No, you can't see the numbers; the King is a Fink


The King is a Fink by Parker & Hart

So, the White House is not going to give us taxpayers a timely update on the nation’s money and employment situation.

They’re just gonna “hold that information back” until Congress goes into recess.

They’re just gonna keep everyone in the dark until they muscle through his unpopular Healthcare legislation – that 1,000-page, unread, undebated document – that will push our deficit into unbearable territory, give the government unprecedented control over our lives and will quickly render healthcare in America unrecognizable, for must of us, although the politicians will do alright.

Obamacare will also federally fund abortions in direct contrast to what the president seemed to tell the pope, mere weeks ago.

I am waiting to hear the outrage in the press, over the heavy-handed, brazen and rather arrogant moves of a president who sounded downright thuggish last week when he went before the microphone and said this monstrosity was going to pass, and it was going to pass quickly and “I mean it.”

President Obama’s daily finger-wags and bully-pulpits are not in the mode ala President Bush, who said, “I have all this political capital, and I’m going to spend it,” which the press found unpardonably arrogant. It’s not even Obama saying, “I won,” which made the media giggle. This withholding of public information/ramming through of legislation is a whole ‘nother kind of arrogance.

The other day, I got it in my head that we don’t hear the word “fink” anymore. It used to be a big word, but it’s fallen into disuse.

On twitter, I joked that it was time for us to reclaim the word “fink,” and then tried it out a few times. I called another blogger a fink, and he took it in the spirit it was offered, as a joke. Then someone else reminded me of The Wizard of Id cartoons, and the line used by the commoners, from time to time, shouted out from the crowd: “The King is a Fink!”

In the cartoon, the fink-shouter was usually hidden – there would be a voice in the crowd, or a cloaked figure on a horse, passing the castle would let fly with it: “The King is a Fink.” Anonymity was preferred because the King was a short despot (once upon a time, all despots were short, but that has changed) who could not be trusted to bear patiently and magnanimously with free speech.

I know politicians are fair game, and if they can’t roll with punches, they oughtn’t pursue office, but I’ve never liked name-calling. On this blog, I have always made it my rule not to use ugly nicknames about presidents or ex-presidents; it’s a matter of respect for the office, and civil discourse.

So, by my lights, anyway, a king may be a fink, but not a president. A president, after all, must answer to his electorate.

That’s true, isn’t it, that a king rules, while a president leads? That a king demands service, while a president serves?

Hmmmmmm. Feels like lines are blurring, doesn’t it?

True: President Obama is the president, and not a king.

True: President Obama holds majorities in both houses of congress, and will soon own the SCOTUS as well.

True: President Obama has 32 “czars” working for and reporting directly to him, absent congressional oversight or accountability.

True: President Obama owns the press, who will do anything for him.

True: A president without checks and balances to rein him in or overrule him, with powerful minions answerable only to him, and with control of most information venues is a president who can decide he’s going to just do as he damn pleases, is an unprecedented sort of president.

True: A president who can arbitrarily decide to take taxpayer money by the greedy mittsful, without at least giving them a receipt – why, that’s a president who is barely acting like the leader of a republic at all. That’s a president who is acting more and more like…well…kinda like king.

And as we all know, “The King is a Fink.”

WELCOME Instapundit readers! Glenn Reynolds remembers what I had forgotten – the voice crying “The King is a Fink” was known as “The Lone Haranguer.” Every Finky King needs one!

UPDATE: The Tea Party Effect. Big crowds, almost no coverage.

Today’s Finger Wag: Pay no attention to the headlines on Drudge!

“If I’ve lost Ann Althouse…” Heh

Kim Priestap has more

Some related Finky Items:
Betsy McCaughey actually reads the Health Care Bill and finds mostof Obama’s assurances are a finky lies
Yep, It’s socialism
Dude, where is my finking budget?
Commerce Secretary says America Needs to Pay for China’s Emissions
States hardest hit getting the least “stimulus” money
Finky Lies and Finky Pork
The “Stimulus” has been squandered? You don’t say
Extraordinary measures to keep hope alive
An alternative healthcare suggestion, not finky, either.
Clank your mugs: a drinking song

Amazon.com Widgets

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Richard

    fink (fngk) Slang
    n.
    1. A contemptible person.
    2. An informer.
    3. A hired strikebreaker.
    ———–

    Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad!

