into the rant on the fecklessness of our so-called "President" and his administration, I want to ask everyone to send their prayers to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the others, including 2 former Seals working detail at the embassy, killed in the violence perpetrated by the followers of the "Religion of Peace".  I can only pray that some of the reports coming out of the Middle East concerning what happened to our Ambassador turn out to be nothing more than rumor.  From what we've seen from these animals in the past, however, I fear that the worst we've heard is the least of what occurred.  May God accept the victims into His care, and may He comfort those they leave behind.

Now, on to the matter at hand this week.  Namely, the actions--and inactions--of our President.  The man who many claimed would calm Middle East tensions simply by being who he is.  The man who began his term as President of the United States by going on a world tour of apologies for the very country he is supposed to protect and promote the interests of.  The man who said that his political opponent shouldn't have made any statement about the attacks on our Embassies and our people because he "shoots first and aims later" (hey, at least our guy is a straight shooter, doesn't need a teleprompter, actually takes and answers questions at a press conference and doesn't feel a need to poll test every remark).  The man who claims that his political opponent shouldn't be considered for President because of his assumed lack of foreign policy experience.  As if the policies of appeasement followed by Obama and his administration have been so effective in improving America's image and security in the world.  At least Gov. Romney's remarks were Presidential.  He defended America and condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms.  Obama, et al apologized.

During the primary season in 2008, Hillary Clinton ran one of her most effective ads, the "3am Phone Call", questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to handle just such a situation as this.  Well, now we know just what his reaction to such a call is:  He. Went. Back. To. Bed!

He apparently didn't consider the attacks serious enough to even lose a night's sleep monitoring the situation.  After all, he had to get his beauty sleep for his fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day.

His detractors have long said that his sympathies lie more with the Islamist's causes than with America's.  Behavior like this just gives more credence to such claims.

It has been reported that President Obama has attended less than half of his Daily Intelligence Briefing's (in contrast to former President George W. Bush, who held these briefings as the first order of business every day he was in office).  The last one Obama attended was back on the 6th of September.  The Intelligence Committee was briefed just the day before that such a protest/attack on our Embassies was likely.

There are further reports from reputable sources that the Obama administration had word of the pre-planned protests as much as 48 hours before they occurred.  And did nothing.  Ambassador Stevens was enroute back to his post in Libya and received no warning from the man responsible for his safety concerning the environment he was returning to.

It was the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, yet there were no plans in place to provide for increased security at our Embassies or other sensitive sites in the region.  One can only guess that Obama believed that because of the transformational nature of his Presidency and it's assumed effect on the people of the Middle East that nothing would happen (I guess he's never seen footage of just how this anniversary is celebrated by our "friends" in the Middle East).  When the attacks came, the first action taken by the administration was the release of a statement by the American Embassy in Cairo, Egypt apologizing for the content of a YouTube video (supposedly the cause of the unrest) that mocked the "Prophet" Mohammed in hopes of calming the crowd and convincing them not to riot.  We can see how well that worked out.

Now that the riots are spreading across the world, the appeasement continues.  The Feds are now questioning the supposed producer/director of the video.  Are we really on the verge of subsuming the Constitutional guarantee's of Freedom of Speech to geo-political concerns?  This video had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks other than to provide a convenient excuse for the Islamists to hide behind.  The online video was posted as a "trailer" for a movie.  The movie was screened (for an audience of less than 10) several months ago.  If a 17 minute video trailer is the cause of this much unrest, how much more the full length movie?  No, the attacks were an orchestrated event timed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, a fact being confirmed by our intelligence services.  Still, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and other administration officials are continuing to apologize for the video in a vain attempt to quell the uprisings, projecting weakness throughout the region not only to our enemies, but also to those who would be allies.  Every leader in the region conducts the business of their country from a position of strength.  The culture of that region is such that kindness and apologies are seen as signs of weakness and indicate a lack of fitness to rule.

Let me get this straight.  We are under assault and as a country our reaction is to apologize to those assaulting us?  Talk about looking weak!  Bullies and terrorists have at least one thing in common, they always attack where they see weakness.  Apologizing for the actions of the dimwit who posted the "trailer" only served to further inflame the mob.  Apologies confirm that you feel guilty, to these people.  Therefore, if you apologize, by definition, you are guilty.

We had no reason to apologize.  The film was not/is not a reflection of American beliefs.  However, one of the fundamental differences between our country and others is the existence of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.  Other countries, especially those in the Middle East, don't really understand this.  They live under totalitarian regimes where the governments are all-powerful and control virtually every aspect of their lives and nothing appears in media without the express approval of the government.  As a result, they are easily led to believe that the mere existence of such a video is proof that America supports those views.

Foreign Embassies are considered to be sovereign soil, as inviolate as the countries they represent.  As such, it is the host country's responsibility to ensure the security of the Embassies, as well as the safety of their employees.  Armed attacks on these Embassies, much less on our Ambassadors themselves, qualify as Acts of War by all international laws and treaties.  The assassination of an Ambassador by itself qualifies as an Act of War against his/her home country.  And Obama, et al apologize.

When the mob moved in on our Embassy in Cairo, Egyptian security was strangely absent and the mob was allowed to break the perimeter, climbing over the wall and gaining access to the Embassy itself (by order of our President and State Dept., the Marines guarding the compound were not allowed to carry loaded weapons.  The assault on the Embassy should have resulted in a live fire exercise but  our President and his administration don't want to offend anyone by allowing our people to defend themselves), while in Libya it has been reported that Libyan security forces initially moved the Ambassador and staff to the safe house, then their location was leaked to the mob by someone in the security force, resulting in the death's of our representative and his staff.  And Obama, et al apologize.

President Obama has only recently begun to denounce the attacks (although he prefaces his remarks with an apology for offending Muslims).  As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap".  We, as citizens, and the rest of the world need to see action.  Concrete consequences to the actions of the terrorists and the inaction of the governments that allowed and/or promoted the attacks (Pres. Morsi of Egypt is the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, long considered a terrorist organization and a promoter/organizer of these very protests).

The first of the consequences should be the suspension, or revocation, of any and all foreign aid to these countries until, and unless, they cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of these terrorists.  They should also be put on notice that America will be conducting it's own operations aimed at tracking down these murderous animals and that any interference from them will result in further penalties.  They should also be required to provide reparations to the U.S. for damages done.

Former President Bush was castigated by the left for his statement "If you're not with us, you're against us".  concerning the prosecution of the War on Terror.  Then they came up with soft-sounding phrases to replace War on Terror, which they considered too "provocative", with phrases like, "Overseas Contingency Operation", "Man Caused Disasters" and "Workplace Violence" in an attempt not to offend Muslims/Islamists.

Former President Bush, et al stood strong for America and it's culture of freedoms and individual rights.  President Obama, et al apologize.