Cowboy Confessional

Reality is a harsh dominatrix, as the President Elect is discovering. The question is will Obama become a bottom.

A pathetic pas de deux was done between Obama and the media most suspect man, George Stephanopoulos. It is worth recalling that George – a Disneyesque proto yuppie and suspected animatron – was a strategic member of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign and later Bubba’s press secretary. Now sinning on behalf of ABC News, Georgie makes for a curious participant in the media-politician complex having been a Democrat presidential political operative and now an alleged journalist interviewing … a Democrat president elect.

If the partisan conflict of interest escapes you, have your doctor increase the dosage on your Zoloft prescription.

George’s recent interview of Obama defies the very definition of “interview”, where according to Webster “a writer or reporter asks questions.” Take for example this passage where George (technically speaking) asks:

“At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?”

George unleashed not an inquiry but a policy statement with a question mark. He outlined a theme (a sloppy reincarnation of FDR’s new Deal), talking points, and cause/effect policy relationships. In short George aped what Obama would have said if not prompted.

Obama simply answered “Yes.” What more could he add?

Let’s ignore the Speaking Greek and focus on the stated goals and demands of both this interview and the unfolding Obama economic “plan”. In this passage Obama acquiesced to changing a wide swath of so-called “entitlement” programs (to which nobody will be entitled once the federal government goes bankrupt) forcing “sacrifice” on “everybody” for the “greater good”.

Somewhere Ronald Reagan just perked up, hearing a Democrat speak Republican policy points about reducing entitlement programs. The only question is if Ronnie can hear the rest of the interview over the loud harp playing or crackling fire.

The one thing Stephanopoulos sensed correctly is Obama’s FDR affliction, seeking a return to the good old days of neo fascism. Some men who are temporarily commissioned the helm of government suffer from severely swollen heads (in Bill Clinton’s case, it was his minor head that bulged based primarily on the oral testimony of young interns). Obama ordained that “Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.”

He hasn’t yet caught wind of the nascent opt-out movement.

After the current administration and congress absconded with $700 billion taxpayer dollars for corporate bailouts, and when nobody raised a constitutional challenge, a number of otherwise patriotic Americans had finally had enough. These folks had long accepted a certain amount of graft and illegalities from their electeds. But the staggering swiftness, lack of thought and thorough disregard for The People’s express written instructions to government caused some to start an opt-out movement – and silent effort to disengage themselves from government. These people are not hiding in the woods and living “off the grid”. They are simply finding every possible way to not pay taxes, disregard oppressive laws and remove government oversight from their lives.

In short, they are living free and they may be your next door neighbors. Jealous?

Their argument goes something like this: The Constitution is in effect a compact between The People and their slaves (the government). When the servants broke faith and violated the compact, then The People were no longer duty-bound — and perhaps not legally bound — to participate. It is like a divorce. When that husband called the Federal Government started spending the family budget on cheep prostitutes (AIG, Freddie Mac, etc.) the marriage was over. The unfaithful party was ordered out of the house and all that remains is dividing up the property.

The opt-out option is both an easy and difficult position to argue against. When the president proclaims that “everybody’s going to have to give,” he will also gladly imprison those who don’t. Since Obama is of the socialist caste – which is slightly below “untouchables” – participation is to him mandatory. Thus opt-out movement folks run the risk of offending The State.

Line on the left, one cross each.

Arguing in favor of opting-out is trickier but intellectually more satisfying. Freedom is the absence of control. The opt-out crowd is merely finding the shortest path to freedom. It is their birthright and perhaps even their duty. If there is any mass to their movement, they will succeed because the government cannot possibly find and prosecute them all. After government coffers are reduced, the ability of government to control the populace is also reduced, eventually to the point where all they can afford to do are the few tasks enumerated in the Constitution.

One of Robert Heinlein’s characters said “The only thing you can do to a free man is kill him.” I would not bet against Obama trying that.

Bookmark to: