Politics

The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection

The Disasters Unleashed by Obama's Reelection

Nationally syndicated columnist and Human Events editor David Harsanyi’s new book Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection is out now.

   
“This is not a book for the faint-hearted. In chilling detail, David Harsanyi exposes the brutal and bloody dangers looming ahead during Obama’s second term. Harsanyi outlines how the Nanny State progressive-in-chief has enabled the four horsemen of debt, dependency, national decline, and the culture of death. Yes, it is apocalyptic. No, it is not irreversible. Conservatives must pray, pick themselves up, and pull together to turn our country back from Obama’s highway to hell. America must heed Harsanyi’s prophetic work!”

    • —Michelle Malkin, New York Times bestselling author of Culture of CorruptionYou can order the book on Amazon. Below is a free chapter.

      ***

      The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? The Book of Revelation? Fire? Brimstone? Armageddon? The Last Judgment?

      Really, David? Yes, really.

      As metaphors go, it’s an entirely apt one. To begin with, Conquest, Famine, War, Death—the four horsemen of the Obama Era— are coming, and they are coming in the form of a national debt disaster, an epidemic of government dependence, an erosion of our world standing, and a nihilistic view about the value of human life. If our federal government had been inclined to do anything to avoid these impending catastrophes—and I’m not sure it ever was—that day has now passed. Barack Obama’s reelection ensures we’ll be deal- ing with some level of societal instability and economic calamity in the future. No, these calamities won’t transform us into Bangladesh, and they won’t mean the United States will cease to exist. They will only mean that this particular iteration of the United States will be no more.

      (Story continues below)

      300x250_ObamasFourHorsemen

      Change, of course, doesn’t always imply impending disaster. Americans seldom accept that terrible events can befall them. We have solid reasons not to. Truth is, I have always been somewhat of a utopian regarding our prospects. I operated under the rosy assumption that our free markets, individual liberty, technological superiority, astonishing wealth, and Constitutional protections (however eroded they may have become) would allow us to adapt to or over- come nearly anything—recessions; wars; terror attacks; demographic shifts; environmental disaster; and, the most treacherous of all threats, Washington. Regrettably, I underestimated Washington.

      President Barack Obama didn’t invent the impending disasters America faces—not our debt problem, not our welfare state—but he did accelerate nearly every one of them. It’s not only that the president’s progressive politics have battered economic dynamism, ham- strung capitalism, and discredited the importance of meritocracy; it’s that, in the Obama era, the relationship between the average Ameri- can citizen and his government has been transformed forever into something unhealthy.

      Using frightening religious symbolism in this political argument also makes sense because Obama has consistently portrayed his political aims as the great moral cause of our time, one that pits the highway to hell forces of decency and empathy against the self-serving profiteers of the old guard. His central case for government’s existence rests on the notion that the state is society’s moral center, the engine of prosperity, and the arbiter of fairness. Obama treats government as a theocrat treats his Church—but he’s got an army and the Internal Revenue Service to ensure your participation.

      Anyone who stands in the way of Obama’s vacuous moral constructs is branded an obstructionist, unpatriotic, a hostage taker, “the enemy,” or worse. Those of us who refuse to buy into left-wing orthodoxy remain “uninformed” and, inevitably,“selfish,” a bunch of bigoted clods, intellectual buffoons, and moral cripples who got our deserved comeuppance in the 2012 election. If we continue to insist that partisanship is a healthy, organic reflection of differences in a vibrant society—Republicans, after all, still control the House—we can expect to be demonized as remnants of a brutal and obsolete age. Under Obama and his progressive successors, all must submit to the progressive agenda. You saw a bit of this after the election when liberal commentators kept crowing about how the Republican party is a rump party of elderly white males; either the party changes—by which the liberals mean, becomes more progressive—or they gleefully predict it will die.

      Progressives are in power, and Obama has treated the political arena as a massive socialist revival meeting. Obama spent four years preaching his own brand of progressive morality: everyone “must” sacrifice. Obama challenged Americans “to find meaning in some- thing greater than themselves,” and by that “something greater,” he meant government. Every initiative he proposes, every law he signs, is an expansion of the state.

      The American political conversation is not what it used to be. We’re no longer debating policy, no longer talking about whether government should be merely huge or whether it should be ginormous. We’re not really wrangling over what levels of debt or spending are acceptable. We are in a clash for the soul of our country.

      And we’re losing.

      Here are the facts. Obama won reelection convincingly in 2012. There was no theoretical hope-peddling this time around. There was no mystery about what Obama stood for. He had a record of com- prehensive economic failure, of divisiveness, of attacks on freedom of religion. He had a record of relentless class warfare, cronyism, incompetence, and stagnation. There were many broken promises. This time around, Barack Obama wasn’t bashful about plying the most explicitly left-wing agenda in presidential history—more government, more taxes, more dependency, more bailouts, more regulations—and he won easily. He promised government-run health care, more crony “investments” in proven economic losers, more interference in markets, more coercion, and more redistribution—yet he cruised to victory. He promised these things as the economy sputtered and his foreign policy crumbled.

      Conservatives lost, and the prospects are grim.

      If you’re a conservative, you might be shocked by the statist slogans tossed around at the Democratic National Convention about government being “the only thing that we all belong to.” You might be completely scandalized to hear an American president utter the words “you didn’t build that,” and to argue that private businesses owe their success to a beneficent government. You might think these statist sentiments are outrageous. But your neighbors? Not so much. We talk about liberty, but many Americans are far less worried about preserving individual freedom and far more attracted to politicians who make promises about what government can do for them.

      468x60_ObamasFourHorsemen

      Things can change to some extent. Political variables are always in motion. A retooled and revamped Republican Party might help. Perhaps a new charismatic leader can better articulate the values of mainstream conservatism. But let’s not fool ourselves. There’s been a fundamental shift, especially among young people, in how Americans view government’s role in society that will be difficult to ever turn around. A Pew Research study conducted after the election found that nearly six in ten of the voters under thirty supported a more expansive role for government in solving problems.

      Put it this way: in a post-election poll, Gallup found that more than half of Democrats and left-leaning Americans had a positive view of socialism. Democrats—the majority party in the United States—have a more positive image of the federal government than they do of capitalism. And there is every reason to believe that it will get worse, as Obama works at expanding the power of government, at telling us that government knows best and is the highest calling (and a darn good employer), that government has the answers to all our problems and can take care of us. As recent elections bear out, a large portion of the electorate is happy to embrace this vision.

      Feeling depressed? Well, hey, nothing is meant to last forever. With all that’s gone on, all the divisive rhetoric, all the political ploys, all the executive abuse, all the hyper-nastiness, one may have forgotten that the Golden Age of Obama dawned with a call to fundamentally remake America. Mission accomplished. If you happen to believe, as I do, that government should be strong, but limited, and that individual freedom is more vital than fairness—guess what? We’re screwed. And how.

      Order David Harsanyi’s new book Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection

Sign Up
  • Masmani

    So far 0bama’s policies are working exactly as he intended. He wants to break this country so he can fundamentally rebuild/transform it.

  • Altosackbuteer

    In 1789, King Louis XVI reluctantly called the Estates General into session, because he’d realized he’d borrowed so much money that whatever he raised in tax revenues was insufficient even to pay the interest on his debt.
    ***
    Part of this was due to the expenses he undertook to assist the American Revolution. As far as he was concerned, tweaking the British royal lion was worth the expense. So American Independence, in a very direct way, helped lead to the French Revolution.
    ***
    But beyond the American Revolution, mostly, King Louis’ debt problem was caused by the extravagances of his own court. Laissez le bon temps roller! Let the good times roll! But then the bill came due.
    ***
    so King Louis called the Estates General, to help him deal with the debt problem. But then he lost control of the Estates General, and eventually lost his own head to Madame Guilletin (sp?).
    ***
    The lesson of the French Revolution is simple: Runaway debt can bring down an entire system of government.

  • daibutsu

    I agree. It is irreversible; It used to be lamented as “the haves vs. the have-nots”. Then anyone could become a “have” by industry and hard work, now the Socialist agenda has removed merit and hard work and forever substituted easy entitlements. The workers are too watered down to stem the tide of opportunists.

    Hunker down and let the pendulum swing: this is “Lord of the Flies” and we twice elected Jack .

  • Altosackbuteer

    (This remark is off-topic. I apologize for that, and invite anyone seeing this to skip past this posting.)
    ***
    I am wagering on 5 men for Next Pope in London. All are at high odds, none lower than 55 – 1, and in one case, at 210 – 1.
    ***
    The five papabile I’m wagering on are Dolan, O’Malley, Aviz, Tagle, and Ranjith. I thank you for that latter recommendation; I agree that it was a good one.
    ***
    Dolan and O’Malley are very unlikely because both are American, and because both are linguistically deprived, especially Dolan. Probably, they are touted as papabile because of American media hype, and it’s actually unrealistic that either will be tapped. Hence, I wager them, but only at very high odds. The quality of the other three speaks for itself.
    ***
    Turkson and Spola are the favorites, and Ouellet is not far behind. But conclaves are tricky things, and favorites often don’t make it. The low odds on those three don’t justify the risk.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    Pleasure.

    Yes, Scola is a good possibility, but I’m sticking with Ranjith. The only American who has a shot (and not much of one) is, I think, Raymond Burke. Odds on him?

    By the way, are they also offering odds on name to be selected? If so, as I mentioned before, I say Leo.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Burke is being offered in London at 160 – 1.
    ***
    There is another online wagering outfit in Ireland called Paddy Power. They are indeed offering odds on the name the Next Pope may take. In general, Paddy Power is offering much lower odds on everybody other than the clear favorites. I am better off with my London outfit.
    ***
    My London outfit is not offering wagers on what name the next Pope might take. But I could send them an email message recommending they do so, and they might well.
    ***
    This morning, Ranjith was being offered at 34 – 1. Perhaps not bad odds, if I thought they would not go higher, but they might very well. I have gotten Ranjith at as high as 85 – 1.
    ***
    The nice thing about this wagering event is that it is totally unaffected by popularity polls and almost unaffected by published reports.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    I appreciate your keeping me posted.

    And, yes, I think they should offer wagers on the name. Don’t you?

  • Altosackbuteer

    Ultimately, all the Republicans can do, is do their best to sell their message to the American People. But they cannot force the American People to listen.
    ***
    “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”
    ***
    Ultimately, it is the American People who have let down America. They twice voted for Øbama Øbama with their eyes wide shut. One may rest one’s case simply by noting that.
    ***
    People get the government they deserve.
    ***
    I concluded a long time ago, the American People have simply lost their capacity for responsible self-government. Given that, the system must give way to whomever can handle it responsibly.
    ***
    When old Benjamin Franklin doddered out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, after they enacted the Constitution, someone in the crowd asked him, what kind of government did the Founding Fathers give us, and old Ben replied, “A Republic — IF YOU CAN HOLD IT.” Old Ben was NOT certain whether this would or could happen.
    ***
    At the same time, John Adams wrote that the new government was designed for a “wise, tolerant, and religous (here, read “virtuous”) people, AND IT WAS WHOLLY UNSUITED FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF ANY OTHER KIND.”
    ***
    Do YOU think the American People are wise or virtuous? I sure don’t. So in this case, evidently, according to Adams, the current government is not suited for the kind of people that the American People have become. And according to Franklin, it could therefore fall. And, arguably, SHOULD fall.
    ***
    Nothing lasts forever. Why should the seemingly invincible American system?
    ***
    I would like to see some American version of Caesar / Napoleon / Putin rise.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I agree, and will recommend it to them.

  • AgTrotter

    “Those of us who refuse to buy into left-wing orthodoxy remain “uninformed” and, inevitably,“selfish,” a bunch of bigoted clods, intellectual buffoons, and moral cripples”

    The left has always found it much easier to demonize opponents. It allows them to not actually think.

  • MichMike

    The corrupt republican party can do nothing because they are in on the gig. Only honest conservatives can begin to reverse this horrible trend. That and pointing out to Americans that on every basic issue, other than abortion, we are in agreement. But as the article points out, there is no discussion of policy based on our shared basic beliefs. This is because the 2 corrupt parties absolutely don’t want any basic policy discussions.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    The American people are certainly not wise and not particularly virtuous (though fundamentally a good people). You’re absolutely correct in pointing out that one need look no further than our electing and re-electing Obama, a man whose un-Americanism and anti-Americanism are blatant.

  • Brubaker5

    Nice post mon ami.

  • https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/13/words-dont-matter-actions-do/ storibund

    Actually, conservatives did pretty well on the state and local levels this last election. And that should be a big wake-up call to those conservatives who still believe that national politics is where we should be focusing.

    Conservatives need to turn their attention and energy to the states. Devolving and deconstructing Federal power and returning it to the states must become the conservative priority. Anything else is just feeding the beast.

  • Anthony Mirabito

    You people suffer from WSD: Willful Suspension of Disbelief. In case
    your myopic dedication to party has completely blinded you, I’ll spell
    it out. Romney was the prime architect for the forced collectivizaton
    of health care. Romney signed the first.state tactical weapon ban in
    the nation. Romney acknowledges anthroprogenic global warming and won’t
    rule out carbon taxes as part of an effective national energy policy.
    And Romney would no doubt continue to sacrifice taxpayers and the
    private economy upon the altar of militant imperialism and senior
    entitlements. It’s time to wake up people. The Repubcrats and Demolicans
    are one in the same.

  • Torcer

    Obama’s Sequestration is hurting the Nation!

    WH Adviser Gene Sperling: We Did Put Forward The Framework Of Sequester
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkn3bY6qmQ&feature=player_detailpage

  • HomesickExWasillan

    No, Alto, not a Caesar. Please, no. (The other 2 are just cheap imitation Caesars.) I have lived alot of places in America. I have never lived in Poland. I have hope that if we can find our voice, the stern lure of liberty can out-shine the brass of security.

  • Borghesius

    I know Cardinal Burke, from my wife’s participation in Marian Catechists and The Church Teaches forum. Even went on retreat w/ him up at the Shrine Church in LaCrosse. Because of his willingness to stand up to the State, his time in Italy, and his Canon law background, he would be a good choice, and is underrated by the popular and large parts of the Catholic press. He also has been said to have had a substantial influence on Benedict’s other American bishop / Cardinal selections (Including Chaput and Dolan).

    I actually have fallen asleep during his talks (it was a long drive). I agree with your assessment: has a shot but not much of one, but he could influence who is chosen.

    He is young, but in spite of (or maybe because of) I’m looking at Cardinal Tagle.

  • Altosackbuteer

    The original Caesar was a noble, gifted, far-seeing man.
    ***
    Whether you want Caesar or not, you may get him, if the American People continue to drift along and encourage bad self-government.
    ***
    You’ll recall what America did with villages in Vietnam? America destroyed the villages, to save the villages from the Communists. An American Caesar may well conclude the same thing is necessary to do to the American system — destroy it, to save the country.

  • Altosackbuteer

    At your recommendation, and after checking him out on Wikipedia, I got down for € 4 on Cardinal Burke at around 175 – 1. He is VERY conservative. I do not say that in any way as a put-down. I can see why you like him.
    ***
    What do you think of Aviz? And Tagle?

  • Borghesius

    Unfortunately, all the American people are getting the government that 51% of them deserve.

  • Altosackbuteer

    “When we go down, we’ll all go down together.” The mistakes of the captain and his crew affected everybody else on the Titanic. Such is life.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Tagle is one of my half-dozen papabile I’ve wagered on. Why do you life him?

  • JayC777

    And almost every conservative on this site said, including myself, “Anyone, but Romney”.
    States can do health care, not the federal government, and Romney took alot of those positions for political expediency. Of course, it didn’t work.
    Jay
    Now, back to those fryers.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    Tagle’s too young, in my opinion.

  • apolloknowsall

    can you find another outlet to sell this on? I am banning/boycotting Amazon as it has entered into the homosexualization of America, first Jeff Bezos personally funded the pro-same-sex marriage in Washington state and now they are running tv ads with men and their ‘husbands’

    please let me know where else I can purchase this book besides @ amazon.com

  • apolloknowsall

    Each and every time you see someone online, in the media, or elsewhere calling us names–point it out. Do not accept it. Never accept the premise of the argument.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    Dolan is extremely charismatic, but I don’t at all see him getting the nod. By the way, he once heard my Confession, when he was Archbishop.

