Obama’s Poison Pill for Putin and other Quick Takes

Shawn Mitchell

3/10/2014 12:01:00 AM

 

If Obama really wants to get nasty with Putin, he'll sign him up for Obamacare.

So disgusted by a media that tried to persuade America Reagan's booming economy was hell on earth, while they cover Obama's disaster as the way things should be.

There will be an accounting. The old networks will crash. They deserve worse.

The glory of a vibrant, growing, free economy isn't that we'll all start companies and get rich --though the opportunity to try is more abundant. No, it's that in such an economy, there are more jobs, choices, and opportunities for everyone to live the life they want. Something the president doesn't understand is employees need prospering employers in order to attain their own prosperity.

Here's what concerns me. A man whose policies have proved so disastrous, whose direction is rejected by 60% of Americans, shows no sign of slowing down. Zero.

He intends to ram forward by pen and phone and executive order the direction he wants to go. And siccing his exec branch thugs on troublesome dissidents.

Hey, fastidious liberals, since Harry Reid on the Senate floor called successful businessmen who contribute to free market causes "unAmerican," when, exactly, does it become acceptable for us to state the obvious and call the president "unAmerican"?

Liberals and sponsored scientists try to explain 17 year halt in global warming:
"The ocean stole the heat!"
"Volcanoes are blocking the heat!
"The Koch Brothers have an Ice Death Ray Machine that's going to freeze the earth!"

Pretty tired of Libertarians and libertarian leaners who cite Reagan’s deficits and military buildup as reason to deny he was a champion for liberty.

Guess what, you anachronistic idealists: First: he had to contend with an existential foe in the Soviet Union, a war he won without firing a shot. Second: He’s the first president since Coolidge to argue against the ongoing permanent expansion of the federal government. He energized a generation of Americans who had never heard a president talk about limiting government. He was reviled by the media for his zeal to reduce federal control of our lives.

Any libertarian who says: “Reagan, overspending warmonger” is a naïve babe in the political woods. He was revolutionarily subversive and has had no worthy successor.

A professed socialist just told me she’s a believer in liberty. I didn’t have the immediate wit to respond thusly, though, Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Reagan would have had it at tongue tip.

You can’t control the allocation of wealth—that is, the economy--without controlling the choices of producers and consumers.

You can’t control the choices of producers and consumers without controlling the daily choices—the hopes and plans—of, well, everyone.

There is no such thing as a free socialist.

I'm giving up Lent for Facebook.

If you doubt the nation and its government are vulnerable to frenzies akin to the Salem Witch Hunts, ponder that once upon a 70s time, the US Congress passed a 55 mph national speed limit.

Now they're mucking with our lightbulbs and toilet tanks, because, you know, market price signals don't work. Politicians and corporate lobbyists know much better than supply and demand.

Mr. President, the 80s called. They're worried. They want to teleport us a president with foreign policy skill and judgment.

How can anyone oppose repeal of a program when its own author has to dismantle it piece by piece every time a new plank is about to go into effect, or whenever an election is approaching? This is the program that will save America, except it can't be exposed to actual operating conditions or to the accountability of elections.

You can't make this stuff up; it's too banana republic for America. At least it used to be.

This is worse than the 70s. But here's the thing. Reagan didn't script and manage the booming recovery. He invited American aspiration to go to work.

Is there a candidate out there who can persuade Americans to throw off government's reassuring shackles and just do their thing?

We really can't expect the president to keep his campaign promises; after all, he's been so busy fulfilling his opponents' campaign warnings.

Bless his heart. The News Hour's Mark Shields is shocked Putin pivots from the good will of the Games to oppressing Ukrainians.

Hey, Jackwagon, you were probably among the herd that savaged both Romney and Palin for predicting exactly this. But being liberal means never having to say you're sorry. Instead, like Claude Raines, you can be "shocked! shocked!!"

I like punchy sentence fragments. I reject their condemnation. With resolve and determination.

Putin wants Ukraine back. What could deter him? In Obama's conduct in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran, Putin sees the heft and resolve of the counterweight he might be up against.

Politics isn't the be all end all. Good government doesn't provide happiness. It protects your rights while you pursue your own happiness. So, healthy people keep politics in perspective, and in the appropriate, limited sphere of their persona.

Here's the problem. Leftists believe politics can deliver happiness. It can lower seas, save the earth and its species, protect the land from our blighted touch, make us skinnier, make us nicer, make us more equal one to another. It can save us.

They want politics to touch and control everything. They do make it the be all end all. Lots of them do devote their life to it. Doggedly. Humorlessly. Relentlessly. They are coming for us and our freedom to be wrong by their lights.

How do you keep politics in the space it belongs and still oppose totalitarians such as this?