The official proclamation from the media is that President Obama is a moderate now, after word came from the White House that Obama will propose a three-year federal spending freeze in tonight's State Of The Union address. The official proclamation claims that the President got the message from the Massachusetts senatorial election, and now he's taking bold steps to deal with our disastrous deficit/debt problem, the one thing certain to destroy the economic future of this country.

Let's scrutinize the official proclamation for accuracy.

1. Obama's spending freeze would only cut non-defense discretionary spending. This is the small part of the federal budget, representing only about 20% of federal spending. It excludes nearly all the major expenditures, such as Social Security, Medicare, other entitlements, and defense. Over ten years, the White House says this spending freeze would save $250 billion, but the White House isn't proposing a ten-year freeze, it's proposing a three-year freeze, from 2011 through 2013. Estimated savings – about $15 billion per year for three years. To put this in perspective, the deficit for FY2009 was $1.5 TRILLION. The estimated deficit for FY2010 is $1.35 TRILLION. Obama's spending freeze is like taking a drop of water out of a bucket-full, it's so minor. If this is an example of Obama being a moderate, we're in trouble.

2. Obama already INCREASED non-defense discretionary spending by about $100 billion during his first year in office. In FY2009, President Bush's last budget, that spending was $589 billion. Obama jumped it to $687 billion for FY2010, and he did it during a recessionary period of no inflation. That's not moderate either. That's standard liberal big government policy.

3. Prior to announcing the three-year spending freeze, Obama had already submitted budgets to Congress for the next three years. Those budgets had called for REDUCTIONS in non-defense discretionary spending after FY 2010. As Alex Conant explains:

In the budget proposal that President Obama submitted to Congress last year, his budget office already projected actual cuts and freezes in “non-defense” discretionary spending for the next three years. That’s in part because of the huge increase in that area of spending that the President requested (and received) for the current fiscal year. To be specific: FY2009 (President Bush’s last budget) had $589 billion in non-defense discretionary spending. That number jumped to $687 billion in FY2010 (Obama’s first budget), and then drops to $641 billion in FY2011, $622 billion in FY2012 and $625 billion in FY2013. So for the White House to now boast that it will freeze non-defense discretionary spending is hardly news. If anything, it’s backtracking on its earlier plans to actually cut that area of spending.

By my math, if Obama freezes spending at the FY2010 level, he will actually be spending $173 billion more than his own previous budget proposals called for. Still sound moderate ???

4. Also excluded from Obama's spending freeze will be the rest of his stimulus package (which has now swelled from $787 billion to $862 billion, according to the CBO), the massive spending of ObamaCare if it passes (at least a trillion over ten years and most likely WAY more), and a second stimulus package that is being contemplated ($174 billion). I don't see anything moderate there either.

There's nothing at all moderate about Barack Obama. Those who say there is are playing their typical game of 'Let's Pretend.'

Still, this spending freeze that isn't…this drop in the bucket…this $15 billion pretend spending cut amidst trillions in defcits and massive federal spending and entitlement increases….has liberals in an uproar. As the Nobel-prize winning Princeton professor, NY Times columnist, and alleged economist, Paul Krugman, said of the imaginary spending freeze, "this is appalling on every level." President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, actually had the audacity (of a dope) to refer to Obama's move as "fiscal austerity." These guys REALLY like to play 'Let's Pretend.' There has been nothing austere about Obama's fiscal policies to date. Nothing. The reactions of Krugman and Rubin are typical of the liberals, er, I mean progressives. You see, progressives have two fiscal scenarios:

1) During lean economic times like this, they advocate massive government spending and tax increases (like Obama's bank tax, health care taxes, carbon tax, etc, etc).

2) By contrast, during flush economic times, they advocate…um….massive government spending and tax increases.

See the difference ? I don't, but somehow progressives do. They must call them progressives because they progressively take away your income, progressively take away your liberty, progressively take away your rights, and progressively ruin America. I can't think of any other reason to call them progressives on the fiscal front.

Far from being a moderate, Obama is the biggest liberal to ever hold the office of President, by far. His little kabuki theater of fiscal responsibility shouldn't fool anyone.

P.S. – Speaking of progressives taking away your rights, I see the progressive anti-free speech crusade is continuing. They are still trying to stop groups from airing ads on television. This time they are trying to censor Tim Tebow's mother. They don't like her Super Bowl ad, where she says she's glad she didn't listen to the doctors who recommended she abort the future Heisman trophy winner. Progressives know we can't have any crazy talk like that floating around, with mothers going around saying they're glad they had their babies and stuff. With this brilliant move, progressives have now placed themselves solidly in the anti-life, anti-free speech camp. You couldn't make this stuff up, nobody would believe it. They are not only against freedom of speech now, they are against human beings as well.

After listening to President Obama whine about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Citizens United v. FEC case, where the Supremes struck down an unconstituional McCain-Feingold prohibition on campaign ads, I wondered, exactly how big of a hypocrite is Obama ? Apparently, his hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember, Obama is the one who broke his word on taking public campaign financing so he could raise $600 million to defeat John McCain, who did take public campaign financing. LOTS of that money came from special interests, running the gamut from Wall Street to the unions. Obama also spouted quite a lot of anti-lobbyist rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2008, and then turned around and had several lobbyists on his White House team (another broken Obama campaign promise), including John Podesta, who headed Obama's transition team.

As it turns out, 2009 was a very, very good year for lobbyists, and guess which lobbying firm increased it's revenue the most ? If you said, 'John Podesta's lobbying group,' you win the grand prize. The revenue of the Podesta Group jumped 60 percent in 2009. Some grand coincidence, eh ?

Next, consider Obama's health care bill, which catered to practically every medical special interest in sight – the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, AARP, AMA, the unions, etc. Then consider the bribes to Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to get their health care votes. ObamaCare has been a special interest bonanza, and partly responsible for the lobbying boom in 2009, a boom that happened in the midst of a recession, no less.

Lobbying, in and of itself, is perfectly legal and constitutional, just as is running political ads on television. Those activities are part and parcel of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Here's the text of that Amendment, which I'll repeat here because many liberals seem unaware of it, judging by their recent reactions to events:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lobbying IS petitioning the government. The massive increases in the number of lobbyists over the past decade (they've doubled in number) isn't really the problem. It's only a symptom of the real problem, which is – the massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government itself. This has gone on regardless of which party was running things. The lobbyists grew during the Bush administration's huge expansion of government, and the lobbyists are growing during Obama's all-time record expansion of government. Btw, I heard Obama say the other day that he wasn't for big government, he was for smart government. That's another of Obama's titanic lies. He is for BIG GOVERNMENT, period. And that leads inexorably to more lobbyists, more special interest catering, and more corruption, just as it has this year. When the government is trying to remake the entire health care system, is granting subsidies to everyone and everything the government deems wise and appropriate, is disseminating $800 billion in stimulus money to whomever it deems wise and appropriate, is bailing out every industry it deems wise and appropriate, is contemplating how to raise taxes to pay for it all, what else COULD happen, other than every special interest in the country flocking to Washington D.C. to get their share of the taxpayer-funded bounty ??? There is no other possible reality.

