In the beginning, Obama created massive deficits and new entitlements.

And the earth was without respect for the west, and darkness was upon the face of America.

And Obama said, let there be Change. And there was Change.

In Massachusetts.

Year One of The One is history. And so it is with some sense of vindication that I, and many conservatives, look back at that year and realize that those hesitations, objections, and concerns that we voiced about what an Obama presidency would mean for the United States of America were all completely justified, utterly valid, and in their own (probably racist and heretical) way prophetic.

Has it only been one year? It seems so long ago that the newly inaugurated president ignored common sense, logistical reality, and the underlying difficulty of the task, and promised with doe-eyed optimism, shored up with that now trademark and pseudo-stern manner of his, that he’d be shutting down the American Gulag in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay. Of course, today that insidious prison still has its doors open, and its halls crowded with misunderstood parishioners of the Religion of Peace. And never mind that those who once knelt in prayer within those dastardly cinder blocks, but were set free to be “reeducated” are busily plotting and carrying out yet more “man caused disasters” as retribution for… the failed policies of the last eight years.

And now instead of the triumphant and promised closing down of the Great American Blot, Barack Obama celebrates his first anniversary as our Regulator in Chief with a stiff and bitter piece of humble pie. Boston Cream Pie, to be exact, evenly Browned over the flames of righteous indignation and the cold, fierce reality that Americans tend to be a rather pushy lot, quick to recognize and reject any obvious and overbearing attempt to drive us down that road to serfdom. Even in a state that repeatedly elected Ted Kennedy and J.F.K(erry).

But Obama has responded to the political equivalent of Sparta’s 300 with the same tired, arrogant, and narcissistic rhetorical nonsense that is coming to define this man: He blamed Bush. “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office, people are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years but what’s happened over the last eight years.” It would appear that voters in Massachusetts were listening when Mr. Obama had admonished us all to “grab a mop…help clean up“.

But the President was right about our anger. We are angry. At him.

If we are to believe the leg-tingled, sycophantic backscratchers and bootlickers known as “the media,” then this unprecedented president has had an unprecedented year, achieving the unprecedented and long clamored for change, that is, “the fundamental transformation of America” that has forever been the utopian vision of the American people. Or something. After 223 years of inequality and that hampering inconvenience known as the Constitution, true social justice had come to Washington, in the form of a “light-skinned African American, with no negro dialect.” Truly, Progressivism has come out of the fringe and wilderness of political exorcism and into the red, white, and blue of the American mainstream. We are all Socialists now!

Apparently, however, fundamental transformation means a 30% rise in what was already an absurdly, and statistically abnormally high rate of unemployment. The United States now enjoys the double digits heretofore only common in Europe and elsewhere. Burgeoning models of enterprise and freedom, like, say… Cuba. And despite claiming to have “saved or created” a million (or was it a billion?) jobs, more Americans today find themselves without one since the days of Jimmy Carter. Could it be that Statism leads, inevitably to job loss? How many jobs were lost in 2009? Nearly 3 million. Personally (granted, I’m a right-wing nut job) I think I liked the “status-quo” wherein people had jobs, and were even paid for doing them!

The unprecedented unemployment rate was supposed to be staved off by the wonderfully Randian named “American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.” This so-called stimulus was Keynesian binge drinking – but we taxpayers are the ones left with the hangover. To Obama, and other redistributionists, it certainly sounded like a much better idea than it turned out to be. Costing nearly 800 billion dollars (which I think is the new revised number of jobs that were “saved or created”) and promising to “put Americans back to work” (and capping unemployment at 8%) the bill hampered economic recovery by redistributing wealth to important and shovel ready projects like creating robotic bees ($9.3 million), and the relocation of an unimportant bridge ($54 million). Indeed, it can be argued (if you are Paul Krugman) that this monstrosity did keep its promise of putting Americans back to work. That is, back to work hunting for… work.

Riding the success of economic futility, Mr. Obama pressed forward, determined to not only run the United States into the ground, but also the iconoclastic, union-laden symbol of can-do-it Americanism: General Motors. After dispatching of GM’s hapless CEO, Obama placed his hand-picked successor into the driver’s seat of a company crippled by unionism and government mandated lunacy. In the process, Uncle Sam became an owner of the company, ensuring that it will never more turn a profit. General Motors, meet Amtrack; and welcome to a life of subsidization. Sensing that inevitability, The President of the United States offered to help everyone in America buy a new car, pending government approval of course. And so Cash for Clunkers took the market by storm, creating false demand and compressing years of sales into a very short, very haphazard several weeks. Since the boondoggled program ended, auto sales have slumped, and dealers from coast to coast have been left asking, “Dude, where’s the government money for my car?”

Emboldened at the remarkable success he was having in the 57 states, Obama set out on several foreign tours that presented him ample opportunity to bow to the pressures and special interests of countries considered both friends and enemies (all of whom the Lightworker has managed to anger). He shook hands (bro’ style) with Hugo Chavez, and nearly kissed the feet of the Saudi King. All the while never missing an opportunity to dismiss American exceptionalism, its military power and of course, cultural influence. After all, we obtained such status through exploitation, profiteering, slavery, and uninhibited greed. At long last the chickens of American Imperialism were coming home to roost. It was time for our global comeuppance, humble pie on a national scale, baked with love by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only, I suppose in that case, he is busy not baking pies, but yellow cake.

Except the American people weren’t having it. In fact, they were not having much of anything. Retail sales slumped, jobless claims rose, and Obama reached never before seen approval ratings. The bad kind. Unprecedented lows. Not even the detestable George W. Bush attained such cellar-dwelling numbers in his first year as were reached by Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.

He implemented a surge in Afghanistan after surging to victory in the Democratic primaries by disparaging the surge in Iraq. Which by the way, is still an American theater of war, even though his promised withdrawal date of March 2009 has long come and gone. Coming to his Afghan decision was difficult. He pondered the foggy bottom of options for days. And weeks. And months. In the meantime, while he dithered, he managed to wage war on Fox News, which, if you had not heard, is not a “legitimate news organization,” on Rush Limbaugh, who had the audacity of hoping Obama would fail, and on the American taxpayer. Keeping his pledge to “not raise taxes by one singe dime” he managed to, in fact, raise taxes by several dimes. An underachiever, this man is not.

Using such monumental success, and wielding the magical mantle of Best. President. Ever. Mr. Obama traveled to Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts to cast his spell on would-be voters and plebeians who were engaging in off-year special elections. In every case, and rather soundly, that candidate he championed fell to Republican challengers. The only possible explanation for such defeats: racism and bigotry and subterfuge Tea Party maniacs. A referendum on Him these elections were not. Obama was, and will ever be guiltless. Instead these elections are merely the manifestations of those bitter, God-loving, gun clinging neophytes who are so easily confused, and so quickly whipped into irrational frenzies orchestrated by the GOP Machine, nefariously led by Dick Cheney and his Evil Designs.

One can only hope that the president will continue to campaign for Democrats in this upcoming election year.

After 411 official speeches, comments and remarks, 178 TelePrompTer appearances, 42 news conferences (none since July), 158 interviews (a staggering number) 23 Townhall meetings (with SEIU?) 46 trips to 58 cities and 30 states (only 27 more to go!), 10 overseas expeditions to 21 nations, 160 Air Force One Flights, 28 fundraisers (Bush did six and raised more money), a 1.6 trillion dollar increase in debt and 26 vacation days, the Year of The One has come to a close.

And what of us who no longer believe (or never did) in the Gospel of Barack? We hope for change. And then, we vote for it.

Even in Massachusetts.

~VoxPatriota

I am not an adviser to Mitt Romney. However, if I were, (if you are reading this Mr. Romney, I’d be happy to fill any vacancies you may have) this is what I’d be telling the Governor, assuming that today’s issues are still relevant in the 2012 campaign:

Barack Obama’s approval ratings are trending steadily downward. People across the nation are frustrated with the stagnant economy, dithering in Afghanistan, an unclear foreign policy (just what exactly is the president trying to achieve?), unprecedented and irresponsible government spending, and an ongoing apology tour de farce. They are worried about how health care reform, cap and trade, and any more “stimulus” bills will effect their daily lives – their jobs, taxes, energy costs, grocery bills, and so forth. In other words, there is a fair amount of civil unrest throughout the nation. In fact, I think the only bipartisan sentiment we are witnessing in America today is a collective cry to “slow down!”

For the first time in his life, our current president will have to run for re-election. And for the first time in his career he will have to defend his leadership record. Suffice it to say, he is not off to a great start. How then can a challenger in 2012 capitalize on the political climate of today?

Mitt Romney has a unique talent to “see around corners”. I wonder if our current leadership, Republican and Democrat alike, truly understand the symbiotic relationship between our economy, and our national security. Current trends, remarks, and actions suggest they are at best, ignorant, and at worst, malicious. Governor Romney is best known for his economic skills. That reputation is warranted, however, one aspect of those skills that is largely overlooked is his ability to take a dire situation, and turn it around into something profitable and successful. He knows that the strength of our military, the power of our negotiators, and the authority of our president is all contingent on the power of our economy. If it is weak, then everything else follows. What is alarming is that our enemies seem to understand this principle better than our president, secretary of state, and representatives on Capitol Hill.

Mitt Romney knows these things. He has built a career on building success through economic prosperity.

Right now the American people want to hear once again how great the United States is. They want to know that through our ingenuity, our courage, and our entrepreneurial spirit, that any challenges that we face can be, not only overcome, but turned to our advantage. That through the unfettered spirit of the individual, all things are possible. It was not increased government spending, or bloated entitlement programs that lifted us out of the Great Depression. It was not health care reform or climate change legislation that sent an American to the moon. It was not bailouts, handouts, and a White House led culture war that defeated Communism, some 20 years ago.

It was Americans. You. And I. Our grandparents, and parents.

Mitt Romney could quickly become the candidate (and president) of an American Renaissance. A period of recovery, peace, and prosperity led by the peoples confidence once again in the individual pursuit of happiness.

However those same Americans do not want explanations. They want results. If the current political climate persists into the 2012 election season then no doubt one of the albatrosses that will be hung around Governor Romney’s neck (by his fellow Republican challengers) will be so called “Romneycare”. I do not think it is in his best interest as a candidate to try and explain away the nuances of the Massachusetts health care system. Nor is it beneficial to claim that it has not been implemented as designed. And while that may be true, that same spirit of independence that defines the American people demands accountability. And so, I think Mitt Romney ought to own Romneycare, and admit that it has fallen short of expectations. Admit it was a mistake, whose lesson was learned the hard way, but luckily on a small scale. It would give Mr. Romney a chance to admit failure, but also to offer new solutions. It would lead to an excellent opportunity to denounce government controlled health care and to point out that the private sector is best suited to fix our economic problems. And ultimately, health care is an economic problem.

The success of our nation will come down to the resolve and faith of the American people. Having a president that is constantly blaming others, complaining about messes he “inherited” and telling those who question or disagree with him to “shut up and get out of the way” is draining the spirit and morale of the people. In less than a year we have grown tired of the rhetorical tongue lashings, the attacks on the private industry, and the inability to stand firm and make hard choices. We demand optimistic, experienced, leadership.

Which is exactly what Mitt Romney will deliver.

Barack Obama chastised the United States (again) and apologized (again) to the UN General Assembly for the US being the leader of the world. Which comes as no surprise whatsoever. After all, Barack Obama sees America as an imperialistic war-mongering, slavery burdened bully. The same way all Marxist thugs see it, which is why Castro, Ghadafi, Chavez and all the others shower praise upon the crowned prince, Obama. (“We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as American president”) So really, speech #68 in the Obama Apology World Tour is not exactly news is it?

Meanwhile climate change, the greatest hoax in American history (other than Obama himself), continues to be the focus of his apologetic sorry-mongering.

However, the legitimacy of global warming is irrelevant to what is really at the heart of the argument. The President has no intention of reducing “carbon pollution” or curbing rising temperatures. Those things do not exist. They are simply a means to an end. In fact, the world is not warming, and there is not imminent catastrophe awaiting us 4 months, 4 years, or 10 years down the road. The very fact that these alarmists cannot even agree on the date for our demise should raise red flags in the realms of common sense and logical thought. Are we so arrogant as to think that 100 years of industrial activity is bringing an abrupt end to a planet that has survived and thrived for billions of years?

And disregard the fact that the same people crowing about climate change today are the same people who claimed the coming of an imminent demise, brought about by mass freezing and over-population as recently as the 1970s. They were spectacularly wrong. If there is a credibility shortfall in the climate change argument, the prophets of the movement need not look any further than their own publications as to why that shortfall exists.

However, saving the planet is cover for controlling the masses.

An intrusive government has always sought to control its citizens. Whether the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba or modern-day Venezuela, the end is the same: government control. And today the United States is following along that road, using “climate change” as the vehicle for “progress”. That, along with health care reform, soda and cigarette taxes, cash for clunkers (you must, after all, drive the proper kind of car) and a host of other social justice and global salvatory regulations that are meaningless and ridiculous. And when those vehicles stall, then blatant thuggery fills the gap. Just ask Humana.

