Obama’s America: reward the oligarchs, punish the patriots

February 5, 2012

Not exactly what the Founders intended

“Oligarchy…is a form of social organization in which political power is primarily held by a wealthy elite, who comprise a small minority of the population, and who use this power primarily to serve their own class interests.”……….Wikepedia

Since the smack-down the left wing ruling class of the Democrat party took in 2010 (the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision and the November “shellacking” in the voting boot) it and its minions have been in pedal to the metal, full throttle mode trying to convince the American public that the Four Horsemen were mounted and ready and that the only thing preventing hell on earth was them and their beloved federal government and it’s “protective” policies.

Some have become so desperate to keep their ideology from disappearing into the dustbin of history that they will stoop to any low as long as it supports the cause.

Equate Republicans and conservatives as a party of racists and bigots? No problem
Pick up an irresponsible blog post tying Mitt Romney to the KKK and call a simple phrase “Let’s Keep America, American” “disgusting”? No problem
Attack with impunity a legal, successful, and productive American corporation (Koch Industries) because you need a Goebbels type scapegoat to blame? No problem

Open a blog post with the above Wikepedia quote and then present a false argument that the “Citizens United” decision is leading the country down the “road to oligarchy” ? BIG PROBLEM

The Corner finds no problem with someone having such a simple minded opinion, but DOES find fault with the ignoring of the pertinent facts as they are right now, today, at this very time.

Those facts being that if this nation truly is on a “road to oligarchy” it has been firmly placed here by none other than Obama and the democrat party.

Look at the definition again. “power……..held by……..elite………small minority……..serve……own interests”.

Over, and over, and over, poll, after poll after poll shows the liberal left a distinct “minority” in American politics. Said “minority” comprising of, (surprise, surprise) an inordinate amount of academic and political “elites”. “Elites” who by the use of their “wealth” ensure that their government “serves” them and their “own interests”.

A few illustrative points:

Obama’s preponderance to use arbitrarily hand picked czars to bypass Constitutionally intended Congressional over-site is certainly more in line with the oligarchical style of governing than the checks and balances of a Constitutional Republic. (It’s an older link, but the list compiled by politifact.com is both long and telling.)

“Solyndra” may be the poster child for the political elite using government to “serve their own class interests” but what you may not know is the depth to which that “interest” flows. CBS News’ Sharyl Atkisson reporting that there are at least another 11 Solyndra type debacles serving the “interests” of Obama’s elite. But adding insult to injury is the list compiled by “Throw them all Out” author Peter Schweizer that 80 percent of the Department of Energy “green” energy loans during this administration has gone to………..wait for it……….top Obama donors.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, the politically left elite growing their wealth through yielding their political power to sway government policy into serving their own “class interests”.

Who’s “own class interests” were served when Dear Leader killed the Keystone XL pipeline and with it thousands of good paying union jobs, hundreds of millions in additional local and state tax collections, and years worth of just a little more energy security from friendly ally, Canada?

The hard core Henry Waxman’s and dwainbwains on the left want you to believe that killing Keystone was a “great and decisive moment” for Dear Leader. An example of Obama standing up to the “evil corporate interests” of the likes of Charles and David Koch and their “dirty” energy.

Yet who stands to really benefit the MOST from killing Keystone?

The two most obvious are Obama and Warren Buffet. The former shoring up his left wing base he will need in November, and the latter smiling all the way to the bank with the additional profits his Burlington Northern railroad will gain from shipping oil sands in raw form vs the processed liquid that would have been carried in the pipeline.

And lest one think that Obama’s “green” energy push is pure, peel back the next layer of beneficiaries from his policies.

Right there in plain site, with pockets open and bank accounts in waiting are the likes of George Soros, Al Gore, Jeff Immelt and others who’s personal and corporate wealth grows larger with each and every passing day that Obama protects their “class interests” while hampering the less expensive and mature traditional energy industry.

Again, if the above paragraphs do not define the epitome of: “ a small minority of the population, and who use this power primarily to serve their own class interests” than what does?

But the above are just a few of many “oligarchical” actions currently underway by this administration:

The power yielded to and wielded by Kathleen Sebelius over at the Department of Health and Human Services who is currently in overdrive churning out the mandates and regulations of Obamacare. (Telling the Catholic Church to basically “go to hell” just the most recent.)

The “non”-recess, “recess” appointment of a “director” to a Consumer Financial Protection Board that is accountable to no elected official and left wing labor advocates to the National Labor Relations Board.

A financial “reform” bill that is killing small and medium banks with un-needed regulations while protecting the “too big to fail” behemoths that can absorb the costs.

Refusing to hold Attorney General Eric Holder accountable for the debacle of Fast and Furious and the death of U.S.Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

But to add insult to injury the President (who sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and never heard a racist or hateful sermon in any of them) had the gall at last Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast to lecture those in attendance that Jesus would approve of his government and his policies.

“For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

The act of a government plutocrat justifying his political philosophy by invoking Jesus Christ as his ally is about as “oligarchical” as one can get. I mean really, if you want to talk the “elite” of the “elite”, Jesus Christ has to be at the top of any list.

Some were shocked and saddened that a President of the United States would turn a traditionally non-partisan event into a campaign speech for re-election.

But they should not have been. For when your entire life has been and still does revolve around a philosophy that it is the “government” that is responsible, not the “individual”, such statements and attitude are no longer shocking, nor surprising. No, the only word that truly applies to Obama’s speech that morning is hypocrite.

For while he arrogantly assumed that Jesus was on his side, he conveniently forgot to mention the fact that in his own personal life (according to his own released financial records) he,Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jesus’ new found BFF, has for years now failed to give even the minimum 10 percent of his income that Jesus DID say was his and his father’s.

So the next time you come across a rant or diatribe from the left wing loons side of the aisle that this country is “on the road to oligarchy” because of “Citizens United” or some other Goebbels type corporate scapegoat, fear not.

We’re already there.


Tags: , , , , , ,

13 Responses to Obama’s America: reward the oligarchs, punish the patriots

  1. Herb Van Fleet on February 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm


    Well I’ll be damned. I was going to make a few rude comments here, but after doing my own research, I found myself more in agreement with you than not – a lot more. So, instead of nitpicking and going after the hyperbole, I’ll just say, thumbs up.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 5, 2012 at 11:38 pm

      There is absolutely no “hyperbole” in the following: I sincerely thank you for your “thumbs up” and accept with humility.
      NOW, that said (and I cannot stress this enough)I know to persons such as yourself my “hyperbole” may seem like it is getting in the way of the “argument” but you sir, (the actual “thinking” person like you and Anson) are not my target audience.
      My target, are those “casuals” that more often than not do not think for themselves and get their news from the networks and the minion media. The ones who can read a post or two over on the EC and “think”, “wow, this guy’s got it nailed, those corporations and capitalists ARE the problem and only the government can save me”.
      As Anson states in his comment below, he now understands and can see through the “hyperbole” and the point beyond. BUT without the “hyperbole” the casual reader, the one who still can go over to the “dark side” of the far left, doesn’t give the post a real “thought” so to speak.
      My “hyperbole” is both a wide net to gather outsiders into the fiscal conservative, Constitutional government discussion and a sharpened arrow to strike at the heart of the all to many fallacies of the left being passed off as fact viable policy.
      Unlike the Dwains of the world, I could care less what others think of me personally or the comments such may make about me. After “growing up” so to speak in the direct shadow of the past fifty years of political correctness and leftist liberalism presenting itself as a viable, workable solution for this nation I have pretty much seen it all.
      That is until the past three years.
      I’m no sage or great keeper of wisdom.
      I’m but only a small town farmer’s kid who made college for his undergraduate and got his master’s in the university of life. But I do know that the path Obama and the left has set us upon is anything but what the Founders intended and is pretty much about as far away from any country that I wish to see my granddaughters and nephews grow up in.
      I know we’ve got troubles right now. I know people who have done nothing wrong or illegal are seriously hurting.
      But I also know that:
      1. We could confiscate ALL the wealth of the “rich” and it still would not fund all the left’s dreamed of government.
      2. We can turn our rights over to “government” to “protect” and in but one generation see them all but memories of history
      3. The only chance we have as a nation today, is to return to our fundamental roots planted so many years ago.
      And if that means using “hyperbole” to point out the “absurdity” of those promoting “more government” and “more fairness” all in the name of “social justice” that does nothing but further concentrate power in Washington, D.C. than so be it.
      Forgive my rambling as it’s been a long day and the time is late but it’s just my attempt to let you know that if I come across to “strong” or “hyperbolic” at times it’s not out of some personal, ego drive, it truly is because I do believe that we are truly at a tipping point in this country and November, 2012 is quite frankly the most important election this nation has faced since November, 1860. And no sir, that’s not “hyperbole”.