The problem certainly is not McCain-Feingold. The problem is every big government advocate everywhere. The answer to the problem is contained in the very U.S. Constitution the left wants to blissfully ignore. The Constitution was designed with the intent of the government being limited. The founding fathers designed it that way on purpose. The founders didn't want the state to be all-powerful. They'd seen enough of that in the monarchies and dictators of their own time. The Constitution is a description of the powers and limitations on the government, and the political power brokers in Washington D.C. are shredding it article by article, page by page. Thus, the solution to all the corruption and favor-buying in Washington D.C. is the same as it's always been – limited government. This is best expressed by the Libertarian/Conservative key phrase – limited government, lower taxes, liberty. It is the ONLY way.

Obama is hardly the solution to the problem. He and those like him ARE THE PROBLEM. The only reason Obama dislikes the Citizens United v. FEC ruling is because he fears much of that corporate advertising won't be in his favor. He fears that money might favor his pro-business opponents, the very ones Obama would like to keep quiet. Obama is perfectly fine with special interests, as long as those special interests are in his corner, as long as he can use them to advance his agenda, and as long as he can use them to consolidate his power.

The bottom line is, if government weren't so all-powerful, if it wasn't handing out favors to everyone in sight, then there wouldn't be so many standing in line jostling for those favors. And if we start cutting government spending, there'd be a nice little side benefit – we could move off the path to bankruptcy that we're on now. We might start righting our financial ship.

But I'm sure our President would consider all this crazy talk. It makes too much sense, and in addition, it doesn't leave the President free to redistribute everyone's wealth (aka, thievery).

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

If you want to know why the White House wishes to discredit Fox News, look no further than this post. Today, I'm going to post something I first heard from Glenn Beck (cue the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth). This is from a 2008 speech by Ron Bloom, President Obama's Manufacturing Czar:

Here's are Ron Bloom's relevant words from that video again:

"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."

Here we have Obama's Manufacturing Czar saying the free market is nonsense. This is the guy who's in charge of creating jobs in the manufacturing sector (yikes. Maybe the Associated Press is right when they say higher unemployment is "the new normal" for America). Bloom has a heavy union background, which is fine, but I'm left to wonder where Bloom thinks those union manufactured products are going to be sold, if not on that nonsensical free market. What is Bloom's alternative ? Is his alternative some type of government-controlled market ? When Bloom says in his next breath that he agrees with Mao that political power comes from the end of a gun, it does sound like government control is what he's talking about. If so, that's pretty frightening stuff, and about as unamerican as you can get.

I actually don't want to believe this. I hope there's some other explanation for Ron Bloom's words, and there could be. I hope this video is taken out of context, and he meant something else altogether, but I couldn't find anything on the internet to counter or provide more context to his statements. I really hope we don't have people in positions of authority in this country who believe such things.

Several conservatives are now running around saying, 'oh, look. Here's another Obama official endorsing Chairman Mao.' I have to take some issue with that, based upon my current knowledge. This isn't the same thing as Van Jones, Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, being an avowed communist. This isn't the same thing as Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, saying Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers. This is just Ron Bloom agreeing with one thing Mao said, and I actually agree with Bloom and Mao about that one thing. Political power often DOES come from the end of a gun. That's why our founding fathers designed a Constitution to limit government power. That's why I believe in that Constitution, and believe in limiting government power as much as humanly possible. The more power we cede to the government, the more powerful that government gun becomes. That's also why the free market is NOT nonsense, as Bloom would have us believe. The free market is essential to a free country. There is no acceptable alternative. As our founding documents state, our rights do not come from men, they come from a higher power. Our government exists to secure those rights, not to trample all over them.

Let's get the crazy train rolling at high speed right off the bat with this first quote…

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.” – Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse (link).

Let me get this straight. After years and years of Democrats attempting to undermine President Bush at every turn in the War On Terror, er, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation, including attempts to lose the Iraq war, a DNC spokesman now has the nerve to say Republicans have thrown in with the terrorists because some Republicans opined that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which he most assuredly didn't, as Obama himself even said). Wow-freakedy-wow-wow. Words fail me. I literally can't think of a negative adjective strong enough to convey how wrong this remark is. I can't even think of a way to equate an opinion on the Nobel Prize with throwing in with terrorists, but evidently Brad Woodhouse can.

And Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) seems to agree. I expect this stuff from dolts like Keith Olbermann or the other lib-nuts on MSNBC, who routinely compare Republicans to jihadis, but not from Democratic Senators or the DNC.

Also, somebody better hip Woodhouse to the fact that the Obama administration has decided the Taliban isn't our enemy any longer. Or Hamas either, for that matter. I bet that'll do wonders for the morale of our troops who've been fighting against the Taliban and dying in Afghanistan for the last seven years. Acceptance of the Taliban is also a major step backwards for human rights, especially from a President who just won the Nobel Peace Prize here on Planet Orwell. Sigh. Is the world turning on it's ear, or is it just me ?
===
Next up is this very conscientous Democratic Senator, who is fully committed to doing his job:

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Yes, being a Congressman is soooo hard, and now they expect Sen. Carper to read AND understand the legislation he's voting upon ? What's a poor Senator to do ? Study or something ? I presume Carper's state of confusion over the legislation won't prevent him from voting "Yea" on the health care bill. You just don't see integrity like Carper's anymore. On second thought, yes you do, all the time on Capitol Hill, and that's the problem.
===
Now we move on to another patriotic Senator, John Kerry (D-NVA). Here's what Kerry said about cap-and-trade legislation:

"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."

Yeah, baby ! We're fundamentally transforming America !!! If we can only make this recession a lot worse, and make it last forever, we can help the environment ! And golly gee, if we go into a full-fledged permanent Great Depression II, maybe we can even reach the Kyoto emission standards ! Victory is at hand ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can, Destroy The Economy !!!! C'mon, everybody sing !

"Obama ! mmmm mmmm mmmm."

I can't stand it. Where did I put that hammer ?

Our Supreme Court Justices are very learned people. They come from the finest schools and study for years and years to master the law. They work their way up through the legal system, and these "best of the best" reach the pinnacle of their profession in order to decide the most difficult and pressing legal issues of the day…

Like whether a cross should be allowed to stand on a rocky outcrop in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free.

The ACLU says no, and lower courts have agreed. I guess one painted cross in the middle of nowhere means we are a theocratic state, like Iran. The ACLU thinks such things because they are such reasonable people.

Here's a photo of the offending cross. (Warning – the religious content may cause small children to go blind or start speaking in tongues.)

I apologize for subjecting you to such offensive imagery, and I sincerely hope it caused no permanent scars. I wish I could have shown you a Mapplethorpe crucifix in a jar of urine instead, something, you know, "artistic."

The offensive cross pictured above is so offensive that it's been covered up for the last few years. Here's what the offensive cross has looked like recently.

There, that's better. Now the cross looks more like a billboard. Nothing is more American than a billboard (which reminds me, please keep shopping to help us out of the recession.) Maybe we can get a Mapplethorpe-like "artist" to paint a picture of a cross in jar of urine on the blank billboard-cross that stands in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. The ACLU wouldn't object to that. The ACLU would defend that. That's because the ACLU is filled with very reasonable folks. They are looking out for your freedoms by, um, censoring stuff.

The problem with the offensive cross is that it is on federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert. Because federal land is not like regular land, federal land has certain conditions. I know federal land looks just like regular land, consisting of dirt, rocks, bushes, and stuff, but it's not. Federal land is very special land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. You can tell federal land is not the same as regular land because it has the word "federal" attached right to it. That makes it sacred land. Strike that. The word "sacred" is also probably offensive when speaking of federal land. Federal land is too special to be referred to as sacred.

