Tag Archives: Cult of Personality


That’s a frequent position of so many, if not all, liberals.

They are constantly outraged about something and just can’t let it go. No matter nor event is too small to be above (below?) outrage.

The latest is the Trump video with Billy Bush, wherein Trump sounds like a frat boy. Of course liberals are “outraged.” As are more than a few Republicans.

That Trump spoke as he did shouldn’t surprise many. He’s known as a crude braggard. The surprising thing to me is that more of these haven’t appeared. They should, I think, be about as remarkable as Bob Costas talking about sports or King Barry talking about himself.

And, let’s be honest, has no one spoken this way about the opposite sex amongst “friends”? Seriously. I’m pretty sure even Hillary Clinton, at least when she was younger, might have a few times lasciviously spoken of some desirable amongst her fellow liberal feminists and journalist pals.

Heather Mac Donald, in the always readable City Journal, hits this topic perfectly in “Trumped-Up Outrage.”

She notes the left’s supernova of hypocrisy. The left has been the encourager for decades of the “Let it all hang out and don’t be judgmental about it” mode of behavior. Isn’t it the left that tells us the unbridled id is the source of truth? Isn’t it the left that killed sexual “morality” and “old-fashioned” social values? Didn’t they dance on the grave of “Victorian Values” and “Eisenhowerian/1950’s” square America? Isn’t “Getting Your Groove On” and “Hooking Up” the desired goal of all interaction according to the left?

Mac Donald is particularly harsh on the left’s schizo approach to campus life wherein women are encouraged to act like rabbits in heat on the one hand, yet we are to be aware of the “Campus Rape Epidemic” and also be utterly focused on the brittle shrinking violets on campus who need constant protection from language and behavior which they disagree with or don’t like and must have “safe spaces” where they can shelter from the harsh or mildly uncomfortable realities of life.

As we saw during the Clinton years, such behavior can be quickly excused and buried. All one needs are flexible morals, a single-minded focus on power and a compliant puppet media.

I ask you this, if Donald Trump were the nominee of the the Democratic Party and, say, Mitt Romney the Republican Party, would this video have ever surfaced?

Now to look at the Republicans running for the tall grass. Many of them are the usual RINO suspects and more than a few had not even endorsed Trump – yet suddenly the media treats them as respectable party grandees. That was to be expected. The worrisome thing for me is the more pragmatic conservatives who suggest that Trump should resign or step aside.

I don’t know what they could be thinking. Perhaps they have become delusional in the way that people facing some horrible decision become delusional or focus on side issues.

Trump is not leaving nor is some white knight coming to our rescue. The simple reality is that it’s either Trump or Clinton. Ronald Reagan is not coming from the grave to save the day.

I say it again, it’s either Trump or Clinton. It’s either an imperfect vessel or a black hole of evil from which no goodness of light can emanate. Take your pick.

Trump might not be a very good though constantly disappointing president. We don’t know.

What we do know is that Clinton will be at permanent war with conservatives and the Constitution. She will stop at nothing to destroy her enemies, expand the size of regulatory state, put the populace into the service of the Democratic Party and under the boot of the central government.

All the while fattening her wallet and those of her cronies.

Her little dog, Grinch Kaine, is less personally corrupt but even more committed to building the socialist state.

If Trump loses, we’ll almost certainly have eight years of Clinton (unless she dies) and then we’ll be fighting the same battle in 2024. There likely won’t be some kind of return to sanity in 2020, as many seem to imagine, because by that time a whole generation of “yutes” will have grown up knowing nothing but Mother Government and the liberal-controlled culture, while their Obama-loving/Clinton-excusing procreators will have never educated them as to the real birds and bees. The only thing they will know is that the past was bad and filled with racists, sexists, greedy robber barons and other oppressors and exploiters who ruined everything and they knew nothing of any use to the sophisticated modern person. The past should be ignored.

These man-children will have no concept of personal responsibility, independence and self-sufficiency. To them everything will come via the government or be overseen by elite school-educated enlightened (and highly-compensated) technocrats and all social interaction will be overseen by the same as well while a great purge of those uttering “unacceptable” speech is embarked upon.

Businesses of any size will act as government surrogates, if they want to survive and provide “employment” for legions of “right-thinking” party supporters. They will also be holding pens for bureaucrats and the well-connected who will be richly compensated for their good service. People with unacceptable views or those engaging in “hate” speech will be fired of pushed out through social and managerial pressure. Firms retaining “unacceptable” people will find themselves ineligible for government contracts or government-regulated business, under regulatory investigation (including from newly-minted cultural commissars), the victim of social campaigns from NGOs empowered and financed by the government and agitation from within by right-minded, culturally progressive “employees.”

The U.S. will resemble an enormous public school, with the president being the principal, politicians and bureaucrats being the teachers and staff while the rest of us are consigned to learn how to be proper, politically correct people. All the great angsts of growing up will manifest themselves as society-wide problems that can never be solved, yet will consume so much human energy. The touching but firm guiding hand of elementary school through the social awkwardness of junior high to the hormonal frustration and constant feeling of inadequacy will be the life, while one is incapable of being relieved because one will never graduate to adulthood. You will be a child and always will be…

Now let Mother Government tuck you in and keep you safe from those haters who want to oppress you. Don’t forget to pay your taxes and do everything I say, my little genius. Maybe there’ll be a treat for you in the morning. Mommy knows best.

All “national” elections will then depend on who can seem the coolest, promise the most goodies and offer the greatest protection of the personal smartphone-controlled cocoon. And we know which party is best at that.

Reality will have been banished until it can no longer be denied when it returns in some kind of quasi-Biblesque deluge.


Is Trump “Unqualified” to Be President?

That Donald Trump is “unqualified” to be president is the latest meme peddled by Democrats, their Republican allies and, of course, the Democratic parrots known as the mainstream media.

So is Donald Trump “unqualified” to be president?

Here’s the relevant language from a document called the United States Constitution. You might have heard of it.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Amendment XIV Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump meets all those criteria so he is qualified to be president.

I’m sure there are some very clever folks, many of them with Ivy League degrees, who will play the semantics game. “That’s ‘eligibility’ not ‘qualified,’” they’ll cluck.

These will be the same people who voted for a wet-behind-the-ears senator with a nonexistent record as a state legislator, an undistinguished career as a part-time contract lecturer at a university, a checkered past as a “community organizer” and an even sketchier academic career. His only success looked to have been to write an autobiography before he had done anything. He was also good at guilting white liberals with his black skin.

These people are also backing a woman who should be on trial; should be disbarred; who has a past of numerous legal violations; has aided and abetted numerous other crimes of accomplices; had a disastrous period as Secretary of State; had an undistinguished career as a senator; lies with a rare abandon; has lived off the taxpayer much of her life; and enabled her husband’s numerous crimes and misdemeanors as president.

On the other hand, Trump can point to successfully building things, employing people and working with large corporations and local governments. One can also point to failing on some of his projects as well.

The semantictarians are using the rubric that Trump is not “temperamentally” suited to be president.

Again these are the same people who voted for a two-faced narcissist who kept much of his past hidden (with the able aid of the American news media’s willingness to turn a blind eye).

There is no cuddle factor requirement for the presidency. As for insulting various people and groups, Trump is not much more insulting than Obama. The difference is that Obama insults the right groups while Trump goes after politically and socially correct groups.

As for other elements of of disqualification, that he doesn’t know the name of some obscure foreign politician, well, Obama thought we had 57 states… Trump has also threatened to push around some nations while Obama cowers and apologizes. Bellicosity is not a disqualifier for the presidency. Until King Barry the Apologetic, many presidential candidates had made a strong foreign policy part of their campaign.

What I think is really the point is that Trump, for all his faults (and they are not insubstantial), is not part of the professional political coterie that populates the upper levels of both parties. To narrow this down further, it is a group of (often Ivy League-educated) lawyers and people who have done nothing in their life but live off of the taxpayer in a series of governmental and elected jobs. They have little to no experience in the private sector and what little they have is tied to the government in some way. They have done little to nothing in the way creating jobs, businesses or economic activity (they would vehemently disagree with that, thinking that government is the source of all). They have, in many ways, been parasites living off of the public all of their lives.

These are the so-called “political elites.”

Trump offers a stark contrast to these people. Say what you want, by and large, Trump has had to work with people to get his projects done. Unlike the professional politicians he has usually not been able to simply demand that something be done and it gets done through the power of the government hammer.