  2. anson burlingame on February 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm


    Never doubt Geoff’s research and ability to pull up many links supporting his side of the argument. He is far better than Duand and for sure, Jim Wheeler in doing so.

    Bottom line is we must all decide for ourselves how to vote of for which side to support, publicly. Links my guide, but certainily do not direct. One must THINK his or her way through the morass of information available today. Principles, deelply held are a great guide as well.

    Geoff does so with skill developed over decades of public writing, like his views or not.

    Because I support his fundamental ideas, I can ignore the rhetoric. In Duane’s case I do not support his fundanmental ideas and attack the Ideas but not Duane, personally. At least I try to do so.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm

      If only we could have gotten a few more of those ’08 voters to actually THINK we wouldn’t be in this mess today now would we?
      And hence, as irritating as it is at times to some, my rhetoric and “hyperbole” shall only drive that “THINK PEOPLE” principle home harder and harder as election day draws closer and closer.
      The true test for me of when I know I’m getting through to them is when the attacks come faster, harder and become completely personal.
      The difference between “over there” and “over here” is at least “over here” the principle is as the founders intended while “over there” is well…….out there.

      • Herb Van Fleet on February 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm


        Somehow that word “hyperbole: seems to stick in your craw. But the tone of your writing no doubt comes across to many as arrogant, condescending, preachy, and intolerant. And even though I understand your particular style, I still find myself flinching from time to time. Thing is, as I’ve said here and elsewhere, I’m not a hard core right winger, so I’m not always in the choir you’re singing to. I believe both sides of the political spectrum have their faults. You tend to cherrypick your complaints with the “liberals,” and even though such complaints are well researched and even justifiable (to an extent), they ignore similar complaints against the right. Self-serving I get, self-righteous, not so much.

        Now you can put me wherever you want on the political scale, but I tend to side with Goldwater, John Dean, David Stockman, and most recently, David Frum, who has been an out-spoken critic of the “new” republicans.” In fact, I agreed with Frum in 2008, and did not vote for McCain mainly because of his choice of Sarah Palin for VP, which I thought showed poor judgement. It was my critical THINKING that moved me to the conclusion. We had had eight years of poor judgement already. Further, I think the Republicans who have given their allegiance to Grover Norquist rather than the Constitution ought to be run out of office. And the remaining patriotic Republicans who were able to resist Norquist’s coersion ought to lead the charge.

        There is also what I see as the false premise that because A is bad, B will be better. Likewise, there is the perpetual problem with Murphy’s Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Remember Cheney said we’d be cheered as liberators when we entered Bagdad in 2003. How did that work out? I get just as concerned when I see proposed “solutions” to our most critical problems proffered by the either the left or the right. Not only do I take such demagoguery with a grain of salt, I often bite my tongue in the process. We live in a time of deep and extreme political, social and economic complexity. So much so that I fear the pending suicide of our nation that some say is a fait accompli.

        Speaking of French, Voltaire once said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Nothing personal Geoff, but I’m not going to die for you. But I do honor your right to say or write anything you want. It’s your party, as the song goes, and you can cry if you want to.


        • Geoff Caldwell on February 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          When it comes to the dwainbwains of this country (you HAVE read the column that defines them haven’t you?) condescending is the only way one can be if you believe in any of this country’s core, founding principles.
          And yes, I will continue to be as “intolerant” as possible towards the dwains of the world.
          While true that both political parties have contributed to our current situation, there is another truth. The truth that fifty years of liberal, left wing ideology and policies have created generations of entitlement minded “victims”, divided this nation along class lines like perhaps never before, stolen trillions of dollars from future generations for the sake of feeding the next election cycle, and allowed a Chicago thug community organizer to establish an oligarchy in Washington D.C. the likes never before seen in this nations history.
          Prior to our civil war there were numerous attempts at “compromise” with the evil of slavery, in the mid 30’s again there were numerous attempts at “compromise” with the evil of Hitler, in these early years of the 21st century we again find an administration wanting to “compromise” with the evil of the Iranian regime and militant Islamic terrorists.
          Take this next comment as “arrogant” as you wish, but I have never quite figured out how to handle people such as yourself. You seem to be intelligent enough but yet also seem to have no “core” values other than “compromise” and “can’t we all just get along for the common good?” as guiding princples.
          Some find it noble, others, (myself included) find it a cop out, the easy way out so to speak. Rather than realize “you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” it’s a constant “which way is the wind blowing and what’s the “consensus” today?”
          I gauge my “consensus” by the Constitution, the Framers our founding principles and that the greatness of America lies in the fact that until recently we acknowledge that our rights came from God, not government and that nothing made us stronger than strong individuals and individual rights.
          If a political party or individual is espousing policies that stray from those concepts each of us is presented one of two options:
          1. Go along to get along and ignore the long term damage caused by the hollowing out of principle
          2. Call it out for what it is no matter how “arrogant” it may sound and take the fight to the originators
          I have always in the past and will always in the future continue to choose option 2.
          Hope you don’t flinch too much, but about the only thing that sticks in my “craw” these days are the dwainbwains who still support the result of our national schizophrenic moment back in 08 and those of your ilk who seem to never take a side on anything unless of course there’s already a “consensus” that the “compromise” is just around the corner.
          But perhpas the biggest difference of all between the two of us is that I WOULD die for your right to say and write how and what you wish.
          Hundreds of thousands before me already have and I’m sure as hell not “arrogant” enough to say I’m better than any of them.

          • Herb Van Fleet on February 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm


            Whoa, slow down a little, take a breath. You don’t have to justify your particular approach to political debate to me or anyone else. If you read my comments above carefully, you’ll see that I was speaking of how, in my opinion, OTHER readers might react to the way you say stuff as opposed to what you say. Such is the price of a rant. However, as I’ve also said, I try to look past the presentation to the substance of your message. That should be implicit in the very first comment on this post, which is from me.

            As I’ve said many times, the problem with critical thinking is that it will take you places you’d rather not go. I believed then and continue to believe now that my reasoning to not vote for McCain, who, in a 2008 NY Times article by one Lawrence K. Altman, M.D, reported, “Mr. McCain has had four (malignant) melanomas,” together with his clearly unqualified running mate, was not only a perfectly valid but very rational decision. I do not jump on bandwagons if I think (“think” being the operative word) that they are going over a cliff. I hope others would do the same.

            Speaking of which, I don’t know by what convoluted logic you equate criticism with a lack of “values.” You don’t have a clue what my values are. I guess you think that because I dare criticize your values (and I don’t know what all yours are either) that I don’t have any. Well, I have two blogs up and you can peruse them at your leisure for a considerable insight as to what my values are. But for now we’re on your blog.

            Second (or third, or fourth, I’m kinda lost), I’m concerned about your rejection of “compromise” as a part of the political dialog. I understand that the “new” conservatives are given to absolutes; the “you’re either with us or you’re against us” mentality. This is the authoritarianism mind set that John Dean writes about in his Conservatives Without Conscience. But it is an untenable position to take in a democracy. Edmund Burke, sometimes described as one of history’s greatest conservatives, has said, “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.”

            Think of this Geoff, without compromise there would be no Constitution. And with no Constitution there would be no U.S. government and we would still be a part of Britannia . . .and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And speaking of being averse to compromise, here’s a chilling quote from Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross.”


  3. JW on February 6, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Geoff, I hope that your target is the Herb’s of the world. From his comment it appears clear to me that your words were what prompted him to actually do some research and ultimately changed his viewpoint. Keep up the good work.

    • Geoff Caldwell on February 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm

      Thanks for reading and will continue on as long as can. The way I see it at present is we have the minority liberals who we already know how they’re going to vote. The 40 percent conservatives who at present will be at the opposite end of the spectrum. And the remaining part of the electorate who gave Obama a chance and their vote in 08 and are now scratching their heads wondering just what the hell happened..
      Not all will put away the KoolAid cups before November, but the goal of the Corner and fiscal conservatives like me everywhere is to expose the hypocrisy of the left as soon and as often as it gets propogated. So that those who do still remember there was a time in their lives when they could think for themselves and their government was subordinate to them not vice versa realize it’s not too late to correct the damage done.

  4. Geoff Caldwell on February 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Guess my point Herb is that it all matters just “who” you’re compromising with. And “compromising” with the left wing of the democrat party today is pretty much selling out the nation as it was founded and worked pretty well.
    No I don’t have a clue to your own personal values, only have the comments to go on. And when someone constantly is calling for “compromise” without realizing the danger of the consequences of just who that “compromise” is made with I question the “value” of that argument.
    I played the game of “discussion – counter-discussion” long ago and over the years realized that when it comes to the hard left that is over on Dwain’s blog and that which appears here from time to time it is quite frankly a waste of time.
    Time that I don’t have and even if I did would certainly not waste it on the likes of people who are not only just fine with the current policies of this administration but would go even farther to the left and farther away from the limited government framework on which we were founded.
    There is a time for compromise and a time to take stand. 1776 was a time to take stand. So was 1860, 1941, and in my view, right now and not a second later.
    For two years we saw Obama, Pelosi and Reid ram through some of the worst legislation ever to come out of the United States Congress. A majority of voters said in 2010 that enough was enough and it is with those voters that I make my stand today.
    Yes the Constitution took compromise but it was compromise among a group that already had agreed on the basic framework. That group that “compromised” to form the Constitution was also the same group that when the time came to break with England realized “compromise” was NOT the answer at that time.
    I and many fellow fiscal conservatives see this as a defining, critical moment in American history. As important as those landmark events of the past.
    There were those back then that cried for continued compromise and common ground just as there are today. Thank God though that when the time came those who were willing to take a stand finally did so and the country was not “compromised” out of existence.
    I love a good “intellectual” discussion as much as anyone but the time for that has passed.
    It started with Clinton, gained steam under Bush and is now barreling down the tracks full speed under Obama. If not stopped now America will never again be the “shining light on the hill” that she was for so, so many decades.

    • Herb Van Fleet on February 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm


      I’m not going to parse my commentary on compromise and your interpretation of it. Instead I will just ask in all seriousness, how, without compromise, you would have our government deal with the multitude of problems facing our country. Idealism, alas, is sometimes trumped by pragmatism. So, absent compromise, and pragmatically, what do we do?


      • Geoff Caldwell on February 7, 2012 at 7:34 am

        Once again:
        There is a time for compromise and a time to take stand. 1776 was a time to take stand. So was 1860, 1941, and in my view, right now and not a second later.

        As for “what to do”? Exactly what we did in 2010 and send representatives to Washington who will stand for the founding principles and set us back on a sound fiscal path.
        And in my personal case, continue to publish the Corner in the most “condescending” and “arrogant” way possible. (J.O.K.E.)

  5. Herb Van Fleet on February 6, 2012 at 5:31 pm


    As an afterthought, I remembered that I did post an essay a couple of years ago that reflects some of my values, the political ones anyway. If you’re interested, you can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35851873/Autopsy-of-a-Great-Nation



May 2020
« May