For Sale: Snake Oil – Cheap
By: Eddie Clements
My mother, may The Good Lord rest her soul, could never understand why the astronauts didnâ€™t blow away during space walks. Despite my explanations, she remained unconvinced. The real reason for that was that she lacked the background in science taught early in school long after her day. Momâ€™s skepticism had value: it made me examine the information closely to ensure the conclusions logically followed well grounded facts.
Mom was also skeptical of banks, doctors, and cure-alls. The thing about the banks seems much more understandable than it used to. Doctors we need, but the classic cure-all came out of the old Westerns we used to love. Some slick would be hawking a little bottle of mint-smelling goo with a fancy printed label as a â€œcure for the common cold; cures headaches, backaches, and body aches. Made from the Essence of Eastern Snakes! One swallow and you feel younger, refreshedâ€¦donâ€™t you want to feel good, brother? And for just a dime, at that? Here, try it!â€ Some shill would come forward, take a draught of the demo bottle, probably water, and announce â€œHey! That stuffâ€™s great!â€ and serve up a dime to the hawker. Another shill would come forward, waving a dime saying â€œGimme some oâ€™ that, pardner!â€ and the irresistible rush to purchase every bottle of the worthless swill was on.
The publicâ€™s desire to find the universal cure for what ails them rages on, unabated. Itâ€™s gonna cost a lot more than a dime, though.
Senator Barack Obama and his considerable army of devotees appear confused. They think of corporate CEOâ€™s, heads of organizations that provide jobs, expand the base of wealth, and deliver goods and services to America as well as the rest of world, as Americaâ€™s enemies. Possibly worse, he thinks of small business owners as government revenue producers.
Small businesses (like big ones) pay tax on all income after expenses and depreciation. The owner takes what he needs to run his household out of this after-tax pot, same as we run our household on our wages or salary after income tax withholding (and state tax, FICAâ€¦you know your check stubâ€¦same for the small business). They cannot set aside cash for operating during the next year and defer it from tax. They need all the cash they can get to operate; if they need more they gotta borrow. You borrow, you pay interest. Barackonomics says the American dream is limited to $250,000 a year. Obama is marketing that number as â€œthe richâ€. Any more than that is taken according to your means, so the government can redistribute to each according to his needs. Barackonomics is classic Marxism, a proven loser. See: former Soviet Union.
He and others say our Armed Forces in Iraq routinely murder civilians at random, they donâ€™t act as liberators to free people from a murderous despot. As evidence of the militaryâ€™s incapacitance, he protests they canâ€™t even locate Osama Bin Laden, yet Obama takes on as an unimpeachable expert Harold Raines to be an advisor â€“ in economics, of all things. â€œYeah, just revise the books so itâ€™s worth more â€“ theyâ€™re just bookkeeping entries – same thing as an actual increase in value!â€
Obama and his acolytes see the militaryâ€™s role as humanitarian. So do most Americans: if other humans try to kill us, weâ€™ll kill their humans, until they stop, so it doesnâ€™t happen to our humans or their humans again. The ObamArmy will be kinder and gentler.
So, what does one do when someone who is not convinced we are all at peace or in harmony decides to shake things up? You know, make a high-concept leap toward geopolitical adventurism? Or, just decides to murder a few passers-by because they â€œlook differentâ€? The state is supposed to intercede with force; but isnâ€™t force precluded by this khumbaya stuff? Well, yes, if we ALL AGREE Clintonesquely on what the meanings of â€œagreeâ€ and â€œlook likeâ€ and â€œtrulyâ€ and â€œpeaceâ€ and â€œharmonyâ€ are, among other terms. Sounds like some slippery task, there. Isnâ€™t that ninety percent of solving the problem, defining terms? Incidently, agreeing on terms is just half; we must abide by it to make it work. Obama himself wouldnâ€™t abide by the rules of a debate, why does he think the rest of us should abide by Terms of Endearment? Just because he said so?
Senator Obama recoils in horror at the thought that his white grandmother recoiled in fear upon seeing two or more African-American men coming towards them, because they â€œdonâ€™t look likeâ€ her. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, patriotism that is not the tax-loving kind, these are the real enemies of â€œprogressâ€. If we would just all embrace multiculturalism, gays, taxes, media propaganda, and collectivism, the world could â€œcome togetherâ€ in true peace and harmony, for now and ever more, Amen. After that, prosperity would follow.
Social science is more difficult to get a handle on than hard science, but he may have it backwards. Prosperity creates conditions of safety, security, and shared values, the result being imperfect but approximate harmony. Obama says he will move us toward perfection, but do we want a Stepford Wives world?
Senator Obamaâ€™s first famously mistaken foray into foreign policy said Russiaâ€™s invasion of Georgia should be taken up by the U.N. Security Council. Obama didnâ€™t know what we learned in my day in eighth grade Social Studies: Russia is a member, and could veto any action. He says he will get Bin Laden, by invading Pakistan, if necessary, or at least violating their sovereign territory. Just a little â€“ câ€™mon guys, arenâ€™t we allies? Maybe not, after that.
That eighth grade Social Studies class â€“ â€œMr. Valdezâ€ was the teacher. We lived in New Mexico. That was 1962 â€“ and one day President Kennedy informed the nation by television address that Soviet missiles had been placed in Cuba, creating a tense situation. We discussed it in class next day â€“ without interference from Soviet apologists which abound in classrooms today. Four nerve-wracking days later they were removed without a shot being fired. Could Obama have done that? We might get a chance to find out, what with Nikita Khrushchevâ€™s heir Vladimir Putin and the estimable Obama campaign contributor Hugo Chavez buddying up down South America way.
â€œNo personâ€¦shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…â€ (Amendments to the Constitution, Article V.) When they make it a law, you can indeed be deprived of it. Things like, income, or property, or libertyâ€¦even life (Roe V. Wade). The argument over that would seem to hinge on whether a human in the womb is a person, which it has been declared the fetus is not. Else, what basis for the decision? If the Supreme Court can decide what is life, they (or Congress) can decide to support a law deciding what is the pursuit of happiness, your property, your liberty, orâ€¦your life. In essence, these concepts are all re-definable, though common sense would argue that the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were quite clear on these matters. Only a gaggle of lawyers could seriously argue that people have the above-mentioned fundamental rights only as long as the state decides they do. Life could be defined as property of the state, which you have no right to take. Waitâ€¦isnâ€™t that the law already? Government says protecting life is a fundamental duty of theirs under the Constitution; therefore people must be protected from themselves by prosecution. Attempting to take your own life (suicide) is a crime, so your life can best be protected by throwing you in jail for trying to take that which is yours. (I know the life belongs to God, but weâ€™re talking about secular law.) See where this can go? Why not define all income, all property, as belonging to the state?
This is the direction we are headed. Given the above argument, what is there in the Constitution to stop it? Recent encroachments into the liberty of citizens have in fact denied individuals their property rights, which are interpreted by courts, including The Supreme Court, to be within the power of the state to do so. Witness the Kelo Decision. Witness the decision years ago to confiscate the property of persons who may have carried passengers on their boats who possessed drugs. Even liberal media were moved to caricature the Chief Justice as a pirate. Sure, drugs are a bad thing – but not nearly as bad as having your boat confiscated when you didnâ€™t even know an onboard guest was in possession of them. The argument seemed to turn on the host being responsible. Are you going to search your guests whenever you host a party? Better do it, or your home could be forfeit. Once individualsâ€™ rights have been trashed by Congress and the courts, individuals become nationalized. Institutions like banks, which are not living entities and only have â€œrightsâ€ as defined by law (as opposed to nature), nationalizing them becomes all too easy. He most certainly is totally and irretrievably incorrect if he thinks lawyers will provide the answers. Have they done so yet?
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building, leftists could hardly wait to get him in the ground. Where were their death penalty watches then, those candle-light vigils the treacherous network news anchors find so visually compelling, when cop-killers and mass murderers face execution? Not to be found. A caller to Limbaughâ€™s radio show made the perfect comment: the only difference between McVeigh and Ayers was the number of victims. McVeigh committed the ultimate blasphemy by socialist definition: he attacked government, then led by Democrats. If he had attacked a government headed by Republicans, he would have been hailed as a liberator, as William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were when Nixon was in power at the time the future esteemed academics bombed John Murtaughâ€™s private home. Yet to Obama, Ayers is Mr. Rogers; a guy in the neighborhood.
Senator Obama proposes to refund every taxpayer $1,000 â€“ a bid for your vote. So, now we are all deciding the future direction of our nation by auction? Obamian kool-aid drinkers would not dare say this is an attempted bribe. Buying votes is illegal! This from lawyersâ€¦who look into the camera with a straight face and tell us Obama is qualified to be president. A lawyer answer, because he meets the conditions described by the Constitution, Article II, Section 1. A normal citizen question would be, â€œWhat qualifies him, accomplishments, record of service? Proven leadership qualities? What would he do as president?â€ to which would normally be replied, â€œnoâ€, â€œnoâ€, and â€œcause problems because of the answers to the first two questionsâ€. The press and Obamaâ€™s campaign minions have deemed it necessary to cover these embarrassing shortcomings by ignoring them where possible, misdirecting, and lying to cover the rest.
The conclusion that Obama would make a suitable president is just fundamentally not supported by the facts we know. The facts we know suggest he would introduce radical changes unrecognizable to Americans who care about traditional values. The only radical change we need is complete overhaul of Congress.
So much snake oil, and so little time. In South Carolina, we will go with McCain; no need to influence anyone here. Senator McCain has his faults, but really, itâ€™s a no-brainer between the proven hero and the community organizer, who is trying to become the national disorganizer. All of you out there in swing states need to convey this message to voters. Send them this story. Iâ€™ll take the e-mails and the heat. I would be proud to do that for my country, and it needs doing.
Eddie Clements, American for capitalism and proud of it.