I actually like the idea of having someone outside of the cushy, comfortable political ecosphere occupy the White House for a little while. The elites need to be humbled and reminded of what they have and what they should be grateful for (rather than demand as an entitlement).

One last point. During the reign of King Barry the Malignant, people have, perhaps more than with any other president, absorbed the idea of the president as omnipowerful king. That’s one reason they are so edgy about a Trump presidency.

But a Trump presidency will not be the way they fear. He will be constrained, as a president should be. Perhaps he might even, in a case of opposite day, remind people of how limited and small the presidency can and should be.

Trump’s Presidential Dynasty

One thing that I hope could be a palliative for the Republican/conservative/independent anti-Trumpers is that Trump is not a movement man. He merely reflects a highly emotional movement.

By that, I mean that there is no person following Trump. There is no coherent “Trumpism” movement or “Trumpist” philosophy (whatever that might be). There are no junior Trumps that will be running down-ticket in 2016. Trump is the one and only Trumpist. There is no Octavian. When he’s defeated or serves his presidential term(s), there will be no Trump-like successor (that I can see).

Reagan headed a movement and while George H.W. Bush was not a Reaganaut, Reagan’s election was part of a tectonic shift in American politics. It isn’t as effective at the presidential level but it still percolates further down the ticket, with conservative Republicans picking up more and more offices at the state and local levels.

Trump is not like that.

On the other hand, a Hillary Clinton victory presages our further slide into socialist anarchy. Yes, once she moves on, she and her awfulness are gone but behind her are hoards of like-minded socialist Democrats looking to consolidate their power over America.

So anti-Trumpers, suck it up and vote for him knowing that once he’s moved on, there won’t be anyone else like him and we can get back to trying to elect movement-style conservatives or something similar. A ringing endorsement!

It’s All Vlad’s Fault

Our amazing president has done it once again.

Last week, on the anniversary of 9/11 he expounded on the crisis du jour, Syrian refugees. I guess it should be noted that he didn’t blame the United States for the crisis, nor the white power structure, though he did rope some white people into the fault so that only partially spared George W. Bush from his usual role as origin of all-things-wrong.

So what caused the Syrian crisis?

Russia did!

Most importantly Vladimir Putin did it.

Now I’m no Russia lover, especially of Vladimir Putin, he’s an old-fashioned strongman with delusions of grandeur — think of a Latin American caudillo writ large — but seriously? Russia?

According to an article in The Washington Times (warning: ad-heavy website), Obama said: “‘Russia has for many years now provided financial support, sold arms to Assad. I remember a conversation I had with Mr. Putin four or five years ago where I told him that was a mistake, that would makes things worse,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘He did not take my warnings, and as a consequence, things have gotten worse. It appears now that Assad is worried enough that he’s inviting Russian advisers and Russian equipment…We are going to be engaging Russia to let them know that you can’t continue to double down on a strategy that’s doomed to failure.’”

I seriously doubt President, Barack Obama (AKA Swami Obami, the Delphic Oracle of our time) told Vladimir Putin, to his face, that he, Putin, was on the wrong side of history, to use The One’s favorite phrase of self-justification and vindication. The simple fact that Putin’s alive today, not having died laughing or been shot by the Secret Service trying to give Obama a noogie, is proof of that. This is just another one of those self-serving stories that both Obamas traffic in (seem to actually live in) .

If there was any remotely viable causative effect one would have to say that Russia’s support has propped Bashar Assad up and kept him around this long, not caused ISIS — the chief Syrian underminer. Syria was a client state of the old Soviet Union, which provided weaponry and built-out a number of facilities — ranging from chemical weapons facilities and supplies to a Soviet naval base on the Mediterranean (Tartus) to standard planes, tanks and missiles. Russia inherited the relationship after the fall of communism and Putin has taken an interest in it. He certainly doesn’t want to see source of Russian income and of a fellow tyrant taken down. That sets a bad example, gives people the wrong ideas, you know.

Obama’s reasoning is exactly wrong. He couldn’t be any more wrong (well, maybe if he had blamed, say, Martian earthquakes, he might be slightly more wrong but on Planet Earth…). I suppose one could make a tautological argument that if Assad didn’t exist ISIS would have no one to overthrow and therefore would evaporate in a puff of logic but I suspect they’d probably be warring with whomever replaced Assad.

