“Compromise has become a dirty word,” Obama lamented as congressional leaders groped for a way out of a looming crisis.”  [Per Associated Press, by David Espo]

Indeed.  It seems the more ironic (if not jaw-droppingly obtuse) the statement this President makes, the more often he accidentally says something true.  It does not rival the almost transcendental nature of “Don’t call my bluff,” which is logically a literally indefensible statement — “I have four aces” could at least itself be a bluff — but Obama and the Democrats’ stance on Compromise warrants close scrutiny, as it is completely self-serving.

“Compromise” is a concept whose true meaning has been slowly whittled away by those who would abuse and take advantage of a bastardization, to where circumstances of the argument in question are deemed irrelevant, and the act itself — Compromise, qua — is rendered as what Good and thoughtful people always do in times of disagreement.  As though the fallback position for any conflict — no matter how toxic the potential result of one side’s intentions — is for both parties involved to take part and share the blame, as opposed to one side either at best precluding the damage entirely, or at least washing their hands of the matter in a public fashion. It is not hard to see how such an arrangement almost absurdly benefits one side, and can only damage the other.

It is the nature of the conflict in question which must be examined, to determine if Compromise is a rational or reasonable choice, or even a possibility. You do not compromise with a murderer, and you do not compromise with a rapist.  Aggression on the part of someone in a position of power can at most be mitigated, but it is never embraced. Even surrender is an act designed to put an end to aggression.  Concessions made at the point of a gun are not compromises, they are what is stolen in an act of theft.  If one elects to give a mugger one’s wallet while a knife is in one’s face, a court would never dream of ruling the wallet was given to the mugger and is now his property.

Likewise, a Compromise cannot be made concerning the amount of poison one swallows.  A negotiation of sorts could conceivably take place, and concessions might even be made on the part of the poisoner, but the person being poisoned cannot be said to making a Compromise by hurting themselves less. It’s as Orwellian an example of language manipulation as can be found, at least until the same process is applied to the concept of “Sacrifice,” and confiscation becomes an ostensible act of generosity. True Compromises offer a road to a better place, just not on the ideal path one would take for whatever reason,  if given the opportunity. Roads which lead somewhere worse, cannot be said to originate from a true, viable Compromise.  (The attempt, perhaps — but this only acknowledges the obvious, as any attempt can fail.)

Whenever the thirty-year cycle elapses and Democrats achieve true power, within the year or so it lasts before they are hoist on the petard of their own policies and forced by the voters to temper their damage, they never dream of compromising with Republicans about anything for any reason.  It is only when Republicans regain some measure of authority and leverage that such calls begin, that “bipartisan” again achieves a nobel luster, and the more naive Republicans begin falling over one another in an attempt to hold hands with those who would do them damage.  A true Compromise can only take place between parties with the best interests of a subject in question not just in mind, but provably in play when put to practice.  If one party is bent on destruction, either knowing or unknowingly, a true Compromise on the part of the second party is an impossibility, no matter what the first party would like to pretend is actually taking place. Only concessions are possible under such circumstances.  More importantly, it is far from the best interests of the second party to pretend anything more than what is truly taking place is transpiring. Neville Chamberlain’s place in history is testament to this.  If the stated goals and intentions of one party are provably damaging, and this damage is easily predictable and supportable through past shared experience, any attempt at Compromise is inevitably a concession to the already disproven, and only damage to anyone involved to any degree can result.  The only way to mitigate damage under such circumstances is to do whatever is necessary to point out the obvious to all potentially affected, while keeping a safe distance from the resulting, inevitable splash of mud.

From now until next November, unless there are serious inroads are made by the Democrats back towards the direction of rational and responsible behavior, let President Obama stand correct and let Compromise be considered an obscenity.  He’s due.  It is the only responsible stance for Conservatives to take. We cannot cut deals with those who would do us damage, because those deals can themselves only prove damaging.  If the damage is inevitable, let the perpetrator stand alone and wallow in responsibility.  A sharing of blame, even in hope and name of mitigating damage, is an act of false and empty nobility, and will only give our complicit Media all the more to latch onto and distract voters’ eyes from where responsibility truly rests.  It is ultimately pointless.  If we are to be forced to swallow poison, a stronger, non-lethal dose may well prove the wisest course, because it will leave the poisoner to stand alone when the sickness wears off and blame is ascribed.  The body will be potentially stronger and healthier if there are no doubts as to what to avoid in the future, and if we’re lucky some degree of immunity may well result — at least for 30 years or so.