    Hell, I have a better chance than O’Malley. And he’d be a disaster.

    Ha! So much for the Obama topic.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    Liberal parasite something-for-nothing economics doesn’t work and never will, but it sure appeals to the stupid and lazy. We obviously have enough of those types to have pushed us over the edge.

  • BostonMary

    Try barnesandnoble.com.

  • http://twitter.com/AshleyLGoldstei Ashley L. Goldstein

    We’re not really wrangling over what levels of debt or spending are acceptable. We are in a clash for the soul of our country. http://www.Passiontoprofit72dollareveryhouronthelabtop.qr.net/j9G7/s4Ma-5b6182143&5b6N

  • JayC777

    “Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Collectivist health care at the state level is good ?!?!”
    I never said that. It might be, except nobody has been able to prove it as of yet. Keep building those straw men.
    ” But an alleged conservative such as yourself suffering from WSD can’t fathom that!”
    You don’t even know yourself. Stop pretending like you have the slightest idea who I am. You’re, obviously, not mentally equipped enough to go there.
    ” BTW, ad hominems are the last refuge of a man with absolutely NO argument. You’re as pathetic as the liberals you despise.”
    Thanks, for proving my previous point about your lack of mental accuity.
    “ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument”
    Jay
    Addressed your arguments.

  • SwordOfDamocles

    And then you close out your lament about Jay’s supposed ad hominen … by flinging an ad hominem yourself. Top notch!

  • Borghesius

    Vibrant, telegenic, strong on life and natural law, strong on popular devotion (connects to believers on that level). People imagine conclaves as political machinations and power struggles, were factions are still being weighed, but I think that Italian system is mostly done.

  • Anthony Mirabito

    “States can do health care.” Seemed like an endorsement for RomneyCare to me.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    Can you name a liberal parasite something-for-nothing economic policy that Obama has actually passed?

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    It’s certainly true that Romney took positions on issues based on political expediency, but it is difficult to say which they are.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    And if states do it, it’s not socialist but if the feds do it, then it is? If states do it, it works and is good, but if the feds do it, then it doesn’t work and is bad? I’m trying to figure out the argument here.

  • Anthony Mirabito

    My argument is that Romney is no better than Obama when it comes to socializing the economy. He forced collectivized health care on the citizens of Massachusetts by requiring all residents to purchase health insurance. The law also compelled citizens to purchase very comprehensive policies with prescription benefits and a wide variety of services less expensive coverage plans would not normally offer. But many “Republicans” can’t see the insanity of supporting the Repubcrat party in the face of leaders whose policies are not discernable from those of the Demolicans in any appreciable way.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I agree. In the first place, the % of Italian cardinals is steadily dwindling. And in the second place, some, or maybe even all, the Italian cardinals will be brushed by the taint of the various scandals which have occurred recently. A lot of this would depend on the contents of that dossier which Pope Benedict commissioned 3 cardinals to write for him. But extensive, and RECENT Roman Curia experience could be fatal to any Italian papabile.

  • Altosackbuteer

    And because we’re in a struggle for the soul of our country, we should therefore FLAG ALL INSTANCES OF SPAM — like yours. And I did.

  • george

    “Nationally syndicated columnist and Human Events editor David Harsanyi’s new book Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection is out today. Make me rich while you get poorer”

  • george

    So there are no conservative parasites? On what planet do you spend most of your time?

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    While I agree that Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin, I have some semantic objections. A collectivized or socialized health care system would be one where the government actually runs the system, and the doctors are government employees. I consider Rombamacare to be a crony capitalist system where the government, in league with business interests, forces the citizens to purchase products of dubious value from private companies.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    There are just as many people who would say we need look no further than our electing and re-electing Bush (those who believe he was elected). In effect, there is no individual and no political party that is able to govern this nation and that power vacuum has been already filled by the malefactors of great wealth who own our politicians, run our Congress and whose interests are protected by our military.

  • JayC777

    Nope. Just an argument for states rights as described in the Constitution. If I remember right, the citizens of the state of mASSa chusetts wanted it, still support it, and the state’s liberal legislature passed it. If they want to bankrupt themselves, go ahead, by all means, but leave me out of that madness. Besides that, all the clamoring about Romneycare being what they based Obamacare off of is BS. Romneycare was only 70 pages long and didn’t increase taxes. There’s no way you can have more than 2000 pages of law and then claim it’s based on 70 pages of a state law. Personally, I wouldn’t want it in my state.

    Jay
    The law at the federal level is unconstitutional.

  • DLCraig

    Alternate title: “The Four Horsemen of the Obamalypse”

  • JayC777

    It IS socialism. Where did you get the idea that we do not feel it’s socialism at the state level? Socialism is legal at the state level. See the 10th amendment of the constitution for further edification.
    Jay
    If you educated yourself then you wouldn’t spew so much nonsense.

  • JayC777

    No argument from me there.
    Jay
    Thinks that is the first thing you’ve said that makes any sense.

  • JayC777

    ” I guess all Walmart workers are dems.”
    Only in states where they represent the largest group of Medicaid and food stamp recipients.
    Jay
    Cite your source.

  • JayC777

    The only thing I’ll add is that if anyone thinks that he could do worse than the current occupant of the White house, then they are insane.

    Jay
    At least Romney had experience, and success, in the private sector.

  • Borghesius

    “In effect, there is no individual and no political party that is able to govern this nation…”

    The flaw is embedded in the premise. Should the country be governed “ruled”? Maybe the problem is that the federal government is trying to do too much, where they would be much better doing a lot less. of course this would require self control and restraint.

    If a governmental/financial institutional complex is seizing power in areas where they shouldn’t, it is because the checks and balances (including the ultimate check, the population exercising their right to vote) have failed.

  • rachel saadi

    POTUS has a decidedly antichristian agenda, a vision for an antichristian society and is himself Anti-Christ-like. Yeah, Isaid it. If you allow yourself to analyze all that he has done, is doing and intends to do from that perspective, the unexplainable suddenly becomes explainable, the incomprehensible becomes understandable. Now, I didn’t say he was THE Anti-Christ…cool down…but Anti-Christ-LIKE…perhaps a type of the ultimate one to come.

  • JayC777

    I dare you to cite one conservative on this site that has ever said anything like that. It’s socialism at the state level, it’s just that at the state level socialism is legal. If the state does it then they’re the only ones that have to live with the failure. When the fed does it, and with absolutely no model that ever existed in the history of the world where it was successful, then we all pay the price. Most of this country knew Obamacare was a debacle from the beginning and only mindless buffoons thought otherwise.
    Jay
    Hi, I’m Charles D. and it is against the law for anyone at Huffpo to post anything that isn’t the truth.

  • shoemama

    Wait until the “kids” have to start paying for Obamacare. Lets see how Obama blames that on the Republicans.

  • shoemama

    Don’t you realize that it is people like YOU who are pulling the effect of Republicans down? You are only helping Obama and the Democrats.

  • MichMike

    And what would you call the behavior of the republican leadership and long term congress members?

  • shoemama

    It is probably closer to 49% Remember, a lot of dead people “voted” and some voted more than once. Some legitimate voters found out that they had “already” voted, too.

  • shoemama

    Unfortunately, this scenario won’t work for those of us who are mixed together in the same general area.

  • shoemama

    Just so the Pope doesn’t take the name of “PETER”. Supposedly the last Pope will be PETER of ROME. He will follow a Pope who RESIGNS!

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    FYI JayC, I hardly ever look at Huffpo, it is trash. If a state chooses a socialist approach to a problem, then I would agree that they should live with the consequences, good or bad. Unfortunately, if a state decided to take a socialist approach to health care for example, they would find that the federal government would penalize them heavily before they even got the program launched. (see Vermont for an example).

    A lot of Democrats really preferred single-payer or at least a viable public option to the legislation that came out of Congress, but they were told to get in line behind the Obama Administration and support the Obamacare debacle. Unfortunately almost all of them did. The Democrat-leaning media (Huffpo, Kos, MSNBC, et.al) also got in line behind Obamacare. Only the truly left-wing media remained opposed – and of course all Republicans.

  • shoemama

    Free Contraceptives

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    Yeah there are lots of economists who cling to antiquated theories in spite of the evidence that they don’t work. Certainly in times of economic plenty, the government ought to live within its means, but since WWII the federal government has not done so. However, in times like these when we have high unemployment and businesses are not investing because they have no demand, a theory that calls for the government to throw more people out of work and curtail purchases of goods and services is patently ridiculous.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    Of course the country should be governed. That’s what the Constitution was all about. Any political theory that rests on the expectation that humans in positions of power will exercise self-control and restraint is doomed from the outset.

  • globalcrap

    All these O Bogus people voted a number of times,and the O Bogus Justice department just looks the other way.Law and order from the O Bogus regime caters to the criminal.

  • shoemama

    I’m Conservative, and tho Romney was not my ideal candidate, but he was a MUCH MORE COMPATIBLE FIT than Obama will EVER BE. Look who got reelected. PLEASE VOTE FOR SOME ONE WHO CAN GET ELECTED AND COUNTERACT OBAMA’S POLICIES!!! NOT voting only helps HIM.

  • globalcrap

    5 years in office ,and this O Bogus kid is still blaming Bush.He blames everybody bt his O Bogus self,for the mess O Bogus created.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    “government to throw more people out of work”
    You are obsessed with pity. Perhaps you should look up “codependency” on WebMD. You certainly fit that profile.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MobyFrick Michael Frick

    So, in your analogy, the no-bid pig-fest kicked of by Bush the younger’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan qualifies him for the role of Louis?

  • Borghesius

    That’s why they set up the checks and balances, with the ultimate check being a vigilant population. The competing sides and offices were supposed to exercise the control and restraint for the others, not work out special deals hidden deep withing budget deals of 1000 page bills. The States were supposed to guard their own sovereignty too, but are giving it up for aid dollars.

    Most people here view the Constitution as a document that not only enumerates what the Federal Government can do (govern), it says a lot about what the government can’t do (especially the Bill of Rights). The trick is how much governance, and how much freedom? When the government tries to control more and more aspects of our lives, or even do more and more things “for” people, of course it would make the task of governing more difficult. Is it governments role to impose on the populace a particular utopian paradise?

    What do you want the government to do? especially if we now have already established that the government is 1. unduly influenced by the rich and powerful 2. in charge of a vast ungovernable enterprise. The best conclusion is to work to elect as many libertarian and tea party persons as possible,

  • Borghesius

    Like Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo.

  • Eunice M. Hyslop

    before I looked at the receipt ov $8938, I did not believe
    that my sister woz truly bringing home money in there spare time on their apple
    labtop.. there uncle haz done this for under seventeen months and just paid for
    the mortgage on their cottage and bourt a great Honda NSX. this is where I
    went, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    Hopefully we can achieve disunion in a more orderly and peaceful fashion and without foreign intervention. Think how much more governable the US would be if there were 4 or 5 countries instead of one. Each could reflect the culture and interests of its people instead of holding them hostage to the will of an electorate far away. Also, none would be able to afford to maintain a worldwide military presence and they would be able to use those funds in more productive pursuits.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    I do not subscribe to the myth that we can somehow restore Constitutional government and that will solve our problems. I also do not subscribe to the myth that the government, regardless of which group is in power, will act to increase the freedom of the people at the expense of the powerful.

    The question in my opinion is not one of big government vs. small government. Big government is in thrall to the rich and powerful. If we emasculate government, the rich and powerful will still be in charge but without the benefit of even theoretical legal restraints. I pose a different question: Can a nation of this size, power and wealth be managed in a democratic fashion that retains the freedom of its people and their ultimate control over their own government? I think not. Regardless of whether we attain your vision of leadership by libertarians and tea party conservatives, or the liberal vision of leadership by social democrats, we cannot govern this nation by electing politicians dedicated to the beliefs of 20-25% of the country.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    Explain your plan to solve unemployment by laying more people off. Explain your plan to increase demand for goods and services by having the largest consumer of goods and services buy less.

    It’s not a matter of pity, it’s a matter of logic.

  • TMCNova

    Eye for and eye, revenge and all that shall be yours.

  • TMCNova

    They can’t accept that each year the President has lowered the annual deficit. Meaning the debt which has been growing ever since the Bush tax breaks kicked in and the wars started is growing slower each year. Given some room to maneuver and the potential tax revenue available to other administrations we’d get this problem under control. But no the far right can’t see anything but doom and gloom and when that’s all you can see that’s all you’ll get. The end of the USA is always right around the corner. Has been for the last 50 years, except for the Reagen years of course.

  • TMCNova

    May the south, state’s rights, secession and maybe even slavery rise again!

  • TMCNova

    Nice comment. Agreed.

  • TMCNova

    Because if you are not demonizing them they don’t know your talking about them. Right??

  • TMCNova

    Term limits. The long termers are a big part of the corruption you mentioned.

  • TMCNova

    You and so many others have been saying much the same for the last 200 years. If it’s as irriversible as you say why not just give up. You are so hung up on you myopic view of easy entitlement you ignore the hard working people all around you. I don’t personally know anyone on the government take.

  • TMCNova

    You’ve got some good things to say occassionally but “I would like to see some American version of Caesar / Napoleon / Putin rise.” is not one of them.

  • TMCNova

    Good thing you aren’t the judge of what a real American is and is not. I’m not the judge either but that is a pretty self righteous statement about the American peopel not being wise or virtuous because I am fairly sure you consider yourself to be both.

  • TMCNova

    So the country shouldn’t be governed “ruled” at all. How much is too much. Whaterver Obama is currently doing is too much right? No matter what it its.

  • TMCNova

    Good grief, again with this conspiracy crap. When are you guys going to join the modern world and remember that if something like that really happened in today’s connected world no one could keep it under wraps not even the entire lame stream media.

  • TMCNova

    Think we tried that once? Didn’t work out so good.

    I also think you are forgetting about how connected we really are in the modern technological world of 2013. Look at all of us so politely hashing out our polical differences on this comment section.

  • MissSterious

    I don’t believe for one minute that Obama won without corrupting our votes!

  • https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/13/words-dont-matter-actions-do/ storibund

    Wouldn’t it be fun to see how many times all of “Eunice’s” posts get flagged for spam?
    ;-)

    * and what’s with that name, anyway?

  • https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/13/words-dont-matter-actions-do/ storibund

    Wow… wallowing in ancient stereotypes much?

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.jordan.961 Don Jordan

    While he has worked to reduce the debt his incompetence exacerbates a socialistic agenda killing the profit motive but instead relying on welfare checks. This is why Detroit and other cities in the rust belt are dead zones. Generic politicians create this and led us to Obama. We need to get out of the generic politician business and develop a pool of professionals tried and true pillars of the community that have stellar track records of long standing. We also don’t need to be in the generic endorsing business. We’ve become like passive sheep letting the wolf take over our lives by not dealing with full disclosure on his legality and media just goes along as if nothing is wrong. There is something wrong when he has million dollar lawyers guarding his school records. Why go through all this if he’s not guilty. The border has been passed along from president to president like an unwanted child in the attic for 30 years and the result is skewed elections and having us have to put up with incompetence to the extreme these past 16 years. Deal with it like Eisenhower dealt with it, like FDR dealt with Pearl Harbor like Theodore Roosevelt dealt with it with the Panama Canal. Confront it and solve it. Eisenhower just used 5 thousand agents to sweep the 3 million overstaying illegals in 48. We can put our military out there and do the same thing and deal with it confront it not sweep it under the rug like has been done for 30 years. Gutless actions by gutless leaders has led to the problem it has become today.

  • Altosackbuteer

    The problem with secession is, how does one fairly divide obligation to service debt which the nation acquired when united? Independent fragments will never agree to genuinely fair and proportional assumption of debt obligations.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Surely you don’t deny that there are many millions “on the government take”?

  • Altosackbuteer

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • Altosackbuteer

    “The ultimate check is a vigilant population.” And isn’t that precisely the problem — the population simply has abandoned its obligation to be vigilant.
    ***
    Checks and balances are like a tower of blocks — remove a block, and the entire structure collapses. And a vigilant population is the biggest, most important block — and it is AWOL.
    ***
    Which is why I think, whether or not it’s desireable, the rise of an American caesar is inevitable and necessary.

  • Altosackbuteer

    So you think the rich and powerful maintain their power with the support of the military. Fine — that’s actually a reasonable opinion.
    ***
    But now I ask you — what happens, if and when that military decides it doesn’t need the rich; that it can have its cake and eat it to by cutting out the middleman (the rich), and taking power, including taxation power, for itself?

  • Altosackbuteer

    “If an American Caesar arises, we will no longer have America.” Yeah, and, like, what’s your point?

  • Altosackbuteer

    I hope that it is more than occasionally that I have good things to say. As for my notion of an American Caesar, there are many like you who don’t like this idea.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I think that is a highly logical inference. In the case of Louis XVI, his cost of assisting the American Revolution was only one of a number of reasons why he and his country went bust. And in like manner, the costs of the various wars which America has engaged in are only part of the story of how and why America went bust.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Wrong wrong wrong. The deficit would be even HIGHER without Bush’s tax cuts. The experience of tax-cutting during the 20th Century — Harding/Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, etc. — PROVE that. And only someone stoned on sacred ‘shrooms could assert with a straight face that deficits under Øbama have gotten lower.

  • Altosackbuteer

    There aren’t nearly enough responsible conservatives around to make happen what you want to happen. In a nutshell, that ultimtely is THE problem. And for this reason, it is inevitable that the country will lurch into bankruptcy and political (if not economic) collapse, and give rise to an American Caesar.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Very true. But now, how do you install term limits? We tried that already, and got almost nothing to show for it. You’re asking the very long-termers who benefit from no term limits to phase themselves out of their jobs. Hard to see that happening.

  • TMCNova

    No that’s sarcasm, direct at you. You can’t detect that?

  • TMCNova

    Agreed. Not an easy task but it is one of the issues that the grass roots people from both sides should unite on and push.
    Another change for Congress should be more time in the office. No more Mondays and Fridays off to travel back to their districts every week. They need to stay in Washington and get to know your fellow members of Congress and learn how to work with them not talk past each other.

  • TMCNova

    I’ve got a couple kids and a mortgage, does that put me on the take. Almost everyone gets something back. I use the public streets and roads, depend on government emergency services etc…. I also realize there are people out there who take advantage, but that doesn’t mean the programs aren’t doing a lot of good too.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    An interesting thought. The only way to avoid such an outcome is to reduce militarism dramatically. That is also the only way to regain the individual freedoms promised by the Constitution. No militaristic empire ever had individual freedom for ordinary citizens. No militarized police force ever treated citizens with dignity and respected their freedom.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    The founders had this problem in reverse and solved it. Also those debts are payable in US dollars so there would be no problem running the presses until they are all paid. Much like a company that goes bankrupt to avoid paying its pension obligations.

  • https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/13/words-dont-matter-actions-do/ storibund

    I got the sarcasm. And the stereotypes.

  • Kbuzz

    yes…but he gets away with it…and that is what is disgusting.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    You are a phony and a sick codependent. The economics is all explained in the book I cited. But, you will not look.

  • Kbuzz

    Absolutely true…and immaterial because nobody is doing a thing about it.

    The bright side to this is that conservatives are still a majority, albeit a marginal one, and the middle left, college kids, middle class, that voted for the freebies are beginning to see their meager paychecks taxed even more. But to wake up the People, unless we get the MSM on our side, the Spin doctor will continue to blame Bush, republicans, Insurance companies, Rich, Wall street, any successful business as the guilty party and the reason why this nation needs change.
    I fear that the only way any meaningful message will be heard will require sacrifice. And once that step is taken, there will be an acceleration of chaos followed by martial law. Why else is our Government arming itself with weapons, bullets, and tanks – come on people…wake up.

  • Borghesius

    It may be the use of terms. A dictator is one that is seen as imposing his/her will on the people for selfish gain, whereas the traditional Monarch was rule by oaths of fealty, and being tied to the land/country was (for good Kings anyway) both looking out for the future goodwill of the country and willing to lay down their lives for it. This doesn’t even have to be hereditary (think King Jan Sobieski or Venice’s Doge). With a monarch you at least have a chance of a good one. You can even consider the Pope as a non-hereditary Monarchy, which has lasted a long, long, time. With a democracy it appears that it will necessarily degenerate into a debt ridden mediocrity.

    Think Lord of the Rings. Sauron / Saruman = dictators. Aragorn = Return of the King. When Aragorn becomes King of the West and Gondor, he goes up to the Shire and says: you can govern yourselves,

    This may sound like romantic drivel, but it can work. Just as long as good and moral people become kings. The only person I know in our history that I would have trusted with it is George Washington, specifically because he refused it and retired after 2 terms. FDR should have been run out of town on a rail. A good King knows that they are not indispensable, that they hold their office in trust.

    Since I know this, and don’t want the office, I am eligible. King Borghesius I would be a vast improvement over Dictator Barack the Mad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.ward.3388 Joe Ward

    Everything about O is a tragedy.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

    I’ll make you a deal. You make a cogent answer to my two questions and I’ll read the book. If you read it and understood it, you ought to be able to formulate a succinct reply. Of course it’s easier to just call people names.

  • Victor

    Just wanted to add, I’d also be real worried about Revelation’s two-witnesses in chapter 11, who leave only 144,000 anglo-saxons alive after witnessing against u.s. for 3 1/2 years as written. Just saying what’s written & it was, in fact, “we the people”(or at least our “women alone”), & our single biggest majority voter who elected this promised “fundamental transformation of govenment” into marxism, “anti-christ” & also written to be the ONLY SIN “NEVER” to be forgiven either in this world or the next! p.s. Welcome to Adam’s world before the FIRST MURDERER was even born! Again, just saying…

  • RenoHightower

    Amen, brother (or sister)

  • TMCNova

    So you feel I stereotyped you with a sarcastic comment that mentions slavery?
    I’m quite sure you are not a proponent of slavery but it helped make my point and I am quite sure if you actually knew me you would realize I am neither prejudiced nor do I stereotype people. But you can jump to whatever conclusion suits you, it is and will remain a free country despite the attitude of most people on this forum.

  • https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/13/words-dont-matter-actions-do/ storibund

    Helped make your point?

    What was your point, if not to stereotype those who advocate for states’ rights?

  • Borghesius

    Discredited Prophecies of St. Malachy. Quite vague and inaccurate for popes after prophecies were “found”. The one for my namesake, Paul V, is not even close.

  • C Bartlett

    I agree with you about the Bush tax cuts. BUT a liberal acquaintence posted this on Facebook yesterday:

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

    This latest liberal talking point apparently blames the huge national debt on both wars AND the Bush tax cuts! Lots of very complicated, official-looking graphs from the “Center on Budget and Policy Priorities” (sounds very official, doesn’t it?). Once again, the message to low-information voters: blame it on Bush – nothing is EVER Obama’s fault.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I note that no Pope after Peter ever took that name, too. And it’s inconceivable that the next one would, either. The original Peter retired the name.

  • Altosackbuteer

    No — what Revelations says is that the writer saw 12,000 from each of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Nothing there about Anglo-Saxons at all.

  • Altosackbuteer

    But Afghanistan IS ØBAMA’S war, now. He surged it; he bought it; and it’s now HIS.

  • activist09

    Watch “Lifting the Veil ” This film explores the historical role of the Democratic Party as the graveyard of social movements, the massive influence of corporate finance in elections, the absurd disparities of wealth in the United States, the continuity and escalation of neoconservative policies under Obama, the insufficiency of mere voting as a path to reform, and differing conceptions of democracy itself. “Lifting the Veil” is the long-overdue film that powerfully, definitively, and finally exposes the deadly 21st century hypocrisy of U.S. internal and external policies, even as it imbues the viewer with a sense of urgency and an actualized hope to bring about real systemic change while there is yet time for humanity and this planet.

    www (dot) cultureunplugged (dot) com/play/11299

  • C Bartlett

    Yeah – well. Try telling the MSM that. Again – look at what the low-information voters hear. Obama is president – again. Enough said.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JE64D54HQHDTMIVGUFLGRBIWIU Mimi

    Take a look at that 1st paragraph it describes the Dems, not us ! We have the moral high-ground, believe in following the will of God…they wanted no mention of God at their convention…Remember? We are informed to the hilt and our patriotism shows no sign of selfishness…we care not the color of a persons skin…only the content of their character…most of us do not claim to be perfect but surly are on the right path!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JE64D54HQHDTMIVGUFLGRBIWIU Mimi

    Obama = 10 tril to almost 17 trillion…..19 % of GDP to @% 25 %

  • DanB_Tiffin

    I have been reading and posting on Human Events since 2009. I have been dealing with the addicted and their families for 30 years. It is useless to argue with a liberal, as has been stated many times in many places. I find it is just like talking to an alcoholic in denial. The psychopathology is sooooo similar. I am not interested in bargaining with you or discussing anything with you or your kind.

  • terry ellis

    Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson

    is available as a (apparently free) pdf (link below)

    The one lesson seems to come down to: when making economic decisions, consider the effects not on a single group but on all groups; and consider not only the immediate or the long term consequences, but both the likely short and long term effects.

    So far so good. But on a quick look at the book, no support for your assertions is readily apparent. What’s the point of citing a book and then refusing to comment on how it supports your positions?

    A recommended source is fine, but that alone, doesn’t contribute much to the discussion.

    e.g.
    How does the government cutting funding for some public jobs contribute to recovery, given an already high unemployment rate and insufficient consumer spending or business investment?

    http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004610920242 John Henry

    You Americans really need to do something to get rid your president right now. Don’t wait until it’s too late. It may be already too late.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    There is nothing new you liberals have had to say in years.
    I repeat:

    I find it is just like talking to an alcoholic in denial. The psychopathology is sooooo similar. I am not interested in bargaining with you or discussing anything with you or your kind.

  • Eileen T. Balcom

    If you think Ray`s story is great…, 1 week ago my mum’s
    boy friend basically recieved a check for $6606 workin twenty hours a week in
    their apartment and their roomate’s step-sister`s neighbour was doing this for
    eight months and made over $6606 in their spare time from their laptop. the
    guide from this web-site… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • terry ellis

    You were happy to talk to Charles D until he challenged you to make sense.

    I ask a simple question that sends you into a hissy fit. Poor baby.

    Thanks for confirming you can’t support your “arguments.”

    Please continue to talk the talk; we understand you can’t walk the walk.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    Whatever you want to say.

  • terry ellis

    Please don’t reply with nothing to say. It wastes my time.

    Shhhhh….

  • terry ellis

    Thanks. It is a free country after all. Praise be Obama.

  • terry ellis

    “parasite?” good night. don’t let the wing nuts bite.

  • terry ellis

    which is “duh”

  • terry ellis

    Typo?

    Did you mean “blessed with pity?”

  • terry ellis

    Since 2009?

    Not many people would cop to that, bro.

  • Patito33

    The left has no credible plan other than increase government control and take more of our money?

  • Frank

    “The left has always found it much easier to demonize opponents. It allows them to not actually think.” Yup, no demonization there!

  • AgTrotter

    Objection observation is not equivalent to demonization. But, Frankie, thanks for proving my point. Please tell us that you’re not considered the smartest in your family.