That leaves — Can he possibly believe such a pile of nonsense or was he in total BS mode as he just let that rip off-the-cuff?

I’m hoping it was just another bit of off-the-TelePrompTer impromptu speaking that Obama is famous for. He says something that pops into his head, that might serve a policy point he’s trying to make — say, arms sales = bad, and he comes up with a cock and bull story that he thinks sounds sophisticated, relying on the audience to be made up of his low information/high esteem supporters. It’s highly unlikely that anyone will publicly call him on it, certainly not on that moment. And then he’s off to a round of golf on Martha’s Vineyard. Mission accomplished.

Going back to the legendary “Reset” fiasco, the Obama administration has long tried to get the Russians to follow O’s lead. After all, he showed a willingness to suck-up to the Russians with a high-school level slam of the Bush administration (bad relations: All Bush’s fault). But after the Obama team agreed that Putie’s old girlfriend was a stupid slut, that really cute and rich boy (♥♥♥♥!) still didn’t ask us to the prom!

In fact, he started sleeping around with all of our friends (while we still did his laundry for him!) by invading and destabilizing neighbors, jamming up the Obama administration in international forums and just being a meany! Doesn’t he realize we’re smart and beautiful and talented and better than all those cheap tramps he hangs out with?????

If you want to know how Obama and liberals think and operate, think about the social dynamics of high school; if you want to know their policy thoughts, think kindergarten and elementary school.

Our “smartest-evuh!” president is shockingly ignorant, and not particularly bright (example, the error-filled silliness we are talking about now). He’s obviously gone through life with few people actually questioning him, much less simply explaining that he’s wrong about some issues. There’s also no indication that Obama is even concerned about facts but rather he focuses on narratives that “must” be true — like Putin is on the wrong side of history so if he’d just stop supporting Assad, Syria would reboot into the pleasant democracy it was before Putin supported Assad and created ISIS. Fore!

The scary part of this is — is this an example of Obama’s narcissistic tendency to think that whatever comes out of his mouth must be true simply because he said it? Did he knowingly throw out some absurd reasoning to fill some time at an event he didn’t want to be at or does he actually believe his Syria-is-Russia’s-fault story? Is his administration making policy on this concept?

There is the quasi-Nixonian possibility that O & Co. tossed that out because Obama is trying to get out from under the “ISIS is J.V.” analogy (another off the TelePrompTer remark) and taking any blame that yanking troops out of Iraq and grabbing his ankles on Iran had anything to do with the rise of ISIS nor his own vacillation concerning Syria. Laying the blame on Russia is classic Obama blame-shifting (ask George W. Bush about that). And don’t forget, Obama killed Osama! Al Qaeda and all other similar terrorist groups were supposed to roll over and wither away while pure, sweet, secular democracy was going to spring forth in the Middle East (as it had reigned in Muslim-dominated lands throughout history). Everyone in the late night dorm room BS session that is the Obama administration agreed that would happen and anyone who’s participated in a Mock U.N. or academic conference on the Middle East knows that should have happened.

But it didn’t and the ugly thought that serious military forces will need to be deployed to curtail ISIS is beginning to heckle Obama’s inner monologue. (Another other heckler is yelling ‘Bush, Cheney and the Taliban conservatives were right!’)

I’m hoping that’s it because the alternative, our president is delusional, is worrisome. Of course, using a 9/11 anniversary chat with the military to lay the groundwork for such a position is “bush league” but then that’s what Obama has always been.

He often treats the political arena, home of traditional give-and-take, as if its an inner-city basketball court and he’s the number one “trash-talker.” Except he believes his own BS.

Scott Johnson at Power Line has a good piece on this topic.

Magical Thinking

One of the key activities of the modern liberal is “magical thinking.”

One aspect of magical thinking is that by saying something, it will just happen.

A good example of this is the father of slain reporter Alison Parker. According to Broadcasting & Cable, Andy Parker  recently said that he wasn’t for taking guns away from people he just didn’t want “crazy” people to have guns.

Okay, Mr. Parker, I think you’ll find almost all Second Amendment supporters are already there, including the NRA.

But, and here’s the really “magical” part, how do you keep guns out of the hands of those who aren’t openly bat-poop deranged? Remember, liberals, it was one of your shock troop battalions, the ACLU, that sprang the less openly nutty from the mental hospitals. It was the ACLU that led the way into making it nearly impossible to get anyone committed or to attach the label of “crazy” to them. They still do that.

