FIAF, Gutsy Move Edition

Steven Moore in WSJ on wealthy Americans advocating higher taxes:

If wealthy liberals want to pay more for wind-energy grants, wool and mohair subsidies, high-speed rail to nowhere, National Public Radio and two years of unemployment benefits for nonworking Americans, I’m all for it. But don’t hold your breath, because when liberals say they want higher taxes, they mean on you.

They mean you and when given the chance to pay more voluntarily, they don’t. Because they believe in collective not voluntary action.

Liberals bristle at the charge that they are pro-tax hypocrites and even ridicule the idea that they should voluntarily pony up more in taxes when they lobby for tax hikes. Eric Schoenberg, a professor at Columbia University’s Business School and a lobbyist for Responsible Wealth, recently told the Associated Press that “This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there’s no such things as collective goods that we produce. Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?”

People volunteer for things all the time.

Nonsense. Just because something is a collective good doesn’t mean it has to be paid for out of coercive taxes. Central Park in New York is a collective good, but its remarkable renovation in the early 1990s was almost entirely financed through private donations, as have been many of our national monuments. Throughout history Americans have made heroic acts of patriotism, not because they were required to by law but for love of country.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have volunteered to serve in the military and many have given their lives on the battlefield. They didn’t say: “I will only die for my country if the fellow next door is required to.” During the Revolutionary War many Americans gave their fortunes to help finance the cause of Independence. But Warren Buffett won’t voluntarily contribute to pay down the national debt?

VDH on our “I, me, mine” mighty warrior president:

The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.

Two, there is the small matter of hypocrisy. The protocols for taking out Osama bin Laden were all established by President Bush and all opposed by Senator and then candidate Obama. Yet President Obama never seeks to explain that disconnect; indeed, he emphasizes it by the overuse of the first person. When the president reminds us this week of what “over the years I’ve repeatedly made clear,” does he include his opposition to what he now has institutionalized?

Let’s review everything candidate Obama opposed and vilified Bush for doing, which he continued to do, and eventually led to Sunday’s act:

In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.

It wasn’t all Obama that got Osama. In fact, it mostly wasn’t Obama. He merely said “yes” and went golfing.

Obama’s spiking the football with Of course, not so “gutsy” is the decision to withhold the pictures of Osama after his date with a few Navy Seals. White House Dossier sums it up:

The message being sent, right on the cusp of one of our greatest moments of Taking Care of Business, is this: We are afraid of you. We are trembling at the thought you might get angry at us. We fear your reaction. We killed your leader, but please don’t be upset with us.
I believe the Obama White House thinks the planet beyond Western Europe has our kind of rational, compassionate mindset. But the world has a very different mindset. If we took Bin Laden’s mangled corpse and strung it up on a flagpole at Ground Zero, half the population overseas would think this a perfectly reasonable approach.

It’s a lesson. A warning. A threat.

Now, a song for Obama<strike, which I'm having troubling embedding:


From Huffpoo – your celebrations upon Osama’s death were unseemly.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

One Comment on “FIAF, Gutsy Move Edition”

  1. MJ Says:

    This post is full of awesome.

    I can completely understand his position shifting, being that he literally had no idea what he was talking about as a candidate. Once in the chair, with his feet up on the HMS Resolute desk, I’m sure the world looked much different. Glossing over his transformation is politics at its worst, but I don’t expect someone of Obama’s self reverence to admit he was wrong.

    The left, who are not privy to Obama’s responsibility or new found knowledge provided in security briefings shouldn’t get a pass. They are engaged in a cult of personality that is entirely frightening. I have a feeling that if Obama asked them to lay down in the street, more than a few would do it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: