Deja Vue - 1964

Ronald Reagan, 1964. That it remains still spot-on is scary:

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

The Most Dangerous Man On Earth

I remain puzzled at the "rock star" status enjoyed by Mr. Obama.
It appears millions, if not billions, of foreigners believe he will put an end to ugly, evil American capitalist imperialsm and bring peace and prosperity to the entire globe.

BUT:

For better or worth, the US economy still drives the world economy. If Mr. Obama wrecks the US, the world will go down with us. The difficulty is that Mr. Obama does not understand that printing money, all by itself, does not create wealth. Neither does he grasp that there is no one to bail out Uncle Sam. BO is a Chicago hack, accustomed to looking to Springfield or DC for extra money. But now he's running DC. There is no one "upstream" to hand over wads of cash.

Again, for better or worth, the US has the single largest military apparatus in the world. That should concern everyone who living outside the US. A bit of history. When the Romans needed a reliable supply of corn to feed the commoners of Rome, they seized Egypt. What does a Chicago thug do when he discovers that no one will GIVE him what he wants or needs to support his lifestyle?

All hail Barry Augustus!

D Day Remembered

Unfortunately technical difficulties kept us off line the last several days.

However, we would be remiss if we did not recognize 65th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy.

The highest ranking officer in the first wave was Theodore Roosevelt Jr., son of President Theodore Roosevelt. General Roosevelt could easily have sat out the war. He was too old for the draft, was financially well off and had served in WWI. Indeed, WWI wounds forced him to walk with a cane.

Instead, he went to war, serving in North Africa and Normandy until his death from a heart attack in July, 1944.

His service on D Day earned him the Medal of Honor. More importantly, he exemplifies the spirit and dedication of all the young men who went ashore that day, that we might live in freedom.

General Roosevelt's Medal of Honor citation reads:

For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944, in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.

A Little History

Once upon a time an President Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court.

The nomination was defeated, on the grounds that the nominee had made racist statements in the past and that he was a mediocre jurist (having had many of his decisions overturned on appeal).

What qualifies Ms. Sotomayor for different treatment?

"I Love Big Brother!" No. 1.

According to the Politico, the White House has cautioned critics of nominee Sotomayor to be "careful" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23016.html).

Press Secretary Gibbs' precise words appear to be: “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

Even by Mr. Gibbs' standards (and he makes George W. Bush sound like Shakespeare), this sentence is particularly opaque. Is it a very clumsy attempt to say "We hope we can keep this process civil" or is it a poorly veiled threat?

Perhaps not a threat, as there is no "or else."

A more likely explanation is that we have received a rare glimpse of the White House propaganda machine in action. The Press Secretary was instructing the Press Flunkies that they should not print anything that varies from the official script.

It is a disheartening realization. Take a look at the British papers and note all the good that can be done by a skeptical and diligent press. Revelations of systemic abuses may soon force fundamental changes in Britain.

Here in the Colonies, however, the Potentates have so little fear of the Fourth Estate that they have begun giving it its marching instructions in public.

For The Supreme Court

I understand that one of Ms. Sotomayor's primary qualifications for the Supreme Court is her underprivileged childhood.

My father was, literally, a barefoot country boy. And he lost his father when he was only 16.

Does that mean he's even more qualified?

Of course, Dad has never been to law school. But considering the profound thinkers our law schools are turning out, that might not be a bad thing.

Apologies to Neville Chamberlain

I have been quick to dismiss Mr. Obama as the "Neville Chamberlain of our time." I have been waiting for him to declare "Peace in our time."

But Memorial Day set me to thinking about conflicts past and I realized that my comparison between the two men is unkind - to Mr. Chamberlain.

Wikipedia summarizes his life and career as follows:

Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for appeasement foreign policy, in particular regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany, and for his "containment" policy of Germany in 1939 that culminated in declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. After working in business and local government and a short spell as Director of National Service in 1916 and 1917, Chamberlain followed his father and older half-brother in becoming a Member of Parliament in the 1918 general election at age 49. He declined a junior ministerial position, remaining a backbencher until he was appointed Postmaster General after the 1922 general election. He was rapidly promoted in 1923 to Minister of Health and then Chancellor of the Exchequer but presented no budget before the government fell in 1924.

He returned as Minister of Health, introducing a range of reform measures from 1924 to 1929. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition National Government in 1931 and spent six years reducing the war debt and the tax burden. When Stanley Baldwin retired after the abdication of Edward VIIIcoronation of George VI, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister in 1937. In 1938, he returned the so-called Treaty Ports to the Irish Free State.

Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France. He was succeeded by Winston Churchill but remained very well regarded in Parliament. Before ill health forced him to resign, he was an important member of Churchill's War Cabinet. He had a key role in the formation of the Special Operations Executive. Chamberlain died of cancer six months after leaving the premiership.

Chamberlain is most remembered for his appeasement of Hitler, going so far as to agreeing to the surrender of the Sudetenland at Munich. This decision is often depicted as a cowardly submission to Hitler's bullying.

Yet Chamberlain was operating under many handicaps:

1. He personally hated war (what clear thinking person doesn't?);
2. His nation wanted desperately to avoid a repeat of the horrors of WWI.
3. The Sudetenland was a German speaking region of Czechoslovakia. Was it so unreasonable to unite that region with the rest of Germany? After all, in 1938 the full horror of the Nazi regime was not apparent AND WWI was triggered in part by attempts to enforce the rigid old imperial boundaries and authority.
4. Germany had begun merrily re-arming in 1933, Britain had not.
5. Not only was Britain far behind in the arms race, it could not afford to build an army and an air force to counter Germany AND a navy to counter Japan in the Far East.
6. He did not recognize that, in Hitler, he confronted one of the true monsters in history.

In sum, he attempted to reach a reasonable compromise with a thoroughly unreasonable man, while negotiating from a place of relative weakness.

Mr. Obama, in contrast, believes that we - you and I - are the great monsters in history. He evidently believes it is his role to protect us by saving the world from us. In his world view, all the world's ills are a justified response to the depredations of the United States, and particularly those of George W. Bush.

Mr. Chamberlain loved his nation, for all its flaws. As for Mr. Obama, he is sorry that he did not come to power earlier.

"The War In Iraq is Lost"

Whenever I recall Harry Reid's defeatist statement, I rejoice that he is neither in command of our troops or defending us in the field. He probably would have surrendered to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

Happily, then we had men who valued America more than their lives, or their tawdry political careers.

For example, Captain E. E. Evans, United States Navy.

On October 25, 1944, Evans commanded the destroyer USS Johnson, part of a task force of destroyers and small air craft carriers defending the US invasion force in Leyte Gulf. The bulk of Admiral Halsey's fleet had been drawn off by a Japanese diversion. All that stood between a major Japanese task force and the invasion forces was Evans and his companion vessels.

Fortunately for us, Captain Evans was made of sterner stuff than Mr. Reid. Hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, Evans attacked.

The Japanese attack was turned back. Captain Evans received a Medal of Honor, posthumously. His citation reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as commanding officer of the U.S.S. Johnston in action against major units of the enemy Japanese fleet during the battle off Samar on 25 October 1944. The first to lay a smokescreen and to open fire as an enemy task force, vastly superior in number, firepower and armor, rapidly approached. Comdr. Evans gallantly diverted the powerful blasts of hostile guns from the lightly armed and armored carriers under his protection, launching the first torpedo attack when the Johnston came under straddling Japanese shellfire. Undaunted by damage sustained under the terrific volume of fire, he unhesitatingly joined others of his group to provide fire support during subsequent torpedo attacks against the Japanese and, outshooting and outmaneuvering the enemy as he consistently interposed his vessel between the hostile fleet units and our carriers despite the crippling loss of engine power and communications with steering aft, shifted command to the fantail, shouted steering orders through an open hatch to men turning the rudder by hand and battled furiously until the Johnston, burning and shuddering from a mortal blow, lay dead in the water after 3 hours of fierce combat. Seriously wounded early in the engagement, Comdr. Evans, by his indomitable courage and brilliant professional skill, aided materially in turning back the enemy during a critical phase of the action. His valiant fighting spirit throughout this historic battle will venture as an inspiration to all who served with him

To add a bit of context to Evans' gallantry: His torpedoes had a range of five miles. The Japanese guns were accurate and effective at twice that distance.

Joe Klein, Have You No Shame?

Joe Klein, of Time magazine has recently taken an extremely cheap shot at Charles Krauthammer, suggesting that Mr. Krauthammer's thinking is stunted by his confinement to a wheelchair.

It was a remarkably revealing "liberal" remark. I'd say more on the subject, but someone has beat me to it. Suffice it to say that, in my opinion, Mr. Klein's own thinking is stunted by his lack of wit.

For a more detailed rebuttal, see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/66662

Forgive me once more, Mr. Madison

A further proposed amendment to the Constitution:

Any spending measures that are not initiated in the House are should be automatically void.
The current text implies that, but the implication has been ignored by the courts.

But I digress.

Tax cuts should be permanent, unless revoked by an act of both Houses.
Tax increases must automatically sunset, unless extended by both Houses. Any revocation of a tax cut would fall into this category, of course.

I never gave my step-kids unlimited allowances. I see no reason to grant such freedom to those in Congress, who are even less mature and more irresponsible than a couple 13 year olds.

Thus we would be protected from the current situation, in which the "Bush tax cuts" will expire in 2010, without Congressional action. I like to think of that as a "stealth tax increase." Once upon a time it was called "taxation without representation." If our employees believe they need to pick our pockets, let them stand up and do it in the clear light of day; and face the consequences at the NEXT election.

Many years ago a friend moved to Pennsylvania. He liked many things, but loathed the taxes. "We're still paying a tax to help people recover from the Johnstown flood!" he explained. Perhaps he exaggerated for effect. But his statement illustrates my point.

In a nation of free people, who are served BY their government, tax cuts, not tax increases, should be presumed eternal.

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

Listening to Nancy Pelosi's press conference on the afternoon of Thursday, May 14 (2009) regarding what she knew about alleged torture, and when she knew it, I genuinely expected her to rebut the evidence from her staff, and the CIA with the childhood ditty: "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." Her performance was truly underwhelming. At least the next day she resorted to the tried and true liberal saw: "The CIA lies to us all the time."

To which the first grade child of any CIA employee might rightly reply: "It takes one to know one."

That the Speaker is lying is beyond question. That subject has been explored at length by other outlets (except the major news outlets). What puzzles me is WHY?

In the wake of the Clinton Administration and the 2008 election, does she believe the public no longer cares whether it is lied to? Unfortunately, for her, she is neither as pathological as Bill Clinton nor as eloquent, when on script, as Mr. Obama.

Did she think no one was paying attention? After all, why should anyone pay any more attention to her job than she does?

Did she think no one would dare challenge her? She is merely the most important elected official in the nation after Mr. Obama. (To the fan of Joe Biden out there, I remind you of what VP John Nance Gardner said of that office: "It's not worth a bucket of warm spit.")

Did she think the CIA would not dare defend itself?

Or, to expand on a suggestion from Rush Limbaugh, was she just going through Botox withdrawal? I understand that any drug withdrawal can be a real pelosi.

But perhaps I am unfair. Perhaps she is telling the truth, that she did not realize what was going on until recently. Perhaps she simply wasn't paying attention.

Former Speaker Gingrinch has it right: She is either lying or incompetent. She, like the former CEO of GM, needs to go.

But I remain troubled by a deeper question. How did such a rank politican hack rise to such a position of power?

Government Motors, Part 2

We have had a sneak peek at the 2010 line up from Government Motors.

The family sedan:














The hybrid:



















The Presidential Limo:

Obama the heretic?

It is fashionable for contemporary conservatives to dismiss President Obama as a closet socialist.

Perhaps he is. He does not seem to have embraced Leninism, however.

For example, he has disregarded one of the key precepts of Lenin's April Theses:

"(T)he salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, (are) not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker."

Pravda, April 4, 1917 (emphasis added).


Postscript: The Russian in the graphic translates
roughly as "Obama lived/Obama lives/Obama shall live."

Some thoughts on freedom

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Ronald Reagan, "A Time for Choosing," 1964

Forgive me, James Madison

A few modest amendments to the Constitution for the benefit of the Republic.

Repeal the 16th Amendment.

The Founders understood what we have forgotten - that it is unwise to allow those who do not work to impose taxes upon those who do.

Impose term limits upon the posts of Speaker of the House and Committee leaderships.

Nancy Pelosi may be a wonderful representative of her constituents, but she does not represent me. I'd like to level the field for someone who does.

Reduce the terms of Federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to ten years, with a maximum service of two terms. Implement a procedure efficiently remove the mentally infirm.

The Founders believed that Federal judges should be insulated from political pressures, but they surely did not intend to create, at best, sinecures and, at worst, a body of unelected legislators. As for removing the infirm, one need only recall the dotage of William O. Douglas understand the need for such a provision.

Revise the Interstate Commerce Clause to clarify that the Federal government enjoys only the powers SPECIFICALLY granted to it.

Look at the mess we're in after 70 years of courts deciding that the government has the powers the court believes are necessary.

Remove the protection granted to elected representatives for dumb decisions.

Public officials should be held accountable as fiduciaries of the public resources. Corporate directors who do not fulfill their duties of due diligence, honesty and loyalty may be held personally liable for the damage their actions cause. We are currently paying for the stupidity known as the Community Reinvestment Act; our grandchildren will be paying for TARP and the Obama deficits. Fraud upon the citizenry, such as the Social Security program, should be criminal offenses. Those who imposed these travesties upon us should be accountable. Those who use as a defense "I didn't read the bill" should be liable for treble damages.

Calling Tom Donophin

David Brooks of the New York Times has recently asked what we can learn from the Western movies of yore. By coincidence, I have been pondering the same question.

Mr. Brooks points to John Ford’s My Darling Clementine as a celebration of family and community over the “rugged individualism” he believes conservatives preach. How Dan Quayle’s “family values” constituency became selfish anarchists is not explained. Evidently, though, the community activist is now good, the classic Western “lone wolf” is bad.

My thoughts have led me down a different path, and to different conclusions. Two films have been much on my mind, High Noon and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. In High Noon, marshal Will Kane must face down four hardened killers by himself, for the townspeople have turned their backs on him. They would prefer he simply leave, in the hope that would placate the approaching thugs. I have often wondered whether George W Bush ever thought that he was in a similar situation. There are differences, however. The movie thugs are easily identified and their murderous intent is unmistakable. Mr. Bush was in a much more difficult and ambiguous situation, a situation Mr. Obama inherited. As a consequence, his recent world tours have made me squirm. In his version of the film, Will Kane would not have been asked to leave – he would have been run out of a town on a rail, the better to please the thugs. Which, of course, would have left the town at the mercy of the thugs.

By coincidence, another Western classic explores the question of life in such a town. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the small town of Shinbone is terrorized by the vicious Liberty Valence, who appears to fear no one other than Tom Donophin, a local rancher. Enter Ransom Stoddard, a young lawyer and idealist, who believes in the law and logic and reason. Ultimately Stoddard realizes that neither words nor law nor reason will deter the evil Valence unless there is force behind them. Reluctantly he straps on a pistol, although he barely knows how to use it, and faces Valence. To the surprise of all, Valence is left dead in the dust. (For CSI fans, the ME’s examination of the corpse is, by itself, worth the price of a rental.) Shinbone is saved, Stoddard is a hero. He gets the girl and begins a long and distinguished political career.

Except Stoddard didn’t shoot Valence.

As we learn in the course of the film, Donophin was lurking in the shadows and fired the fatal shot, timed to coincide with Stoddard’s own. The man of reason and law is saved by the man of controlled violence. It seems they sought the same woman, and she preferred Stoddard. Donophin was willing to kill for her. (Ever the good lawyer, Stoddard notes that Donophin’s action was justified by the doctrine of self defense. Donophin rejects this consolation – he had shot a man without warning. As he sees it: “It was cold blooded murder….but I can live with that.) But we should not slight Stoddard, who was also willing to kill, and to risk being killed, for his beliefs and his beloved and his community.

Together, these films offer a valuable lesson. Evil is not always defeated by reason and logic, for evil is in itself unreasonable and illogical. Force must sometimes be met with force, for the alternatives – servitude or death – are unacceptable. Unless one prefers living on one’s knees to dying on one’s feet.

Needless to say, our ever apologizing president calls to mind the idealistic Stoddard, but with no sign of Stoddard’s grit. Unfortunately Tom Donophin is not lurking in the shadows to save us.

A Note: I know of no evidence that Valence was intended to be a response or rebuttal to High Noon, a film John Wayne reportedly loathed. Rather, the Wayne response is said to be Rio Bravo, which is a classic in its own right.

Government Motors?

Dear Mr. President,

There is much talk in the news of late regarding the possibility that the government might take a large equity share in GM. As you were a professor of Constitutional law, could you direct me to that part of the Constitution that authorizes such action?

Please note that I ask out of genuine confusion. I am not merely a right-wing extremist who believes in the enumerated powers doctrine. As a business attorney, I am perplexed.

For example, at the moment I am in my room in Franklin, Tennessee, the home of Nissan Motors, USA. If the proposed deal goes through, will Nissan be competing with General Motors or Government Motors? The conventional wisdom in Tennessee is that Nissan enjoys a cost advantage over GM because Nissan uses non-union labor. What would prevent the government from protecting its investment by requiring unionization of auto plants?

Which leads to another question: Who will regulate the regulators? Would CAFE, EPA and vehicle safety regulations apply to the products of the new Government Motors? Would specific state regulations, such as those in California, be trumped under the Federal Preemption Doctrine?

Or, to whom will management be accountable? You may recall a decade or so ago when the GM Board rather abruptly fired Roger Smith from his position of CEO. The Board was exercising its prerogative - dismissing an executive who had delivered disappointing results. Presumably you, or your successors, could remove an individual CEO who roles out a series of flops, but what of a president who appoints a series of disappointing executives? Board members can be held to answer to shareholders. Indeed, the directors may be PERSONALLY liable in the correct circumstances. Public officials, however, face no such exposure. Who would we, the taxpayer/shareholders name in a derivative suit?

I am also mindful of past experiments with government-owned auto companies. Look what government control did for MG and Jaguar.

Are setting out on a road that dead-ends in East Germany, circa 1968, in which the only car available is the car decreed by the government, no matter how lousy that car may be? I fear you might find the back seat of a Trabant rather cramped.

Later, Jack

Like many pudgy middle aged white guys, I have been a flag waving fan of Jack Bauer and "24." For an hour I can forget the bills and the sinking economy and imagine that I, too, am saving the world.

Until last week, when bit-part player Janeane Garafolo dismissed the Tea Party protesters as ignorant racists. To my knowledge, neither Senator Byrd nor any of his Klan buddies attended any of the protests. The protesters I did see, even on CNN, seemed fair minded, level headed people who happen to disagree with the policies of Mr. Obama, regardless of his pigmentation.

This is, for the moment, a free country and Ms. Garafolo is entitled to espouse her opinions, no matter how hateful or ill informed. At the same time, I have no obligation to help pay her salary. Therefore, I am signing off from "24."

Please note, I am not calling for her be silenced, although I doubt she would show me the same courtesy. I am merely voting with my wallet.

Happily, I think there are "House" reruns on opposite "24." Anyone care to join me?

Borrowing from a classic

THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
Derived from:
THE GRAND INQUISITOR
By Feodor Dostoevsky
(Translation by H.P. Blavatsky)

In the twilight he arrived, in that quiet time when the tofu-burgers and bean sprouts are not quite digested, the zinfandel is not quite chilled and it is not quite time to light the bonfires about the capitalists, reactionaries, talk radio hosts and assorted other wreckers in a magnificent auto-da-fe ad majorem Barack gloriam, by the order of the all powerful Comrade Community Organizer.

He came silently and unannounced; yet all recognized Him! The population rushed towards Him as if propelled by some irresistible force; it surrounded, thronged, and pressed around, it followed Him. The Love of Freedom burned in His heart, and warm rays of Courage, Wisdom and Integrity beamed forth from His eyes, and poured down their waves upon the swarming multitudes gathered 'round, making their hearts vibrate with returning love.

The crowd wept for joy, and kissed the ground upon which He trod. Children cast flowers along His path. Upon the steps of the Capitol he paused, beholding a man begging favor of a Comrade Member of the People's Congress. “But my children must eat,” lamented the man, whose clothing, now dirty, worn and shapeless, revealed him to be a disgraced wrecker. Perhaps once a banker, or an executive. Certainly a capitalist, but only a lowly one. How else had he escaped the fires? As the Comrade Member turned away, unmoved by the supplicant's meager offering, He stepped forward and raised the man to his feet.

“I will give you work,” said He quietly, yet the words silenced the crowd and echoed abut the vastness of the Mall. “Go,” He said. “Gather your family, and your neighbors, and their neighbors. I have work for you all.”

The crowd is violently excited. A terrible commotion rages among them, the populace shouts and loudly weeps, when suddenly, before the Capitol door, appears the Comrade Community Organizer himself.

He is a tall, elegant man of scarce two-score years, with a kindly, smiling face, and deeply set eyes, from the cavity of which glitter two fiery sparks. He has laid aside the glorious tailored suit in which he had appeared before the
people at the auto da-fe of the enemies of the State, and is now clad in his tastefully torn and stained designer jeans and T-shirt. His obsequious assistants and slaves of the 'Community Cadre' follow at a distance. He pauses before the crowd and observes. He has seen all. Slowly raising his finger, he commands his minions to arrest Him.

Such is his power over the well-disciplined, submissive and now trembling people, that the thick crowds immediately give way, and scattering before the Cadre, amid dead silence and without one breath of protest, allow them to lay their sacrilegious hands upon the stranger and lead Him away. That same populace, like one man, now bows its head to the ground before the Organizer, who smiles upon them indulgently and moves languidly onward. The guards conduct their prisoner to the ancient building of the People's Congress; pushing Him into a narrow, gloomy, vaulted prison-cell, a long forgotten, long unused crypt. They lock Him in and retire.

The day wanes, and night-a dark, hot breathless mid-Atlantic night - creeps on and settles upon the city with His name. The air smells of laurels and cherry blossoms. In the Stygian darkness of the crypt the iron door of the cell is thrown open, and the Community Organizer, holding a dark lantern, slowly stalks into the dungeon. He is alone, and, as the heavy door closes behind him, he pauses at the threshold, and, for a minute or two, silently and gloomily scrutinizes the Face before him. At last approaching with measured steps, he sets his lantern down upon the table and addresses Him in these words:

"It is you! You!” Receiving no reply, he rapidly continues: “Answer not; be silent! And what could you say? I know all too well! You have no right to add one syllable to what you uttered before. Why should you now impede us in our work? I know not; I care not. Tomorrow I will condemn and burn you at the stake, as the most wicked of all wreckers. The same people who today kissed your feet, tomorrow, at one bend of my finger, will rush to add fuel to your funeral pyre.

“Behold them, your 'free' people!” adds the elegant man with sombre irony. “Yes! it has cost us dearly.” continues the Organizer, sternly looking at his victim. “But we have at last accomplished our task, in your name. For two hundred long years we have toiled and suffered owing to that 'freedom.” But now we have prevailed and our work is done, and well and strongly it is done. Dare you doubt that it is so very strong? Know then, that now, and only now, your people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and that only since they have, of their own free will, delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet.

"It was you, in your arrogance, who set us this task,” goes on the Organizer. “In your triumph you rejected the crown your dutiful subjects offered you, and cursed them to the terror whence we, and we alone have rescued them. Do you recall the great honor – nay, the sacred duty – you declined? In the waning days of your rebellion, when all looked to you for guidance and security and entrusted to you their hopes and dreams? Do you recall how they put that trust and love into words and deeds and offered to submit to you, body and soul, as their ruler? And you betrayed them, rejecting their offer. Decide then for yourself,” proceeded the Organizer, “which of you was correct, those who offered, or you who declined?

“Consider then, the curse of this 'freedom' you imposed upon those who placed in you their trust. Did you bless them with this 'freedom'? No, you cursed them. 'Be free,' you declared, and spoke their doom, for you did not know the true meaning of your words: 'Go forth and feed thy selves.' You ignored that, in all history none have succeeded in that task. Did you not know that the day would come when all would understand that freedom and sufficient food cannot be had together, as humanity will never be able to fairly divide the two amongst themselves. And, in the depths of their despair, your 'free' people shouted unto the heavens 'Feed us!' And we fed them; and they worship us.” They regard us as gods, and feel grateful to those who have consented to lead them and bear their burden of freedom by ruling over them.

“'Be free,' you commanded, and sentenced them to the horror of self-reliance, to decide for themselves who to follow, what to believe. Man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having a right to be worshipped. For the chief concern of these miserable creatures is not to find and worship the idol of their own choice, but to discover that which all others will believe in, and consent to bow down to in a mass. It is that instinctive need of having a worship in common that is the chief suffering of every man, the chief concern of mankind from the beginning of times. But he alone will prove capable of silencing and quieting their consciences, that one shall succeed in possessing himself of the freedom of men.

“The mystery of human being does not solely rest in the desire to live, but in the problem--for what should one live at all? Have you again forgotten that to man rest and even death are preferable to a free choice between the knowledge of Good and Evil? Nothing seems more seductive in his eyes than freedom of conscience, and nothing proves more painful.

"Meantime, every chance of success was offered you. There are three Powers, three unique Forces upon earth, capable of conquering forever by charming the conscience of these weak rebels-men--for their own good; and these Forces are: Miracle, Mystery and Authority. You rejected all the three, and thus were the first to set them an example. Is human nature calculated to reject miracle, and trust, during the most terrible moments in life, when the most momentous, painful and perplexing problems struggle within man's soul, to the free decisions of his heart for the true solution? You thirsted for free and uninfluenced love, and refused the passionate adoration of the slave before his betters. You judged men too highly here, again, for though rebels they be, they are born to be slaves and nothing more. Behold, and judge of them once more, now that two centuries have elapsed since that moment. Man is weaker and lower than you have ever imagined him to be!

"By valuing him so highly you have acted as if there were no love for him in Thine heart, for you have demanded of him more than he could ever give. Had you esteemed him less, less would you have demanded of him, and that would have been more like love, for his burden would have been made thereby lighter. Man is weak and cowardly. Suffused with idiotic tears, they will confess that you, who set them free, undoubtedly did so only to mock them.

"And thus, after all you has suffered for mankind and its freedom, the present fate of men may be summed up in three words: Unrest, Confusion, Misery! Such is the fruit of this 'freedom' you purchased so dearly with the lives of others, and which you esteem as the greatest of all earthly gifts. Gift? Perhaps, to you and your kind, with your pale skins and fine educations and great wealth, built upon the subservience of others. Perhaps it was a gift to you few, you elect who were equipped to bear such a burden And why should the weakest be held guilty for not being able to endure what only the strongest have endured? Why should a soul incapable of bearing such terrible gifts be punished for its weakness? Did you really serve the "elect" alone? If so, then the mystery will remain forever mysterious to our finite minds. And if a mystery, then were we right to proclaim it as one, and preach it, teaching them that neither their freely given love to you nor freedom of conscience were essential, but only that incomprehensible mystery which they must blindly obey even against the dictates of their conscience. Thus did we. We corrected and improved your teaching and based it upon "Miracle, Mystery, and Authority." And men rejoiced at finding themselves led once more like a herd of cattle, and at finding their hearts at last delivered of the terrible burden laid upon them by you, which caused them so much suffering.

"You could have accepted the crown yourself; why did you reject the offer? By accepting the crown you would have realized every aspiration of man for himself on earth; man would have found a constant object for worship; one to deliver his conscience up to, and one that should unite all together into one common and harmonious ant-hill; for an innate necessity for universal union constitutes the third and final affliction of mankind. Humanity as a whole has ever aspired to unite itself universally. We offer that union, and the people crawl up to us in full submission, and lick the soles of our feet, and sprinkle them with tears of blood and beg to drink from the golden cup of 'hope and change'. Under our rule and sway all will be happy, and will neither rebel nor destroy each other as they did while under your banner of 'freedom'. We will take good care to prove to them that they will become absolutely free only when they have abjured their freedom in our favor and submit to us absolutely. Receiving their bread from us, they will clearly see that we take the bread from them, the bread made by their own hands, but to give it back to them in equal shares. Until that day, they will never be happy. We will give them that quiet, humble happiness, which alone benefits such weak, foolish creatures as they are. Their intellects will weaken, their eyes become as easily accessible to tears as those of children and women; but we will teach them an easy transition from grief and tears to laughter, childish joy and mirthful song.

“We will make them work like slaves, but during their recreation hours they shall have an innocent child-like life, full of play and merry laughter. We will even permit them sin, for, weak and helpless, they will feel the more love for us for permitting them to indulge in it. They will believe us and accept our mediation with rapture, as it will deliver them from their greatest anxiety and torture--that of having to decide freely for themselves. Tomorrow you shall see that obedient flock; at one simple motion of my hand it will rush to add burning coals to the stake at which I will burn you for having dared to come and trouble us in our work. For, if there ever was one who deserved more than any of the others our cleansing fires - it is you! Tomorrow I will burn you."

Having unburdened his heart, the Organizer waits for some time to hear his prisoner speak. His silence weighs upon him. He has seen that his captive has been attentively listening to him all the time, with His eyes fixed penetratingly and softly on the face of His jailer, and evidently bent upon not replying to him. The elegant man longs to hear His voice, to hear Him reply; better words of bitterness and scorn than His silence. And then He rose; slowly and silently approaching the Organizer, He bends towards him and softly whispered in his ears. The Community Organizer shudders. There is a convulsive twitch at the corner of his mouth. He goes to the door, opens it, and addressing Him, “Go,” he says. “Go, and return no more. Do not come again; never, never!” and turns Him out into the dark night.

To Sean Hannity and John Rich

Gentlemen,

Regarding Mr. Rich's new song "Shuttin' Detroit Down," I do not think it is an appropriate anthem for the current revolt against socialism.

A few people - a very few - may be "livin' it up on Wall Street," but the biggest parties are going on in DC - on Capitol Hill, and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's not the execs who screwed up their companies that I'm ticked at. I'm ticked at the feckless, corrupt, ignorant, incompetent bunglers in Congress and the White House (past and present) who decided to gleefully give our way our money, and who decided that this "crisis" is an occasion to abolish the Constitution.

Barney Frank and company probably love the song. It distracts from their own misdeeds.