Steven Chu, the president’s energy secretary showed his hand recently when he, speaking about climate change, declared that the “American public … just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

And who better than to teach us the error of our ways, to tell us how to act, than Barack Obama. The Simba to Ted Kennedy’s Mufasa. The intellectual golden tongued phenomenon. The One. Who are we to question the wisdom of this Harvard educated, international superstar? We are but witless subjects standing helpless and hapless, barefoot and disheveled with a dirty hand outstretched and begging “please sir, may I have some more?”

To oppose him is to foster racism and hate and irrational, dim-witted fallacy. To oppose Barack Obama is akin to murder and genocide. The very essence of hate-speech is to question our Dear Leader. An offense that ought to be punishable with a public stoning.

But I digress. Slightly.

What exactly is the president up to? He declared with impunity his intention to “fundamentally transform the United States”. Transform into what?

His history and his associations give us a clue. As a community organizer his job was to agitate and to create a climate of crisis. To, as has been the stated goals of his mentors, flood the welfare rolls creating so much dependency that they collapse the capitalistic system in the United States.

As always, the enemy for the left is capitalism.

In the end the line in the sand is drawn between climate change (and all that goes with it) and capitalism. As the sanctimonious, and asinine “The Story of Stuff” demonstrates, our social and environmental ills all stem from capitalistic failure, selfish profiteering and the all encompassing, universal evil of consumption.

And that is the new American debate.

Are we willing to forgo a system of economic and social liberty that has given rise to the greatest nation in the history of the Earth for a nanny-state mediocrity ruled by anointed intellectuals who have never, at any point in the morality tales of their lives held a normal, private sector job? Do any “Progressives” know where money comes from? Or is it simply enough, within the social circles of Washington and New York City to demean and condemn the existence, creation, and gathering of money? All while attending a party at a city high rise, smugly sipping expensive drinks and eating imported caviar.

Our president believes that economic and personal freedom is unjust and unfair. The disparity in results which arise from human effort, ingenuity and luck are a disease and plague that have created a nation of selfish, petty, hateful white males. His entire life has been spent agitating people to act on this fallacy, this lie. It ought to come as no surprise that this is the narrative that is emerging from his fledgling presidency.

The fundamental transformation Barack Obama spoke of is the calculated demise of capitalism and American prosperity.

This is a complete re-posting of Mitt Romney’s 9/17 blog post at National Review Online:

It is with good reason that the American people are focused on the economy and domestic issues — we continue to lose jobs, amass record-breaking deficits, and the president is promoting a plan to add a trillion dollar health burden. But foreign-policy actions by the Obama administration deserve immediate attention.

President Obama has made a dangerous and alarming decision to shelve our missile-defense system in Europe. Facing the growing threat from Iran’s nuclear ambition, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency has worked long and hard to secure a site for the system to thwart a potential strike against our European allies. Developing the missile shield could also have important implications for U.S. security. His decision is wrong in every way, despite his rationale:

* The administration says that our intelligence believes the threat from Iran is not as far advanced as it had originally estimated. First, our intelligence regarding Iran is far from reliable and certain. Our window into the country is cloudy, at best. Other foreign intelligence agencies have reached very different conclusions. And second, it makes no sense to try to time the construction, testing, and deployment of a defense system to the very hour when one might guess the nuclear threat will arrive. No one is that prescient. Using the most rosy scenario of Iran’s nuclear capabilities to schedule the establishment of our defense is dangerous in the extreme.

* The administration believes that by giving such a gesture of goodwill to the Russians, they will be more willing to give in to our request that they join in sanctions against Iran. Here, the president’s lack of negotiation experience may have come in to play. Yes, sometimes in a negotiation you give up something that is important to you, but you do that only when the other party has agreed to give you something you want even more. You don’t give before you get. But here it’s even worse than that: The president has taught Putin that when he blusters and threatens, America caves.

* The administration is also teaching our friends some very unfortunate lessons; the Eastern Europeans who have stood so valiantly with America and who took political heat for backing the missile-defense system have simply been brushed aside. They have to wonder why America is treating its foes better than it is treating its friends. It’s a question that also is surely being asked in Israel and Honduras.

* The administration’s discounting of Iran’s nuclear progress tells Israel that if it is to stop what its own intelligence may believe is an imminent threat, it may have to act alone — and precipitously.

Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA. It is rushing headlong towards nuclear capability — it may already have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb. And it may well have secured access to missile technology from other nations. North Korea is, of course, much further along. And Pakistan, a state threatened from within by jihadists, has extensive nuclear capabilities. In such an environment, it is alarming and dangerous for the president to walk away from our missile-defense commitments.

I recently read a speech given by Charles Murray at the 2009 Irving Kristol Lecture. And I think I can say without hyperbole that it is the best, or one of the best speeches I have ever read. It perfectly articulates the concerns that I have, not just about the Obama Administration, but about the general direction that the United States is heading.

He asks the question:

Do we want the United States to become like Europe?

Now, before you dismiss this as yet another diatribe against socialism, read on. Murray acknowledges that are things to admire about the European system. He also points out that the desire to emulate Europe is not necessarily an evil or sinister master plan:

I am delighted when I get a chance to go to Stockholm or Amsterdam, not to mention Rome or Paris. When I get there, the people don’t seem to be groaning under the yoke of an evil system. Quite the contrary. There’s a lot to like–a lot to love–about day-to-day life in Europe, something that should be kept in mind when I get to some less complimentary observations.

One of the primary reasons that this speech stood out to me the way it did was that often we focus on the European economy when pointing out the weaknesses of the socialist system. High unemployment, high taxes, inflation and low incentives are all part of the European system that we would do well to avoid here in the U.S.

However that is not Murray’s focus. He only mentions the economic issue in passing:

The European model can’t continue to work much longer. Europe’s catastrophically low birth rates and soaring immigration from cultures with alien values will see to that. So let me rephrase the question. If we could avoid Europe’s demographic problems, do we want the United States to be like Europe?

Tonight I will argue for the answer “no,” but not for economic reasons. The European model has indeed created sclerotic economies and it would be a bad idea to imitate them. But I want to focus on another problem.

His focus is cultural. He points out the eroding institutions of family, community and religion in Europe, and fears that a similar fate is awaiting the United States. He argues that a government that eliminates the satisfaction in performing basic human tasks, such as raising children or holding down a job will be a government that destroys fundamental cultural principles that define a society.

Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality–it drains some of the life from them. It’s inevitable. Families are not vital because the day-to-day tasks of raising children and being a good spouse are so much fun, but because the family has responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the family does them. Communities are not vital because it’s so much fun to respond to our neighbors’ needs, but because the community has the responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the community does them. Once that imperative has been met–family and community really do have the action–then an elaborate web of social norms, expectations, rewards, and punishments evolves over time that supports families and communities in performing their functions. When the government says it will take some of the trouble out of doing the things that families and communities evolved to do, it inevitably takes some of the action away from families and communities, and the web frays, and eventually disintegrates.

And that is the heart of the problem. And that is why I am so opposed to the policies of liberalism. Liberalism, or Progessivism would seek to eliminate personal responsibility, personal accomplishment. It seeks to replace the individual with an institution and to define that individual as only a member of a group. “Middle Class”, “African American”, “Hispanic”, “Rich” and so forth. Liberalism tries to define what “happiness” is, when that is obviously an individual pursuit.

The result of allowing the government to become our caretaker, our benevolent mother, our nanny and our provider, is unequivocal mediocrity. Americans have always celebrated greatness. Have always pursued perfection. Indeed, our founders endeavored under the pretense of forming a “more perfect union” when they debated and created the Constitution. Are we willing to trade our greatness for a mediocre security? Are we willing to forfeit American Exceptionalism for European style leisure?

Progressives may be. Liberals might be. Even some Republicans might think that a fair trade.

But not me.

How then do we stop the tide of dependence? Murray concludes:

It won’t happen by appealing to people on the basis of lower marginal tax rates or keeping a health care system that lets them choose their own doctor. The drift toward the European model can be slowed by piecemeal victories on specific items of legislation, but only slowed. It is going to be stopped only when we are all talking again about why America is exceptional, and why it is so important that America remain exceptional. That requires once again seeing the American project for what it is: a different way for people to live together, unique among the nations of the earth, and immeasurably precious.

And that is the key to victory in 2012. The American people need to hear once again how spectacular, how inspired, and how exceptional the United States really is. Policy debates are important. But underlying them is a rich culture founded on the marketplace of ideas, of greatness, of freedom.