So exactly how do you keep a gun out of the hands of someone like mad dog killer Vester Flanagan? Yes, he was a crank; an angry man; a homosexual; but had he yet demonstrated an ACLU-approved level of insanity? I think the ACLU would have fought an effort to commit Vester Flanagan to a mental hospital; to infringe his rights due to mental incapacity. Don’t you?

Imagine an effort to commit a gay, black, former journalist and supporter of Obama? How much of a firestorm would that create?

In the eyes of the liberal Flanagan was golden — he had all the proper minority boxes checked. He was never going to be denied a gun. He could have shown up at a gun shop wearing a suit made of catfish heads and singing the Sanskrit version of Wagner and no one would have dared deny him because the media-generated public backlash if they did and he complained.

King Barry is also a master of this mode of thinking on issue after issue. He’s often trotted out this same “common sense” gun law that would magically keep guns out of the hands of wackos, if only those obstructionist Republicans, under the thumb of the NRA don’tcha know, would pass that “law.”

So how does that law work, your highness?

King Barry has yet to be asked that question by the media. Interestingly, Mr. Parker pleaded with journalists that since his daughter was one of them, they should lead the way in promoting the magic law which would keep guns out of the hands of the not-yet-obviously-crazy.

Maybe Mr. Parker and King Barry are thinking about the device in the movie “Minority Report,” that sees the future or predicts violent crimes. Maybe they think it’s real. You know, one sign of insanity is thinking that movies are real.

Somebody’s Not Telling the Truth

I return again to our lying president and his “deal” with Iran.

Clearly, somebody’s not telling the truth. It’s being reported in a number of places that, at several locations, notably Parchin, Iran will in effect be investigating itself. That is, it will provide the samples and evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The commission’s inspectors will not be allowed access to military facilities but will accept Iranian-provided air and soil,etc., samples.

Is that a joke?

No, apparently it’s part of a number of “side deals” that have been made and are being made with Iran. These deals are “secret” so only a handful of people know what’s in them and they refuse to tell. Let me walk out on a limb here and offer that those “secret” deals are probably not too favorable for the free world.

Pray, tell, Mr. President, why are there secret deals on the side?

As news of these began to break out, the White House went into overdrive in attacking the messengers. How dare they question the deal of the century, made by the smartest occupant of the White House evuh!?

Terms like “robust” and “unprecedented” inspections are tossed out yet somehow those don’t square with what we’re learning. And they never squared with what was reported that the Iranians were telling their people. From their press, admittedly a biased source, the Iranians were taking a victory lap, proclaiming they had faced down the Great Satan and were going to get most everything they had wanted, including very limited inspections and none where the actual dirty work of bomb designing and building was taking place.

Are these inspections really “robust” and “unprecedented”? Are they, as Dear Leader keeps insisting, essentially “Anytime, anywhere?” Or are they a sham? Somebody is going to be right and someone is going to be wrong about this.

This isn’t a disagreement about the tonnage of annual fish catches or whether a border should be on one side of a river or another, this is dealing with a country that holds “Death to America” rallies and officially believes in a religion that rewards its members for killing those it shouts “Death to…” (I know, our illustrious prez knows more about Islam than the Iranians and they have it all wrong so there’s nothing to worry about…) (David French has a good take on Obama, foreign policy wonk, here.)

And with those assurances that all is well, here’s IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano on this apparent dilemma: “I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work. The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public — the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA member states. However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement, with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Gotta love that last bit: “will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.” You can’t get anymore antiseptic than that. The man said absolutely nothing in that clutch of bureaucratese gobbledy-goop beyond “We do what we do which is what we’ve been doing… Now stop bothering us with your petty concerns.”

Notice he didn’t say that the story about the Iranian self-inspections was untrue? He used the weaselly word “misrepresent.” He said he was “disturbed.” He could have said they were wrong: “Our inspectors will have access to the facilities and we’ll conduct the inspections,” but he didn’t. Instead he ultimately invoked secrecy: “… are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public.”

Is he serious? He wants us to “trust” him and a regime bent on our destruction that they’ll behave and be honest? Obama has the same approach.

And now we’re learning that the administration is sending letters out to nations such as China, Germany, France and the U.K. to the effect that the talk about those “snapback” sanctions that Obama recently talked about doesn’t really apply but is just some drivel for the rubes back home to consume. More on that here.

What are we to make of men such as these?

We’re All Just Renters Now

You might think you own…

But you don’t in the mind of liberals, Democrats, the Supreme Court or the federal government.

The original concept of the United States under the Founders was that it would be a group of states mostly populated by yeoman farmers along with small scale business owners and service providers plus a handful of religious communities living pretty much their own lifestyles. Each man would be his own master, like a little lord. Most, if not all, adult males would own their own property or aspire to. Property owners had the exclusive right to vote in some places. It was kind of a “having skin in the game” approach.

In that construct, the individual is powerful. The individual has primacy. Government serves the individual and is devolved to the state or county level while minimalized at the federal level and when individual and government come into conflict, the individual should win out. The approach is to err on the side of the individual. In fact, local government would be made up of those individuals, rather than a faction of professional bureaucrats and politicians. That was the theory, anyway.

That was the theory, I should say. Of course no battle plan survives its first encounter with the enemy — just ask the farmers of western Pennsylvania, c. 1791.

Individual power has been eroding for centuries. One might start with the Whiskey Rebellion. It certainly took a turn for the worst with the Civil War. It’s been noted that it was there that the United “States” became the “United States,” that the agglomeration became the unitary; the needs and desires of the federal government overrode the powers of the individual states.

After a few post-Civil War decades, with some starts and stops with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson restarted the centralizing machinery. Once Franklin Roosevelt was installed, the die was set.

We are no longer masters of our world. We are viewed as serving the government. We provide its room and board. We are subject to its interests. When the individual comes into conflict with the government, the government wins. The government has to win.

An irresistible government increases its power daily, hourly, all at the expense of individual liberty.

Land owners are no longer able to determine what they want to do with their land. Dozens of agencies (and third-party activists conducting lawfare) claw at the land owner, overseeing everything he does. Examining every detail: determining what can and can’t be built, grown, tended to, stored, modified, etc.; thwarting attempts to improve it, make it profitable. You don’t own your land. You might pay taxes on it but it is controlled by someone else. You can’t will it to someone without being relieved of a portion of it. In reality you’re really just a tenant. And you best behave or you could be forced to give up that land.

Businessmen find themselves filling out numerous forms at all levels of government; subject to diktats, licenses and inspections from all levels of government near and far concerning employees, finances, operation, practices, performance, materials, services and products. Erring even once can produce devastating, even fatal penalties though most of the encumbrances are niggling; rather of the parasite tick living off the host variety. But a hundred ticks can bring down even the strongest animal.

And government-empowered third-party activists find businesses to be a fruitful feeding ground.

This is not new. Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

It’s as true today as it was in 1776. Seemingly most everything in the Declaration of Independence is applicable in these times. Have we come full circle?

We are, in essence, now just fleeting passengers on the ship called United States. We occupy a room or two and when we pass away, someone else will occupy that space. We don’t own it, can’t will it to our children or chosen ones without the ship’s crew’s approval. Our ability to decorate it or make it ours is severely curtailed by the ship’s crew and even some of the louder, bossier, better organized passengers. We do not decide, they decide.

Or perhaps we occupy a location on a bench in the galley called United States. We galley slaves row our oar and as long as we row the government tolerates us and provides us with some food or “benefits.” Disrupt that routine and the eye of authority opens onto you. It does not blink and does not think twice about punishing you. You are its subject. Submit or be tossed overboard.

That we might own our own boat and go our own way, supporting ourselves and our family and friends without the big government ship or its crew is inconceivable to the galley master. “Why it would be chaos! Think of all those ships polluting the ocean, getting in the way, what would be the point? Think of all those galley slaves who don’t have a boat of their own — it just wouldn’t be fair. If not everyone can have a boat then no one can have a boat. And the boats must be equal, as well. No one can have a better boat, that wouldn’t be fair either.”

When King Barry famously said “You didn’t build that” he could have also said, “You don’t own that.” (For a little fun go to the Wiki page for ‘You didn’t build that’ and read all the sophistries trying to argue that Obama didn’t say what he, the greatest communicator evuh!, clearly said.)