  • Richard Blaine

    And the peasants are revolting!

  • Pingback: Stop The ACLU

  • lois in Indy

    The Betsy McCaughey article is dated Feb. 9, 2009, and apparently refers to the then stimulus bill not the health care bill. So it doesn’t make it clear to me just how much is accurate re the current health care bill being rammed through. Just fyi. You don’t need to publish this message. lois

    [Whoops - linked to the wrong one - thanks for the headsup! admin]

  • Pingback: » Financial News Update - 07/20/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

  • LindaL

    Lying to the Pope — not a good thing.

  • rich

    a) Obumbla won you
    b) Obumbla lost you
    c) how did a) add up, and don’t hide the numbers

    Rich

  • Pingback: Cap and Trade Shocker: Will Americans Be Forced by Commerce Sec. Gary Locke & Democrats to Pay for China’s Global Warming Emissions? « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  • Bender

    This withholding of public information/ramming through of legislation is a whole ‘nother kind of arrogance.

    His Excellency Barack Obama doesn’t answer to you.

    Who the hell are you?? Who the hell are you . . . you . . . you . . . damned PEASANT!

    How dare you! How dare you question the One, the provider of all that is good.

  • http://senseofevents.blogspot.com Donald Sensing

    I think that Obama and his inner circle realize that if they can’t get this package, or something very close to it, passed then they will be faced with the fact that Obama, barely more than a half-year into his first term, will basically be a lame duck.

    It’s dawning on a lot of Dems in Congress that there is little public support for this bill, and what there is, is shrinking rapidly, according to polls.

    At bottom, no one in Congress is going to risk his seat on this bill.

    We may get a bill of some kind, but if so it will be a greatly watered down version of the Obama plan. That won’t make it better, of course, but it won’t be Obama’s, either. After that, he’ll have not much truck with Dems in Congress, who will enjoy the freedom of running away from the White House, even to the point that in some tossup seats next year, we’ll see some Dems running against Obama as much as their Republican opponents.

    That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  • Scott Hebert

    “Come see the violence inherent in the system!”

    And no, that wasn’t a joke.

    Our Dear Leader (and I use that term in a non-sarcastic manner) is playing with fire around an octane pump.

    I note his aim is pretty rusty.

  • http://dailywoof.wordpress.com Kensington

    I’m sure we’ll learn soon enough that calling the King a fink is racist.

  • Charlie Foxtrot

    Where is TOTUS now that we need him?!?

  • Pingback: Community Transformation Plans « Temple of Mut

  • Bender

    Where is TOTUS now that we need him?!?

    It crashed to the ground, just like everything else associated with the big 0.

  • Mike

    But I like numbers! And there have been so few. Did they get mad and leave? Maybe they all got swine flu and died? I just miss my numbers …

  • MJ

    And, now Hilliary is apologizing to India for “our” pollution!! The King and his Court are finks.

  • http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/ Mr. H

    Just another example of the “most transparent” administration ever!

    Mr. H
    http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

  • Andrew

    I think the children’s story – The Emperor’s New Clothes – is a very fitting comparison of BO and the media – and his die-hard followers in the general population. Although I think his sycophants are so deluded that truly believe they see new clothes. And unfortunately, the children will proclaim that he is ‘naked’ when its too late for them.

  • http://comfortyemypeople.blogspot.com SjB

    You are priceless. I have been following your blog for a long time and it’s always good, but this one?

    The King is a Fink!

    I almost fell off my chair laughing.

    Bless you and yours. :)

  • Liz

    I am not sure if anyone has voiced this concern, but….of all the things that this administration is doing to wreck havoc with our country, is “the dear leader” trying to set things up to pull something like what happened in Honduras – essentially become “the dear leader for life”?

    Dear Anchoress – you may pull this post, if you deem it repeating what has been said….

  • Pingback: Obamacare is the silent FOCA « Jim Blazsik

  • Sonar

    In my favorite Wizard of Id cartoon the King rides by a fast food joint, “Burger Fink”.
    He’s apoplectic. He’s afraid of acknowledging it by being angry at it.

    In my (so called) real life I always refer to ‘that’ chain as “Burger Fink”

  • Ken

    It’s really sad to me to see this ostensibly Christian website give vent to a blogger and posters who evaluate this president’s every move through a lens of if-he’s-a-a-liberal,-let’s-take-pot-shots-at-him.

    “A president without checks and balances to rein him in or overrule him, with powerful minions answerable only to him, and with control of most information venues is a president who can decide he’s going to just do as he damn pleases, is an unprecedented sort of president.”

    Of course this would not describe Bush/ or / you complained about this with Bush.

    “A president who can arbitrarily decide to take taxpayer money by the greedy mittsful”

    Greedy? Obama couldn’t possibly be heeding, as best he knows how, the Biblical mandate to care for the poor?

    I respect disagreement on policy. But reading this garbage, it’s hard to believe any of you are thinking seriously about loving your neighbur.

  • upnorfjoel

    C’mon Ken. If it’s garbage just quit reading it and go back to MSNBC and ABC and hear the truth spoken if that’s what you want to believe. Of course, since they are not at all Christian oriented, you probably won’t hear about the immorality of stealing from one to give to another.
    So hear you go….
    When I was a kid (and maybe you also), if I wanted to give one of my marbles to another kid, that was a right and moral thing to do. But if the schoolyard bully came over and took a marble from me to give to another kid, that was immoral and wrong. Remember?
    It’s a simple moral lesson and we know who the bully is now. It’s wrong, period, and your comment about loving our neighbor has nothing to do with what a socialist government imposes upon it’s citizens.

  • jeanie

    The Biblical mandate is to care for the poor, not to force your neighbor to care for the poor the way you think he should.

  • Daniel G. Fink

    Must we return to the childish teasing I received as a youth in the 60-70′s? As a devout Catholic father “working out my salvation in fear and trembling”, grounded in scripture, the catechism of the Catholic Church, and fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, I have little in common with the current administration.
    It is my understanding that the common European Jewish surname “Finkelstein’ was shortened in various ways by immigrants attempting to hide their ancestry in order to find work in the new land. I am eternally grateful for whoever in my father’s heritage converted to the Christianity of my paternal grandfather, my being born Catholic due to the Catholicism of my Polish grandmother on my father’s side.

  • Obloodyhell

    > True: President Obama is the president, and not a king.

    I think you mistyped that one. Here’s what I think you meant to say:

    True: President Obama is the president who thinks he’s a king.

  • http://dailywoof.wordpress.com Kensington

    Encouraging job creation is a much better way to care for the poor than trillion dollar boondoggle payoffs to Democrat special interest groups.

    And what could be greedier than grabbing the power of life and death over the citizenry by turning the entire healthcare apparatus over to a government?

  • http://www.savkobabe.blogspot.com Gayle Miller

    I was at the local hospital yesterday getting pre-operation testing and as it happened Zero was on the television set in every waiting room, trumpeting his magic health care. Several people got up and turned their backs on himself, a further number mumbled stuff that was uncomplimentary and which I will not repeat. I asked an elderly couple sitting next to me how they felt about it and they opined that they were getting any necessary work done now before the “no health care for the elderly bill” was passed! They seemed to think that euthanasia was on the horizon! That’s why I’m getting my work done now. On my private health care policy!

  • Bender

    Come on Gayle, everyone has to put skin in the game. If that means that grandma and grandpa get thrown in the snow instead of medical care, so that we can afford to provide health insurance to perfectly healthy young people who neither need nor want such coverage, then they should be happy “about loving your neighbur,” rather than greedily wanting that hip replacement or heart surgery or “nutrition and hydration” (food and water).

  • Ken

    jeannie, by that logic, why should government do anything at all for the poor, or for anyone, because the more well to do, at least theoretically, pay more than they receive in services? Will you be ripping up your social security check?

    In a democracy we the people get to decide how we want government to care for needy and by what mechanisms, and those decisions begin at the ballot box. Obama is only trying to do what he was elected to do.

    upnorfjoel, I get my news and opinion for conservative as well as liberal sources. And as I said above, that “socialist” government was elected fair and square.

  • Ken

    “And what could be greedier than grabbing the power of life and death over the citizenry by turning the entire healthcare apparatus over to a government?”

    That’s nonsensical. Obama and members of Congress who vote for his plan will make money from it?

  • Ken

    “This withholding of public information/ramming through of legislation is”

    exactly what Bush did with the Patriot Act. It would be uncharitable to deny that he did it with the country’s best interest in mind, and it would be uncharitable to deny that Obama has the same intent.

    And I don’t see any finger wagging arrogance. That’s not his affect.

  • Brian English

    Ken:

    The problem with your defense of the President (he won the election so he is only implementing the will of the people) is that I do not believe many people who voted for him thought he would govern the way he has under the circumstances facing the nation.

    To put it bluntly, the President has been incredibly irresponsible. I realize he thought he had great plans for reforming health care, energy policy and education, but the economic situation should have compelled him to put at least the first two plans on the backburner.

    Instead, he has attempted to quickly force through poorly designed plans that would be harmful in a robust economy. In the current economy they amount to economic euthanasia.

    Although those in the government supporting Obama’s plans may not initially benefit financially, the more control the government has over aspects of the economy, the more lucrative the consulting (lobbying) fees will be in the future.

    It is interesting you refer to the Patriot Act, that defiler of the Constitution. Unless I missed something, President Obama has not made much of an effort to eradicate that threat to all we hold sacred. Maybe he will get around to it about the time he actually closes down that death camp Bush was running in Cuba.

    [It's funny how these things go 'round. Bush won but the left, (initially) not liking his policies, how he governed, or HIM, declared "dissent is patriotic" and did everything they could to thwart his plans. Obama wins, the right does not like his policies or how he governs (and increasingly, the independents aren't liking it either) but now we're told, we should just shut up because the president is doing what he was elected to do (not by a long shot) and somehow dissent is no longer the domain of the patriot. And the Patriot Act, which was a matter of "fierce moral urgency" before the '08 election, is no longer a policy meriting any comment, excepting that Bush "pushed it through." I guess the question then must be asked, when a president pushes through legislation to protect a nation that has been physically attacked, is that the same as when a president pushes through legislation to take over controlling interest in people's daily lives...and deaths. admin]

  • Ken

    Brian, I believe Obama’s correct when he says that health care and energy policy need to be reformed in order to put our financial house in order in the long run. But that’s a policy position, and I claim no special expertise, and I respect other views. What gets me is to see people bashing Obama as a fink, or for supposedly acting like a king.

    I think he’s trying to get legislation passed quickly — he can’t force it, and a lot of people agree with David Brooks this morning when Brooks says that Obama is giving Congress too much power — because he thinks the longer he waits, the less chance he has of getting anything passed. And most people seem to think he’s right.

    Of course you’re correct that more government control means more money for lobbyists, but I say Occam’s Razor. There is every reason to believe he and his fellow Democrats are acting in good faith.

    And I wasn’t stating an opinion on the Patriot Act, just noting that Bush used the same hurry-up-for-the-country’s-sake line.

    ["Bush used the same hurry-up-for-the-country's-sake line." And there followed years of the press beating its breast saying, "we should have asked more questions, woe, woe, we didn't do our jobs!" And yet here they are, "not asking" ANY questions. As ever my beef is with the press, more than anyone else, because they are NOT doing their jobs. admin]

  • Ken

    Anchoress, be serious. Nobody has suggested you shut up, just that you quit name-calling and presuming the worst about Obama — in other words, quit doing what your rightly knock the left for doing in regards to Bush.

    — “when a president pushes through legislation to protect a nation that has been physically attacked, is that the same as when a president pushes through legislation to take over controlling interest in people’s daily lives…and deaths.” —

    No, it’s the same morally as when a president pushes through legislation with the intent of helping “the least of these:” with the intent of, among other things, literally saving many of their lives.

    And what do you mean the press isn’t asking questions? They’ve been covering the debate in depth.

    [Yes, they're right on top of it and really holding the administration's feet to the fire. - admin]

  • Brian English

    Ken:

    The comparison to the Patriot Act fails because we were, in fact, attacked and we had to act to prevent additional attacks. We could debate the substance of the resulting legislation but I do not think any reasonable person would dispute that we had to act quickly.

    The current economic crisis was generally caused by questionable lending practices, overpriced housing, and the creation of various mortgage-backed investment securities that were so confusing that no one seemed to understand them. Those conditions led to restrictions in lending and dramatic drops in housing values. The ripple effect shook the entire economy.

    While reforming health care and seeking to implement an energy policy based on renewable sources are great ideas, they are not urgent matters in a staggering economy. I do not think it can be disputed that the plans the President is trying to push through are going to put more stress on the economy through higher costs for energy and higher taxes to pay for health care.

    Look at the President’s approach in a different context. If someone was rushed to the hospital and placed in the intensive care unit after a serious accident, it would be crazy for the doctors to decide that they were going to do some unrelated heart valve work and a knee replacement that the patient was probably going to need a few years down the road. You deal with the immediate crisis and you deal with the other issues when you can address them without killing the patient.

    I find the rationale that the President has to act quickly because he is losing political capital to be completely unacceptable. If the President’s plans were well thought out and were properly explained he would not be losing support. People have a right to know the real impact these plans will have on them and do not want to be stampeded into accepting them based on absurd claims that the sky wil fall if the plans are not passed immediately. Concerns about the mid-term elections do not cut it when you are talking about legislation that will dramatically restructure society.

  • Ken

    Brian, I understand your objections, I just don’t share them. First of all, I working on health care hasn’t prevented Obama from other taking actions to fix the economy. In any case, even if we accept as a given what is in fact disputed, that health care and energy reform will drag the economy — and that it won’t be dragged down more by health costs that continue to spiral and an energy crisis sooner rather than later — in the meantime, an awful lot of people don’t have health care.

    And I don’t entirely agree that “if the President’s plans were well thought out and were properly explained he would not be losing support.” Ideally by now he’s have a firmer plan and would take time selling it, but that would just give Republicans more time to pick at it. It’s not as if no one thought of overhauling the system before he took office. This was first debated nationally, what, 15-16 years ago?

  • Brian English

    But why does insuring those people require the whole system to be overhauled? Especially in light of the fact that the President’s plan will not cover everyone?

    Couldn’t a program be created for these people (many of them young and healthy who do not think they need insurance) to activate if they suffer catastrophic illnesses or injuries?

    There is no evidence that the President’s plan will actually cut costs, and we are going to be saddled with another government agency overseeing the fiasco.

    President Obama does not have to worry about the Republicans. He has the votes to pass whatever he wants if the Democrats hang together.

    It appears that the President and the Democratic leadership want Republicans to vote with them because if these plans turn out to be disasters they can be presented as bipartisan disasters. That does not instill a lot of confidence in the plans.

  • http://dailywoof.wordpress.com Kensington

    “That’s nonsensical. Obama and members of Congress who vote for his plan will make money from it?”

    Who said money? I said power. Government bureaucrats become more powerful off his plan, powerful to a degree that is not good for the citizenry. The lust for this sort of power is a far more disgusting, and dangerous, example of “greed” than anything most Leftists would describe.

  • Ken

    “The lust for this sort of power”

    is a figment of the right wing’s uncharitable imagination. What’s your evidence that power is what they want? That they disagree with you on how best to deliver health care?

  • Pam

    Excuse me, but my maiden name was Fink; please don’t insult me by compairing my family to this unscrupulous wannabe king!

  • Pingback: Sen. Jim Inhofe Asks the $64,000 Question: Why Are We Debating This Meaningless Climate Bill? (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  • Pingback: Rasmussen Report: American Majority, 72%, Against Obama Controlling Their Light Bulbs « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  • Pingback: Washington DC Biggest Winner of Stimulus/Porkulus Bucks, Money Given to Least Needy States & Counties That Supported Obama « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  • Pingback: Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » “Mean spirited and dangerous?” Heh….


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X