I’ve lived in Texas my entire life, currently in what could be considered a Liberal enclave in Houston.  I pay attention to politics, follow the news and keep myself abreast of current events.  So when I read of the “rumors swirling” regarding Rick Perry, I was interested if only because they had evidently managed to elude my notice for many years.

This morning offered my first explanation of exactly what these rumors might consist, in a surprisingly even-handed “Politico” article by Maggie Haberman.  It drifts off a bit at the end with an obligatory acknowledgement of Obama’s birth certificate issues (syntax is indicative it might involve a mess of pottage), but the gist is that the rumors in question are that Rick Perry is gay, and/or that there was trouble in his marriage.

Objectively, this feels on its face like a Conservative hit-job as opposed to a Liberal smear, one more appropriate to a Primary than a General Election.  At this point, the spectacle of a Liberal yelling “homo” at someone they don’t like has moved beyond irony and well into the absurd, for more than one reason.  There simply are fewer and fewer people interested enough on the Conservative side to take such clearly poisoned bait, and Obama has proven such a profound disaster that few can afford to care.  And, further reading indicates this rumor apparently first came to any sort of real light when Perry was challenged by fellow Republican (in theory) Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Austin rumors are not Texas rumors, any more than Austin reflects Texas.  Austin is proudly and defiantly “weird,” but that cute bumpersticker credo drifted off decades ago into the very Progressive denial of Reality which allowed a Chicago Community Organizer to be elected to the Presidency.  This entire potential scandal appears to be based upon an internecine attempt at character assassination which missed its target, which is now being resurrected for potential use by people who frankly are not appropriate to the caliber of the weapon in question.  And there is an odd sense that they know it.  This feels like one they will anonymously throw against the wall from a safe distance, hope whatever sticks does as much damage as possible, while recognizing the potential for blowback.

“I’ll take Chicago bathhouses for a thousand, Alex.”

If you ever want to see the Progressive thought process reach the wall that divides us, there is a simple formula.  Posit that a man is worth fifty million dollars, or any amount large enough to gain attention.  Then ask what that man’s income tax burden necessarily is.  A Progressive/Liberal/Democrat will claim it depends upon tax rates and any other number of factors, thus the question cannot be answered.  This of course is not the case.

Because that man’s income tax rate is zero.  We do not tax for simply possessing money; we tax for using money to create profit.  (The fact that this to whatever degree discourages and even demonizes profit is a good argument for another day.)  The Progressive thought process reaches its end before approaching the reality of where taxable income originates.  The man in question would have to not just invest his money, but invest his money successfully: he would need discover a viable, noteworthy venture, and one within an environment where conditions were conducive to earning.  But if nothing is earned, there is nothing to tax. This is why Government revenues eventually fall under conditions of higher taxation, because higher taxation discourages the very profit which is used to fund the taxation.  It is a self-defeating proposition, and one that if clearly and succinctly broached in a public forum by any intelligent individual, might well end the careers of any number of palpable frauds, as they would be forced to defend an indefensible position: the loaves and fishes school of economics.

Jimmy Carter, who until recently has been generally acknowledged as the worst President of the modern era, at least recognized that money had to be generated before there could be anything to tax.  He thus allowed interest rates to skyrocket, and taxed the profits generated at absurd rates.  But people immediately realized what was taking place, and Ayn Rand’s “Galt’s Gulch” metaphor quickly became a reality.  If people who earn and create money are not allowed to keep a reasonable portion of what is their own, they will simply cease to earn or create it until conditions return to where they can.  Carter and those around him stopped thinking before that inevitable conclusion was reached, and essentially assumed that people would go on working for the Government as opposed to themselves, possibly out of some some twisted, borderline aristocratic notion of patriotism.  One where the Government is the King, and the King embodies the nation.

But Barrack Obama has managed to lower the bar set by Carter, a thought most people would have found incomprehensible just a few years ago.  For the first time in American history, the Government has done all it can to discourage any sort of profit on the part of any segment of society.  Our economy has come to  a near-dead stop, because the Democratic Congress and our Democratic President have combined to create an environment where there is no incentive for anyone to do anything, short of survival.  The Left’s historic disdain for the Middle Class is in full effect, as no segment of our society has been hit harder than the small business owner.  The Elitists have their foot on the throat of the bourgeois like never before in American history, and show no signs of offering mercy. They can’t even get Corruption right, as the companies involved with the Cap and Trade scam are quickly realizing the incompetence of our current leaders, and are beginning to distance themselves.  The line between Conservatives and Progressives has never been clearer, or disparate priorities more clearly on display.  Progressives believe Government is the answer to every problem.   They will never understand where the funding for their empty dream actually originates, because to understand the simplest realities of taxation is to negate the possibility of Government achieving the size and puissance they so obviously and ardently desire.  The thing would eventually essentially consume itself, were they allowed to have their way for enough time.

These years and this Administration will only underscore what should have long ago been evident. Socialism is a failed, unsustainable economic experiment that has done more damage in its various incarnations (Communism and Fascism being its other faces) than any other idea of the last 1000 years.  The millions who were murdered under Mao, Stalin and Hitler were killed in pursuit of a variant of the same empty possibility our current Government is desperately seeking to force upon us all.  The unsupportable historical untruth that the Nazis had anything whatsoever to do with the Right as opposed to the Left is easily dismantled with even a cursory scan of Hitler’s economic policies: whose do they more closely resemble?  Ronald Reagan’s, or Barrack Obama’s?   And let it be noted for all time that the most incompetent, ineffectual and unaccomplished Administration in American history –– an Administration incapable of simply passing a Budget –– was also the one that most tried to distance our nation from the simple realities of Free Market Capitalism.  Capitalism is no more a theory than Gravity is a theory.  It is rather an acknowledgement of mathematical realities as applied to human nature.  And in two months, we seem poised to take a giant stride back to ground we never should have abandoned.  Progress, by definition, should be a step forward, not just towards something new, but towards the achievement of something better.  And if this fact is ignored, the only rational choice is to return to the state of affairs where things were better.  Thus a move “backwards” can be better, and in no way necessarily “reactionary”. Because where “Progress” implies improvement, what is “Reactionary” implies decline. Thus “Progressivism” is shown in fact to embody the opposite of its own appellation, an attempt to reinvent a failed ideology of the past.

They see themselves as visionaries, never realizing they look backwards, and toward a wasteland.

There is talk that Obama and the Democrats may be considering an “October surprise,” concerning the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.  This raises a few issues, to put it gently.

First, these are the Bush tax cuts.  They have been described as such for too many years for the appellation to be easily changed, and whenever a Democrat used the term it was always with “Bush” used as a pejorative, dripping with contempt.  We were told these tax cuts — as with any — only benefit “the wealthy,” and that it was high time “the wealthy” pay their “fair share.”  Ignoring for the purposes of this essay the reality of who actually pays taxes in this country, as well as the Democrats’ laughable definition of “fair share,” how will Obama explain why now — with unemployment at least twice what it was under Bush and the deficit at a historic, unsustainable level, why now is the time to reverse everything he has ever claimed to believe, and even appear to consider the possibility that taking money out of a damaged economy might not be the course best designed to lend it strength?  It would be like a doctor who has prescribed leeches for years suddenly realizing transfusions might prove some efficacy.  They have effectively painted themselves into an ideological corner.

That said, I doubt the matter will rise any higher on the radar, much less ever come to fruition, for two main reasons.  First, there is all of the above, from any number of different angles.  Obama would have to essentially embrace an idea promulgated by his personal straw man.  A man to whom he has looked and still looks to pass blame for anything and everything his supposedly nimble brain cannot concoct a way to squirm from beneath.  But most of all, there is the simple, horrifying fact of who these people really are. The Obama Administration and this Congress have done more raw, fundamental damage to this country than any other elected officials in the nation’s history, because they on some level thought it best.  Allowing tax rates to remain the same when they could be higher is contrary to everything a Liberal/Progressive politician believes.  The Conservative equivalent would be akin to coming out in favor of nationalizing the oil industry — lowering taxes stands in direct, root-level opposition to every core belief  a Liberal/Progressive holds.  (I would say “principles,” but principles are based upon established fact, and not what would be nice if only the mean people would get out of the way.)

The matter may well not be broached on any serious level, because it can only raise the fundamental political question of our time, and it is not one for which the Democrats can have hope for benefit.  We are forced to ask if this group of elected politicians are stunningly ignorant of the fundamentals of economics — as simple as removing money from an economy being to its detriment — or are they in fact doing as much damage as they can, with full malice aforethought?  The reality, as is usually the case in a complex system, is likely a mixture of both.  Those truly in power, have malevolent intent.  Those at lower levels attached to their strings and dancing to their tune, have been taught something quite akin to Faith, supplemented by something no different from Hate.  They will in combination quietly do as much damage as they can between now and November, then with nothing more to lose, run amok between November and January. We can only hope the electorate is paying close attention, and remembers their true face once it is revealed.

Given this latest and greatest gaffe regarding the WTC Murder Mosque, and with disaster consistent with every plan, Bill, idea and effort to which Obama’s name can be affixed, added to the fact that it is now only too evident things will get worse, not better:

Has anyone considered the eventual Obama Presidential Library?

What will comprise the thing?  A Saudi-donated Koran, a copy of “Rules for Radicals” and an 8×10 glossy of Professors Cloward and Piven?  We are currently enduring the first Disastrous American Presidency, wherein absolutely no definable group stands to see any sort of legitimate profit or good whatsoever.  For the purposes of this argument, a handful of corrupt bankers, GE executives and/or Al Gore do not count, as True Profit feeds the system.  With Carter, awful as those years were, the ludicrously high interest rates at least allowed for the generation of some profits, subsequently taxed at an absurd rate. (A sort of Serfdom for the Rich being Jimmy’s economic vision.)  With Obama, there is no gas in the engine, and he and his mal-educated cadre of Ivy League educated fools have done all possible to spend the wheels off the car.  As things stand, without unprecedented cuts in Governmental spending — cuts which are completely necessary but which will only inflate our magically frozen sub-10% unemployment rate —  this economy is literally stagnant.  And there is no doubt whatsoever that once Obama is removed from power, just as the equally fanciful “Clinton surplus” vanished under the light of day, the true level of unemployment under Obama will as well suddenly be all-too evident the instant it is so allowed.  This era may well eventually be recognized as the Unacknowledged Great Depression.

There is currently no reason nor impetus for the economy to begin again moving forward, and unless a wholly complicit Congress somehow has economic scales fall from its eyes between now and January, the reimposition of Clinton-era tax rates may well do more damage than anyone has yet truly considered.  The patient only has so much blood, after all.  But conversely, the wonder of Progressive thought is its utter lack of acknowledgement of the notion of cause and effect.  If no one is making any money, there is nothing to tax.  Progressives behave as though just having money is sufficient cause for taxation, as opposed to the money actually needing to somehow replicate before it is taxable.  The possibility might exist that the rise in rates would be commensurate to the fall in earnings, and the Government will have managed to slit its own throat, as opposed to that of those it ostensibly exists to serve.

But, given these potential economic holocausts so high on the horizon, and the history of consistent, without-exception failure on every turn, we have to wonder if the Barrack Obama Presidential Library will even be allowed to be built on American soil.  Who would have the thing?  It will stand only as a monument to the ultimate failure of an entire school of thought, one long-since disproven.  We can only hope it would serve as Progressivism’s tombstone.

How else could a low-level Chicago pol of no provable accomplishment beyond his ostensible schooling, with a background that could not only not survive an FBI background check, but of an upbringing so teeming with questionable individuals and travels it would actually initiate such a check of its own accord, how else could such a man find himself where he does today?

For the foreseeable future (read November), each and every time Americans take a small step forward and accomplish something towards undoing the damage currently being committed and contemplated, there will be cries of Racism.

The charge will not necessarily make an ounce of sense, fit the context of the moment in any way, and may even be brought against people of the race supposedly being attacked.  (Loss of any sense of absurdity is part of the price of living without bedrock principles, and instead being satisfied with merely having a supposed goal in sight.)  The charge quite possibly may prove in the end an outright lie, but the proof will never be acknowledged in a meaningful manner.  Near the end of Bush the Second’s second term, I clearly remember asking myself what might happen if politicians and the Press both simultaneously realized there was nothing standing between them and the total abandonment of any pretense of reporting facts or upholding any standards of veracity.  What if they simply decided to say whatever would get their even-then shared goals accomplished, counting upon one another to react however necessary to keep the ball rolling?

If that is not now where we find ourselves, the differences elude me.  There are of course a priceless handful who can be counted upon to scream the obvious from the rooftops, but to most they are lost in the overall din of a thousand louder, endlessly aggressive voices of a shared agenda.  (In many cases, these voices can be breathtakingly uninformed and even genuinely stupid, for it is only a matter of a predetermined message being delivered.  It does not require a developed brain to sneer, hence the comedians, drama critics and even ex-sportcasters currently carrying water for the Left.)  Racism is just the current sidearm of choice, a sort of utilitarian Progressive panacea against being asked to think or defend one’s ideas, but the populace grows more and more resistant to its effect each time it is misused, and trumpeted proudly by the Press. We live in an age where finding reason for offense is considered an achievement. Those using Racism as a tool, despite an affected professional concern for the poor and downtrodden, really could not care less about any damage done.  It is, like everything they do, a means to an end, towards an ill-defined but undoubtedly glorious Greater Good that all truly educated, kind and right-thinking people can instinctively recognize as The Right Thing To Do. And should it fail in the end, it would be the most noble of failures, brought about by lesser minds clinging to outdated notions.

But of course, where any structure — be it physical or metaphysical — is based upon anything less than a solid base, the more that is in turn based upon it, the greater the damage when the inevitable collapse finally comes.  For example, the Marxist atavisms currently being woven into our lives are based at their core on the assumption that it is impossible for a man to achieve anything beyond his supposed station in the world.  That he is born into a box, and that there is only so far he can be allowed to move, without risking the destruction of society as a whole.  Within the realities and confines of other older, class-oriented societies, Marx noted a definite point of fact.  But the United States of America stands as a monument to and proof of the superfluity of Marx’s notion, should a man only be allowed the same degree of Freedom and Opportunity as his fellow citizens, and be allowed to go as far as his mind will take him.  Will everyone succeed to the same degree as everyone else?  Of course not, on one hand for the same reason everyone is not the same height, and for a thousand reasons involving personal choice and Free Will on the other.  But with a Lie at one’s philosophical base, it is Hate which almost inevitably seems to erupt when confronted by Reality, because it exposes the Believer as a fool of the highest order, as what one believes defines whom one is, and informs actions.  They use the word “Should” as though there is some inevitability in mere Possibility. Just because something “should” be true does not necessarily mean it can be so.  As a result, they have no argument, other than emotion-based appeals to Feelings, and devalue almost everything they touch, as a matter of course.   The station in the world of this country still stands in utter, complete contradiction to the higher educations of an enormous percentage of those currently occupying positions of authority in our Government.  Their confusion stands on open display every day, and drives their seemingly instinctive need to “level the playing field,” so their preconceived notions might be forced to conform with Reality. If America stands as exceptional, they do not, at their core, make sense, and it must be maddening.  What we are living through is a death rattle, the last spasm of a disproven ideology and unbalanced set of priorities.  They should have gone the way of Monarchy decades ago, but they have a valuable trump card, one that our Society cannot seem to see its way past: their way sounds nice, compared to the relatively harsh realities of expecting people to tend to their own interests. Where Evil last century came in tanks and battalions, it now comes to “help,” but with precisely the same goals. They have taken an empty, undefined sense of “Wouldn’t it be nice if. . .” and are currently using it as leverage against the Constitution of the United States.

It is a Birnam Wood sort of Marxism we confront today, one which has been unsuccessfully contorted to fit into a system antithetical to its intentions, and most simply and tellingly, one where it is not in any way necessary.  Call it Progressivism, Statism, “Third Way,” or even the horrible usurpation and total misnomer “Liberalism” — by whatever name it can serve no purpose here, and do no good whatsoever for anyone whomsoever. And this is the final horror which confronts those few wise enough on the Left to recognize and acknowledge what is actually going on: since at earliest 1776, and certainly since the Industrial Revolution, the ideas of Marx and his predecessors have been utterly and completely disproven, and as such are no longer in any way necessary.  They are now in a literally existential fight, fighting with every weapon at their disposal, with any notion of Honor or Integrity long-since abandoned in the name of the pursuit of the undefined Greater Good.  Utility is everything; Morality and Ethics malleable, not in any way concrete, but adjustable to fit the needs of the day or even hour.  Thus pretending someone said something mean about still someone else’s ethnic background is just another tool.  Before this most Interesting Time sputters to its inevitable conclusion, such lies will be all they have left, as an entire sociopolitical movement will stand utterly disproven in every way, for all to see.  What can one say about a philosophy whose end began the instant it finally achieved power?