We can't allow this one cross to remain on very special federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free, because it could have very serious negative consequences, like this:

The above offensive crosses are on federal land at the Arlington National Cemetery. Somebody better alert the ACLU to this outrage. Personally, I can't wait for the ACLU to try to take on Arlington. Why they are messing around with one trivial cross in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free is beyond me. Why go for that one cross when the motherload is right outside of Washington D.C. ? C'mon ACLU, man up. Go after Arlington. I dare you.

For a long time now, I've realized that the federal government is not operating in the best interests of the American people. This is not a partisan statement. I don't believe Republicans are helping Americans any more than Democrats are (though Democrats are pushing the envelope to irresponsible new heights right now). What the government has been doing for my entire life is to take more and more wealth away from it's citizens to use for itself. Yes, Bush implemented some tax cuts, but they weren't paid for. They added to the deficit, meaning they were not really tax cuts at all, but rather taxes deferred. They added to the already massive national debt (nearly $12 trillion now). We have to pay interest on that debt. The Bush tax cuts may have helped the economy overcome a recession in the short run, but they were detrimental over the long run. Ditto for every other set of deficits run up by every other presidential administration in my lifetime. They are nothing more than claims on future taxpayers. They are nothing more than a continuation of the nonstop fiscal irresponsibility of our federal government that has pissed me off for most of my life. They weaken the dollar and destroy the futures of our children. If you have been living under a rock and somehow don't understand this, try to remember the last presidential administration that ran a surplus for it's term. I defy you to do it. EVERY SINGLE ONE, for the last century, has been increasingly irresponsible, and now we have the most irresponsible administration of them all in power. Barack Obama is projected to run up over $9 trillion in debt, more than every other presidential administration in history COMBINED. That's my central problem with Obama, and it has NOTHING to do with partisanship. Don't listen to the rhetoric from the White House, look at the policies. If Obama became fiscally responsible tomorrow, if he actually started serving the long term interests of this country, I'd be his biggest fan. I'd be shouting 'Yes We Can' from the rooftops. Sadly, that is not the case. Obama is destroying our children's futures faster than ever. America cannot continue to survive this for much longer.

The government is engaged in such a massive ripoff of the American taxpayer that it is beyond the comprehension of most taxpayers to even understand it. The government weaves such an elaborate web of bullshit that most of us don't even realize it's happening. The most we can usually muster up is the vague and general feeling that something is drastically wrong. We don't have any idea how to fix it. It seems way beyond our control. We are the hapless victims of 'they.' "'They' are the ones who set things up this way." 'They' are the ones who always screw everything up. 'They' are the government. 'We' are the people, though we've almost forgotten that the government is supposed to work for us.

The examples are boundless. I could give you a hundred thousand examples of how you are being ripped off by the government if I had the time and space. It's ubiquitous. We aren't $12 trillion in debt because the government is looking out for us. John Murtha (D-PA) didn't spend $150 million in taxpayer funds for his own private airport because he's looking out for Americans. Congress didn't buy more Gulfstream jets because they are the heroes of the common man. Congress didn't steal the Social Security Trust Fund because they are helping YOU. Hell no. They are screwing YOU, royally. They just think you're too stupid to notice. There are literally a hundred thousand more examples of this. Every 1,000 page bill passed by Congress screws YOU to the wall by wasting your hard earned money. THEY think you are idiots, too stupid to notice.

The worst part of all is, THEY are right. You ARE idiots. You keep re-electing the same corrupt bureaucratic douchebags over and over. Only idiots would do that. Only idiots would watch their country being sold down the river and stand idly by, doing nothing. Only idiots would pretend one party is the answer and the other party is the problem. That's the shell game. That's what THEY want you to think. That's part of the con. YOU are the mark, and you better wake up before it's too late. It's almost too late already.

Right now, we have a majority government who is telling you that what's best for you is to have the government FORCE you to buy health insurance, and next up, they are going to tell you that adding over $1,700 to your annual utility bills is a really great idea. They are literally saying that putting $5-12 thousand in new expenses on the average American family is FOR THAT FAMILY'S OWN GOOD. And many of you are dumb enough to believe it. Yes We Can, my aunt fanny.

IDIOTS. And we have massive amounts of slanted media telling you why it is a REALLY GOOD IDEA for you to be an idiot. They are literally telling you that you are too stupid to balance a checkbook.

P. T. Barnum said it best. There's a sucker born every minute. The government operates off of this principle.

Here's one more tiny example of what I'm talking about. The city of Akron, Ohio, my hometown, has built a new library, a new convention center, an art museum, a ball field, an Inventor's Hall of Fame, is refurbishing several high schools, and is redoing it's central interchange, among many other projects. As a result, the city is deeply in debt (and Akron's unemployment rate is 10.7%). Now, shazzam, the city CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IT'S POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS. 96 policemen are being laid off, and 38 firefighters are being laid off. Seriously, are you kidding me ? Are we THIS inept ? Are we going to let them get away with this ? Our city's actions are like a person going out and buying a Cadillac Escalade and a speedboat with the rent money. C'mon, we can't be THIS stupid. The police ARE the rent money in our society. They are the basics. They keep society stabilized. We NEED them. They are about half the reason that we even have a government in the first place. You don't buy luxuries while ignoring the basics, yet this is exactly what our local government has done. Inexcusable. And guess what, they are going to ask YOU to pick up the tab with the next round of tax increases they demand, to pay for the government's irresponsibility. And they are going to hit you with a flurry of political advertising blaming it all on someone else, anybody but themselves.

And about half of you will probably be dumb enough to buy it. AGAIN.

Then the Lame Stream Media scratches their heads, wondering what all the Tea Parties are about. Unbelievable. The phrase 'fiddling while Rome burns' comes to mind.

Wake up America. You are not being served.

I've pretty much had my fill of liberals condemning free speech, and then using the specters of racism and/or violent right-wing boogeymen as the excuse. In my last three posts, I have outlined examples of the left calling the right racist. It's the number one argument they use to discount the Tea Party protests. That argument was shot down by President Obama himself on Meet The Press on sunday:

DAVID GREGORY: …this week you had former President Jimmy Carter saying most, not just a little, but most of this Republican opposition against you is motivated by racism. Do you agree with that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now. But I think you actually put your finger on what this argument's really about. And it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?

The President is absolutely correct. The argument here is about the role of government, not race. The President pointed out that the argument about the government's role goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson versus Alexander Hamilton, and that it always evokes passionate debate. Nothing has changed. Our President is apparently much more intelligent than many of his clueless supporters, who play the race card at the drop of a hat. Kudos to President Obama for saying this.

After the racism charge, the number two free speech stopper used by the left is the politics of fear (which I seem to remember the left condemning not too long ago, ironically enough), in the form of those right-wing boogeymen I mentioned earlier. Apparently, liberals think there are cadres of right-wing nutjobs sitting in front of tv sets and radios all across the country, with their helmets on, armed with hand guns, hand grenades, and Billy Beer, just waiting for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck to give them their marching orders about who or what to go blow up. We saw Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) playing the politics of fear card recently, when she weepily worried about potential violence in front of the cameras. The latest version of this inanity I've read came from the blissfully ignorant Media Matters (aka, George Soros Media Inc.), who had a profound enough lack of self-awareness to write a piece called 'A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this'. That President was John F. Kennedy, of course, and, as much as I hate to pierce Media Matters' bubble of historical revisionism, JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a self-avowed communist. The last I heard, communism was a left-wing ideology. It wasn't "right-wing hatred" that killed JFK. It was left-wing hatred. Not that Media Matters let's the truth get in the way of a good old phony political diatribe.

I can point out ten acts of left-wing violence for every act of right-wing violence over the last several decades, and left-wing governments killed approximately 100 million people in the 20th century alone, (yet somehow liberals NEVER profess a fear of left-wing violence), but liberals do have a real right-wing boogeyman to whom they can point. That is Timothy McVeigh, the man who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the 1990's, killing 168 people. Heinous. He received the death penalty, which he richly deserved.

McVeigh was an anti-tax, anti-big government Libertarian who voted for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in the 1996 Presidential election. That makes McVeigh sound a lot like……ME. I voted for Harry Browne, and I agree with many Libertarian ideas. In light of McVeigh's violence, the question is, does that make the ideas themselves dangerous ??? Should I stop writing what I do because some nut might misinterpret it ? Should I self-censor my political rhetoric ? Liberals have been answering "YES" to that question for months now. They see a bunch of peaceful Tea Party protests (zero examples of right-wing violence) as some kind of powder keg, ready to explode. Liberal accuse the Tea Partiers of fear-mongering even as liberals fear-monger themselves. It's absurd, and we should all be able to see right through it.

Here are a couple things Timothy McVeigh said that I agree with (horrors ! You better arrest me NOW):

"Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate "promises," they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight"

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful."

Dangerous ideas ? I think not. The Founding Fathers held those ideas, and they are ideas about liberty. I think the dangerous people are the ones who don't object to the ever-growing government, which has the inevitable crushing effect of taking away ever more property and choice (freedom) from the citizenry. McVeigh's gigantic mistake was moving into calls for civil war and violence. Naturally, I don't agree with that. I'm all for using peaceful means, as Martin Luther King advocated. You don't defeat tyranny by becoming a tyrant yourself. In America, we can defeat tyranny at the ballot box.

What McVeigh does represent is what I'll call The Lunatic Factor. We have a country of over 300 million people. Because human nature is fallible, some of those people are bound to be unhinged (I should name names here, but I'll resist). These people might listen to political speech and be motivated to do stupid and destructive things, as McVeigh did. What liberals seem not to understand is, this can manifest itself across the political spectrum. Liberals quake in their boots over largely imaginary right-wing violence, but then they turn around and call right-wingers racists, which is about as inflammatory as political rhetoric can get. If so-called "dangerous" speech is to be controlled, as liberals are advocating, then we can start with the liberals themselves. By labeling all the Tea Party protesters as racists, are not liberals, by their own standards, inciting violence against those alleged "racists" ? After all, racists are dangeous people who must be stopped. If Limbaugh and Beck are inciting violence, so are Olbermann, Garofalo, Maxine Waters, Jimmy Carter, etc.

It's one more liberal example of "do as I say, not as I do." The lack of self-awareness is nothing short of astounding. Are liberals incapable of remembering all the way back to LAST YEAR, when they were calling former President Bush all manners of inflammatory names ? For that matter, they still are calling Bush those names.

The bottom line here is, free speech is allowed in this country. We can't ever allow that to be lost. The people we should always cast a skeptical eye upon are the ones who are attempting to stifle it with their scare tactics. At this moment in history, the stiflers in this country are coming from the left. That also happens to be where the stiflers most often come from – from the big, all-powerful totalitarian governments the left is constantly advocating for (knowingly or not). The belief in freedom is not just an ideological exercise. The real world consequences are immense.

One of the most disturbing things about Barack Obama is not Obama himself, but rather some of the people around him, including several people he has put into positions of authority. I've already detailed the radical nature of a couple Obama administration personnel, Science Czar John Holdren and FCC Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd. Holdren has a number of crazy beliefs, among them being the idea that the U.S. Constitution doesn't entitle people to have children. Holdren declared “neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce" in his 1977 book, Ecoscience. Evidently, Holdren missed the second sentence in the Declaration of Independence – "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In Holdren's defense, he only attended MIT and Stanford. Maybe they don't teach the basics at those elite schools. I don't know. I could only afford to go to Podunk University in Backwater, USA (so I am oppressed and demand reparations ! Just kidding. My inner whiny liberal took over for a second there). Yet, somehow I know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution better than Holdren does. I must have read about it on a bathroom wall somewhere, or maybe at a gun show.

Mark Lloyd is another elite. He was a professor at Georgetown and a visiting lecturer at MIT prior to becoming a Hugo Chavez-loving Nazi hell-bent on destroying free speech on America's airwaves. Here's a quote from the well-educated Professor Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. . . . This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. . . . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Yes, Mr. Lloyd, it certainly IS clear that your focus is not free speech. That's why you should take the Che poster down from the wall of your office, clean out your desk, and go peddle your commie crap someplace like Cuba or Venezuela, but not here. Not in this country. We still call this the land of the free, not the land of government diktat.

Another Communist in the Obama administration is the eminent Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. Mr. Jones went to Yale, so he's a real smart fellow, just like the other radical nutjobs I've mentioned. Jones claims to have been radicalized by the Rodney King verdict. By his own words, that drove him to embrace Marxism. I can't say I follow Mr. Jones' logic there, but like I said, I'm not one of the elite. To me, embracing communism because of a perceived American civil rights injustice is like jumping out of an airplane in flight because you don't like your seat. It's a hysterical and moronic overreaction. Maybe Jones doesn't realize that, under Communism, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CIVIL RIGHTS to begin with. What a boob, er, I mean, deep thinker. Liberal groups have been claiming that Jones radical Communist days are behind him, but here's Van Jones in April, 2009:

"This [green] movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing. We're not gonna put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system. We want a new system!…And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt…What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about our immigrant sisters and brothers? What about people who come here from all around the world who we're willing to have out in the field, with poison being sprayed on them, poison being sprayed on them because we have the wrong agricultural system. And we're willing to poison them and poison the earth to put food on our table, but we don't want to give them rights and we don't want to give them dignity and we don't want to give them respect?…We're really entering a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities."

Sounds to me like Jones is still a radical, and a race-baiter to boot. Whitey is poisoning people of color ????? We need to change the whole system ? Into what, Mr. Marxist ? Glenn Beck has been on a tirade against Van Jones for awhile now, and a group Van Jones founded, Color Of Change, has been trying to get Beck kicked off the air (which kinda proves Jones is a Communist. That's what Communists do, silence the opposition. They aren't about the free and open exchange of ideas, in case anyone hasn't figured that out yet).

The next commie-loving race-baiter on the radical hit parade isn't a member of Obama's administration, but her stupidity merits recognition. Her name is Diane Watson, Democratic Congresswoman from California. This woman LOVES her some Fidel Castro, and is so lost in identity politics that she can't even think straight. Dig it:

"You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.”…And remember: They are spreading fear and they are trying to see that the first president that looks likes me fails [Watson is black]…. just want you to know: People look at the United States as a country that has changed its way and has elected someone from Kenya and Kansas, I’ll put it like that. And they’re saying, “We thought you would never do that.” So we don’t want to have this young man, and he just turned 48 — we want him to succeed, because when he succeeds, we regain our status. We regain our status….

It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, “Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?”

And lemme tell ya, before you say “Oh, it’s a commu–”, you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]

And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found…well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…"

First of all, Ms. Watson, we are allowed to oppose Obama's policies, even though he looks like you. His skin color is completely irrelevant, except to those like yourself who are too blind to see anything else. These race-based comments are really just attempts at thought suppression. There's no other way to view them.

About Cuba, yes, please, let's "go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place." I believe the generally accepted term for it is OPPRESSION, along with a health dose of POVERTY, as happens with all Communist states. Cuba is a police state. Fortunately, the Democratic primary challenger for Watson's congressional seat doesn't share Watson's myopic view of Cuban health care. Let's vote him into office.

The final person on today's list is Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar. This guy is an intellectual heavyweight. He's a former Harvard Law Professor, and an expert in constitutional law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. I'm not certain how radical he is, because he's a complex man, but he has at least some very confused ideas. Here are a few of his elite ramblings:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions"

This is quite the straw man argument. I don't know of a single person who doesn't think the government has a legitimate role to play. Government is uniquely qualified for certain roles, and those were laid out in the very beginning by the Constitution. What I distrust is GOVERNMENT INTRUDING INTO EVERY ASPECT OF SOCIETY, as it has been doing by gradual degree for my entire lifetime. And Mr. Sunstein, individualism is not "pernicious." Railing against it is.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government"

This is Sunstein endorsing the Fairness Doctrine in order to control political speech. Looks like we have another nut who doesn't believe in free speech.

I just LOVE this next Sunstein quote. Love it.

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

Did we earn our own money ? Um, YES.
Did we earn it by our own efforts ? YES.
Could we have inherited it without probate courts ? YES.
Could we save it without bank regulators ? YES. (We could even save it without banks).
Could we spend it without public officials ? YES.

Sunstein sounds like the typical government drone, who thinks absolutely everything is derived from government. Wrong.

"Without taxes there would be no liberty," says Sunstein. To an extent, this is true, because taxation supports the government, which exists to secure our liberties. As George Washington said, "Freedom is not free." I think everyone agrees with that much. But should we "celebrate tax day" when our resources are stripped from us to pay for everything under the sun that the government can dream up, waaay beyond securing our liberty ? I think not. Should we celebrate pork barrel spending, special interest handouts, bailouts of the big corporations, the ripoff of our own Social Security system, private jets for congresspersons, trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities ? That would be NO. "Celebrate tax day," indeed. I'd almost as soon celebrate the day burglars broke into my home and stole my television, stereo, and my wife's jewelry. I never once thanked those burglars for helping to redistribute my wealth, nor will I thank the government for stealing my paycheck for unconstitutional purposes. Government exists to secure our liberties, not to rip them away.

I don't know if the FCC had a Diversity Officer before, but they have one now. Here's a brief biography of Mark Lloyd, the newly appointed assoiciate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission.

"Mr. Lloyd was most recently the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/ Education Fund, where he oversaw media and telecom initiatives. Mr. Lloyd was also an adjunct professor of public policy at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, and from 2002-2004 a visiting scholar at MIT where he conducted research and taught communications policy. Previously Mr. Lloyd has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the General Counsel of the Benton Foundation, and an attorney at Dow, Lohnes & Albertson. Before becoming a communications lawyer, Mr. Lloyd had a distinguished career as a broadcast journalist, including work at NBC and CNN." – FCC

As the FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd's mission is to destroy conservative talk radio promote divergent viewpoints that represent the greater community. The fact that Lloyd himself is a liberal (senior fellow at the Soros-funded left-wing Center For American Progress) will in no way affect his mission, I'm sure. As we all know, liberals are the tolerant, open-minded people who are willing to listen to any and all liberal viewpoints.

Lloyd is focused on a serious problem with radio broadcasting – conservative talk radio is beating the pants off of liberal talk radio in the private sector. This is a BIG problem, unlike television, newspapers, movies, and college campuses, where liberals have a large media advantage. There is NO problem there, other than maybe how to get Fox News off the air. Lloyd isn't for a return to the Fairness Doctrine though, because, well, the Fairness Doctrine just wasn't effective enough. Conservative talk might still filter through. Lloyd has some better ideas, and like most liberal ideas, they center around punishing that nasty entity known as the "free market." In a 2007 article titled 'Forget The Fairness Doctrine,' Lloyd says the following:

The Center for American Progress late last month published a widely read report titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” That report demonstrated the failure of the supposed “free market” regulation of the U.S. radio industry to address the public-interest needs of listeners. Our analysis revealed that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of our country—to the detriment of informed public discourse and the First Amendment.

There you go. Those damned Conservatives must be stopped. There's an "imbalance." It's a "detriment." And probably unconstitutional. Unlike newspapers, movies, television, and college campuses, where there is no problem. Lloyd goes on:

In our report, we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity of programming, news, and commentary. And we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Despite what we thought was fairly stark evidence of conservative bias, despite clear proposals to address that bias, Rush Limbaugh and other distortionists insisted that we were calling for a “return” of the Fairness Doctrine

See ? We have conservative "bias" in talk radio, unlike newspapers, television, movies, and college campuses (where we have liberal bias), and those conservative talk radio folks are "distortionists." They lied and said liberals wanted a return to the Fairness Doctrine (how that is supposed to be a lie, I have no idea. All kinds of liberals DID want a return to the Fairness Doctrine).

But as I said before, Lloyd has better ideas than the Fairness Doctrine. Here he is promoting one such idea, which is, file lawsuits to force conservative talk radio into submission:

Here’s the history that matters. In the late 1960s the United Church of Christ successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission over the lack of local input in FCC decisions. A moderate Republican judge, Warren Burger, whom Nixon later appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sided with the church group. As a result of that ruling, a whole slew of rules were put in place to give local communities power in the licensing of broadcasters.

Yes, let's get liberal groups to sue and threaten the licenses of the conservative talk radio stations ! Lloyd expounds on that theme:

In their engagement in the licensing process many of those [suing threatening] groups cited the responsibility of the broadcaster to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance…this core responsibility remains in the Communications Act today.”

Here's Lloyd's bestest idea of all – Make them pay:

The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community. Commercial broadcasters want to be trustees of public property but without responsibility.

Yeah, it's only those "dittoheads" who get all upset when you want commercial radio stations (aka, conservative talk radio) to fund public radio stations (aka, liberal talk radio). That's the ticket. Lloyd actually wants private conservative talk radio stations to fund their direct competition. Only a liberal mind could dream up something this perverse. This all happens under the mirage of promoting divergent opinions. Let's take a look at existing public broadcasting on political issues. As we all know, NPR plays it straight down the middle, politically speaking, as long as by "straight down the middle," you mean "promotes the liberal view."

Now for the piece de resistance. Guess how much Lloyd wants commercial radio stations to pay to fund their public radio station competition ? You're gonna love this. In his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, Lloyd called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do: Here's the communist Lloyd, from his book:

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote in his book. “Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. (link)

How many private conservative talk radio stations would choose to stay in business with such exorbitant fees ? I'm thinking – NONE. I'm also thinking that's the whole idea behind Lloyd's bs.

But our new Diversity Czar doesn't stop there. He also wants to dictate programming content as well:

“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming. “In addition, educational programs for children and adults, and diverse, independent personal and cultural expression should be encouraged,” he wrote.

What's ostensibly crazy about Lloyd's crapola is, we have more divergent viewpoints being heard in our society than we ever have. With the rise of the internet and alternative media, cable television, etc., it's not difficult to find somebody somewhere catering to your particular political stripe. It's easier than in ever was. Mark Lloyd just doesn't like it that conservatives have carved out a niche for themselves on the radio. Think of all the radio stations on the air in your locality. How many of them are conservative talk radio ? One, maybe two out of dozens ? Yet, this is the BIG PROBLEM that Lloyd thinks we need to address ? Ridiculous. Mark Lloyd is disseminating disinformation. Mark Lloyd is just one more in a long line of double-talking, anti-free market, anti-free speech, pro-government control, pinhead bureaucrats who wants to censor any opinions he doesn't like. Because the liberal talk radio that Mark Lloyd wants has not succeeded on as big a scale as has conservative talk radio up until now, Lloyd wants to bully it into submission. Screw him and the horse he rode in on. He's a Nazi. This is all about censorship and nothing else. Have you ever heard a liberal like Lloyd complain about the imbalance of liberal college professors over conservative college professors at state-run universities ? Of course you haven't, and you never will. Those like Lloyd don't care about anything other than shutting up those conservatives. If they can't win in the open market of ideas, they want to close the market.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) computed the day of the year when all the costs of government at all levels are paid for. ATR calls it Cost Of Government Day. This year, that day fell on August 12, 2009. It has taken from January 1st until now to pay for all the costs of federal, state, and local government, plus the regulatory burdens imposed by the government. This year's Cost Of Government Day was almost a full month later than it was in 2008. The biggest reason for the change was the recession, which sparked a massive Keynesian government spending spree (TARP, stimulus, etc). Another reason is the unchecked growth of unfunded entitlement liabilities (Medicare, Social Security, etc).

This year, the cost of government consumed 61.34% of national income. Working people toil 224 days of the year to pay for their government. You can view the Cost Of Government Day report for 2009 here. It makes for some very interesting and disturbing reading.

Put in it's simplest terms, this means that we are becoming slaves to incremental government tyranny. ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade are some of the next steps in that planned process.

The breakdown of Cost Of Government Day is as follows:
- We work 111 days to pay for federal spending.
- We work 49 days for state and local spending.
- We work 42 days for federal regulations.
- We work 23 days for state and local regulations.

Cost Of Government Day varies from state to state, of course, because each state and locality has a differing burden. The state with the least burden (most free) in 2009 was Alaska (where that radical Sarah Palin governed. No wonder liberals hate her). Predictably, the states with the highest government burdens (least free) were liberal states, with Connecticut being the highest, followed by New Jersey, New York, and California. Liberals LOVE to give their hard-earned money to the government (well, actually, they love to give other people's hard-earned money to the government). Liberals exhibit a plantation mentality, with the government playing the role of master, and the liberals playing the happy slaves whose every need is met by Massuh (at the price of their liberty and free choice). This somehow makes sense to them, though I can never understand WHY it makes sense to them. I run from it like I'm headed for the Underground Railroad.

When you're working 7-8 months per year just to pay off the government burdens, it's only natural that you will be poorer than you'd be otherwise, but somehow liberals can never figure this out either. They are always clamoring for more and more government spending, taxation, and regulation. It's their version of Stockholm Syndrome. They loves them some Massuh. Massuh is SO very good and kind. Massuh is SO very smart.

In an irony so thick you could cut it with a knife, liberals, the willing slaves, call people "racists" when they resist the big government takeovers being planned by President Barack Obama. They actually think it's racist to want to be free from government tyranny, all because Obama's skin is black. They can't see past that singular, irrelevant fact. At this point, crying racism is nothing more than the liberal Pavlovian response to freedom. They can't help it, and they don't understand what the rest of us are so upset about. They don't get that most people don't want to become wards of the state. They are completely baffled when people don't want the government to takeover every aspect of their lives, so they use "racist" as a sort of intellectual firewall. Go figure.

Back to the Cost Of Government Day report. One of the many myths the report destroys is the idea that Obama's stimulus package was actually an economic stimulus package. It wasn't. It was mostly just a bunch of big government appropriations spending under the guise of stimulus, along with spending to prop up, guess who? – the government ("never let a crisis go to waste"). Here's the breakdown of spending in the alleged stimulus package:

- $90 billion for “State Fiscal Relief;”
- $71.3 billion for the Department of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education (including $16.6 billion for
Student Financial Assistance, $13 billion for Education for
the Disadvantaged, $12.2 billion for Special Education and
$9.7 billion for National Institutes of Health);
- $61.1 billion for Transportation, Urban Development and
Housing (including $27.5 billion for Highway
Construction);
- $57.3 billion for Assistance for Unemployed Workers and
Struggling Families (including 39.2 billion for
Unemployment Compensation);
- $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund;
- $50.8 billion for Energy and Water (including $16.8 billion
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy);
- $26.4 billion for Agriculture, Rural Development and Food
and Drug Administration (including $20 billion for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program);
- $25.1 billion for Health Insurance Assistance;
- $20.8 billion for Health Information Technology;
- $15.8 billion on Commerce, Justice and Science (including
$4.7 billion on the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program);
- $10.6 billion on Interior and Environment (including Clean
Water and DrinkingWater State Revolving Funds);
- $7.9 billion on Defense and Homeland Security;
- $6.7 billion on Financial Services and General Government
(including $5.4 billion on the Federal Buildings Fund);
- $4.3 billion on Military Construction and Veteran Affairs.

Another interesting item in the report is how the tax burden of the various states affects the population and prosperity of those states. The report states that between 1997 and 2007, the ten states with the highest tax burdens lost 3 million citizens and $82 billion in income. During the same period, over 2.6 million people moved to the states with no income tax, bringing in about $98.5 billion in income. Hmmm. Those no income tax states must be racist.

Maybe the most important thing to remember about President Obama's first year in office is this – in 2009, taxpayers are confronted with a federal budget that raises spending to over $9,000 for every man, woman and child in America—forever. That's $36,000 for a family of four. EVERY YEAR. And our President has only just begun to "change" America. Change into what, I shudder to think.

In conclusion, keep going to those Tea Parties and townhall meetings. Keep telling your Congressperson what you think. The only ones who can stop this tyrannical government (and it started long before Obama arrived on the scene) is we, the people. Ignore all the name-calling you endure from the leftist slaves and their pet slave media. They are the problem. You are the solution.

Barney Frank (D-VT) wants the federal government to decide how much Wall Street executives (and all other executives of private companies) are paid. Barney also wants the government to decide how they are paid. Legislation to ban incentive-based pay for private corporations has been approved by the House Financial Services Committee.

I don't know where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government thinks it obtains the authority to do this, but, hey, we don't use that musty old Constitution thingy anymore anyway. The notion of limiting centralized governmental power (federalism) envisioned by the founding fathers is as outdated as bell bottomed jeans. These days, we seem to be climbing all over ourselves to give the federal government all the power it wants (totalitarianism). The statists are on the march, making all the same false promises the statists always make, the false promises that never quite seem to materialize (FYI – health care reform = forcing all Americans to buy health care insurance and then having the government determine what medical procedures you are allowed to have, in case you haven't figured that out yet).

Here is Barney's rationale for limiting executive pay:

"The problem with executive compensation is essentially, from the systemic standpoint, that it gives perverse incentives," said Frank, a Democrat. Without penalties for bad bets, the system means "heads you win, tails you break even," he said.

Perverse incentives. That means people shouldn't be rewarded for driving their companies into the ground. They should be held accountable instead. I think we can all agree with that, if not with the idea that the federal government should dictate people's salaries. That is so……Soviet.

Let's continue with these ideas of accountability and perverse incentives. As of July 31st, 2009, the federal debt stood at $11,617,400,889,464.57. That's over $11.6 trillion. As soon as I write these words, they are outdated, because the national debt is now higher. The debt has increased by $3.89 billion PER DAY since September 2007. In addition, the federal government is projected to run nearly a $2 trillion deficit in 2009. We paid $451 billion in interest on the federal debt in 2008. This year it will be much higher. The interest on the debt is money flushed down the toilet (or sent to a foreign government, like China) that could easily pay for any imaginable health care reform we could dream up. Instead, our federal government has burdened every American citizen with roughly $38,000 in debt. The federal government is the poster child for incompetence.

This means the federal government, if viewed as a corporation (FedCorp), would be the worst run corporation in the entire history of the world (with the possible exception of those defunct Soviets we're trying to emulate). So, how are we holding FedCorp accountable ? Why, we're about to hand the entire health care system over to them !!! We're going to reward the worst company ever, FedCorp, by handing it control over 16% more of our economy. Talk about perverse incentives. This is equivalent to handing the entire energy sector over to Enron. FedCorp has shown NO ability to be responsible managers of taxpayer dollars, so, naturally, let's keep giving them ever more and more. That's the ticket. And never mind that the part of health care FedCorp already controls, Medicare/Medicaid, has such massive unfunded liabilities that it is threatening to destroy our economy down the road. If not addressed, the unfunded entitlement liabilities will hit our economy with such an economic tidal wave that the current recession will look like a ripple in a pond by comparison.

While we're on the subject of salaries, FedCorp is holding itself accountable for it's putrid mismanagement by…..giving all FedCorp's civilian employees a 2.9% pay raise in 2010. This is after Congress voted itself a 2.8% pay raise in January 2009, with the country in the depths of the recession. Apparently, accountability and perverse incentives don't apply to FedCorp, only to that horribly greedy entity known as the private sector (the sector that produces all our goods and services). FedCorp is spitting directly in your faces, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. YOU tighten your belts. THEY get raises.

There are so many examples of the federal government throwing away taxpayer dollars that I could never list them all. This post would be a thousand pages long if I tried. Go to the website YouDontKnowJack to see some examples of how just one Congressman, Jack Murtha (D-PA), aka, the King Of Pork, throws YOUR money around to his cronies and special interests. It's disgusting.

And it wasn't that much better when the Republicans were in charge. During the Bush years, with Republicans controlling Congress, government spending STILL skyrocketed. Federal spending went from $2 trillion to $3 trillion per year during Bush's tenure (and those guys were supposed to be conservatives ??? I don't think so). The only way the Bushies were conservative is if you compare them to Obama and the Democrats, who are trying to match Bush's 8-year federal spending increase total ($1 trillion) in their FIRST YEAR. If Bush was the frying pan, Obama is the fire. I find myself longing for the return of Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress. At least those guys realized the economy was EVERYTHING. Those guys look like geniuses compared to Bush and Barry, and even Clinton ran net deficits and added $1.5 trillion to the debt. Things have been so bad since then that Clinton and his GOP'ers seem like the good old days.

Our federal government is so far out of control that I barely know where to start. This post is only a drop in the bucket in trying to describe it. FedCorp is like a bunch of crack addicts with our money. They can never get enough. With an addict, there's only one cure. You have to MAKE them stop. WE have to make them stop. WE have to get rid of the whole bunch of them. WE have to vote them all out of office and start over. That's the only way WE can make a difference, the only way WE can make the federal crackheads stop. Barring that, WE are screwed. Barring that, America, the land of the free, will very soon be OVER. There is only so much money that FedCorp can spend. There are only so much taxes that FedCorp can take from us. We're on the express train to poverty as long as this continues. Wake up, America. Your country is disappearing before your very eyes.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

Last friday's Glenn Beck show was a townhall meeting with several Tea Party protesters. Needless to say, I found myself agreeing with much of the sentiment expressed. Two main themes were repeated by several of the Tea Partiers – 1) The mainstream media completely misrepresented the Tea Party protests (no doubt about that), and 2) The two party system is broken. The Tea Partiers looked at both Democrats and Republicans as betrayers of the public, and betrayers of the Constitution (the media ludicrously portrayed this sentiment as 'rightwing extremist racists against Obama for no good reason').

Those Tea Partiers are some smart folks. They give me hope.

I spend most of my time on this blog criticizing the political left, because they are the statists, the totalitarians who believe big government is the answer to everything. Such a threat to individual liberty, our Constitution, our founding principles, and our country cannot be overstated. I will resist that to my dying breath. After a 20th century in which Americans shed so much blood fighting fascism and communism, I'll never accept those very things in my own country.

Some people, mainly liberals, think my criticisms of the left mean I am the reincarnation of George W. Bush. It's as if they think there is only Michael Moore or Dick Cheney, and nothing in between. They'd be wrong. My contempt for Republicans is only slightly less than my contempt for Democrats. While the Republicans SAY they stand for limited government as prescribed by the founding fathers, which is a natural attraction for me, the Bush administration proved otherwise. We've seldom seen such an increase in government as we did with the Bush administration and his Republican Congress (at least until Obama came along and made the Bushies look like small government types by comparison, no small feat). I look at the Republicans as big government, and the Democrats as bigger government. That's a Hobson's choice I've never been comfortable with. I invariably enter the voting booth thinking, 'should I vote for the Republican just to vote against the liberal Democrat, or should I vote for a third party candidate I actually believe in, but who has no chance of winning ?'

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Many Tea Party protesters feel the same, and I talk to lots of people who think the Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. The people feel helpless, because the two big parties form a virtual duopoly, with so much money and power that the game is heavily rigged in their favor. More people categorize themselves as Independents than as members of either of the two big parties, and I am one of those.

I ask the readers, where do you stand on the political spectrum ? Maybe you are a Libertarian. You could be a Libertarian or have Libertarian leanings, and not even know it, so I'm going to link you to the world's smallest political quiz, which is designed to tell you where you stand politically.

Take the test, and let me know how you scored. It's a very short test. I come out as a slightly right-leaning moderate Libertarian, which is pretty accurate.

You can find out more about the Libertarian party here.

Theft – a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it (from Mirriam-Webster dictionary)
—–
Question: Is it legal for the government to steal your property and give it to someone else at the government's whim ?

Answer: If you think the answer is 'no,' you better think again, because as things currently stand, the answer is an unqualified 'YES.'

Questions: How can such a thing possibly be legal when we have a Constitution that provides for equal protection under the law, the right to privacy, and the protection of private property ? How can such a thing possibly be legal when we adhere to the idea that all men are created equal ? How can such a thing be possible when our entire citizenry would say they are against theft ?

Answer: That's a long story, but in shorthand, it's known as the redistribution of wealth (taxation). Under the Constitutional vision of our founding fathers, taking away the income and property of one individual only to hand it to another individual would have been a crime. That crime is known as theft, and it's against the law all over the world….until the government gets involved, that is. Somehow theft is accepted by some when the government does it. It makes absolutely no sense, but that's the way some people see it.

Now for the long version of how we got to where we are today, where the government can legally steal almost anything it wants to steal. This is the story of how the Constitution was subverted over time, and the Constitutional limits on government were stripped away, leaving government as your virtual lord and master, where liberty is granted or stolen at the government's discretion.

Some of you may be saying to yourselves, 'wait a minute King, the government has ALWAYS had the power to tax. That's in the Constitution too.' And that's true. Congress does have the power to tax, but the government had to amend the original Constitution in order to tax people UNEQUALLY. That was accomplished with the Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax legal in 1913. Prior to the income tax, the Constitution stated that taxes had to be apportioned among the states (equally applied). The Sixteenth Amendment overruled existing law, and overruled existing court decisions, such as Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which greatly limited the Congress' authority to levy an income tax. With the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, the door was opened for Congress to start confiscating private property at it saw fit (your wages are your private property. They don't belong to anyone else).

If you want to see what the income tax has led to, just look at the explosion of government spending in the following chart:

After 150 years of relatively stable government spending, it didn't take long after the establishment of a limitless income tax for the government to realize it could confiscate money from the people any time it liked, to be used for any purpose the government wished. In other words, the power to tax without limits and without any sense of equality has allowed the government to become the all-powerful behemouth it is today.

The above chart also explains perfectly why we are in such dire financial straits today. We have allowed the federal government to have far too much dominion over our lives, and as it has proven time and again, the federal government is an inefficient and dumb beast that can't manage anything, least of all itself.

But government tyranny and legalized theft didn't stop with the income tax. That was only the beginning of the subversion of our Constitution. Once we started down the road of abandoning Constitutional protections for the people, we continued right on allwoing it to happen. George Will wrote a column called 'Racing Past The Constitution,' that discusses some of the ways the government is denying our Constitutional rights.

In 2005, we had a radical Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo v. New London case that trashed the Fifth Amendment, perverted the rule of eminent domain (which previously only allowed the government to take property 'for public use'), and allowed the government to take private property from one person and give it to another private entity just for the sake of increased tax revenue. And we the people accepted it, when we should have risen up against our government over such a blatant redefinition of Constitutional intent. We allowed the government to make our country less about the people, and more about – of the government, for the government, and by the government.

We've also allowed the Fourth Amendment to be trashed repeatedly, through RICO laws, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and a variety of other ways. Due process is denied to American citizens as their property is taken and the citizens have to prove their innocence, rather than the government having to prove them guilty. Privacy hangs by a thread. You may as well consider it a relic from the past.

While I'm on the subject of trashing the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, which guarantees states rights, is virtually repealed. Fedzilla has mowed that one down too, as all power coalesces to the federal government. Second Amendment rights are narrowing and under attack.

How long will it be until the First Amendment, the right to free speech, is assaulted ? There is already a movement in Western culture to prohibit speech against religions, which is endorsed by the United Nations, as free speech begins to become secondary to political correctness and diversity. How long before America starts down that road, if we haven't already ?

Beware, America. The freedoms you take for granted are dissolving right before your eyes. You can't take them for granted. You must fight for them. As legalized theft of your property and rights increases, your individual liberty diminishes. As George Washington once said, "freedom is not free."

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

Rabid lunatic left-wing bloggers have been casting the blame for the killings of three Pennsylvania police officers by Richard Poplawski right where the blame lies – on Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck. When I first heard about this, I thought it was some kind of sick joke, for the following reasons….

Did Beck tell Poplawski to go kill cops ? No.
Did Beck tell anyone to go kill cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against cops ? No.
Does Beck advocate violence against anyone ? No.

But lunatics are undaunted by facts. That's what makes them lunatics. Lunatics act in irrational ways. That's why the lunatic Poplawski murdered three police officers in Pennsylvania, and that's why the lunatic left-wing bloggers think it's Glenn Beck's fault. Here is why the loony left thinks Beck is to blame – one of Poplawski's neighbors said Poplawski was afraid President Obama would take away his guns, Glenn Beck interviewed NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the Obama assault weapon ban/Mexican drug cartels, and Poplawski allegedly saw Beck's program about alleged FEMA internment camps. That's pretty much the loony left's entire case against Beck. The loons say Beck is "inciting violence" (normal people would say Beck is engaging in "free speech").

I wouldn't even be reporting this spew from the lunatic bloggers, because I could care less about their hate-filled nonsense, but the lunatic fringe blogger spew has spilled over into the lunatic fringe mainstream media, namely the Countdown With Keith Olbermann program on MSLSD, er, I mean, MSNBC. Last night, Olbermann named Beck one of his 'worst persons in the world,' and declared that Beck was inciting violence and shared the blame for Poplawski's actions (FYI – Olbermann is obsessed with Fox News, who clobbers Olbermann and MSLSD in the cable news ratings. One or another Fox News host is almost ALWAYS one of Olby's 'worst persons.' It's incredibly transparent and self-serving on Olby's part).

For the sake of argument, let's suspend disbelief and pretend the lunatic left spew has enough credibility to be addressed. I'll address it here:

On Obama banning guns - Obama DOES want to ban assault weapons, just as Beck said on his program. There are also several pieces of gun restriction legislation in Congress at this moment, as I reported myself in a blog article I called 'Democrats And The Second Amendment.' (I guess that makes ME responsible for the cop killings too). Obama's own attorney general, Eric Holder, has said he doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment allows private citizens to bear arms. If the lunatic left wants to know where people get the idea that Obama and the Democrats want to take away their guns, I suggest the lunatic left take a look at OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

On Beck interviewing NRA head Wayne LaPierre - It's called the First Amendment, loony left. Get used to it. This is the USA, not Soviet Russia. And there was NO incitement to violence by Beck. That exists only in the fevered imaginations of the loons.

On Beck talking about FEMA internment camps - Beck is DEBUNKING the story about the FEMA camps, you lefty blogger morons. Beck is investigating the claims and finding them to be FALSE. Beck says the government is NOT intending to put Americans in internment camps.
—-
Beyond the absurd notion that Beck is somehow responsible for the actions of a crazed cop killer, let's take a look at the galactic hypocrisy in which the lunatic left is engaging. These people have the gall to say right-wingers are inciting violence after the lunatic left has engaged in the following (to name only a few examples out of a multitude):

- Called Bush an international criminal, racist, fascist, terrorist, murdering thug for the last 8 years. If somebody assassinated Bush after listening to the loony left, would the loony left be responsible ???

- Openly advocated violence against AIG employees and their families. This wasn't only the loony bloggers. Even House Financial Services head Barney Frank (D-MA) threatened to publish the names and addresses of AIG employees unless they returned their bonuses, so the mob could find them. President Obama himself said Americans should be outraged at AIG. Obama also told the bankers, "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." An ACORN group led bus tours to the homes of AIG employees, so the mob would know where they lived. If somebody killed bankers or AIG employees, would the loony left, the Democrats, and the President be responsible ?

- Left wing Air America radio ran audios of the simulated shooting of president Bush on more than one occasion. Luckily, since only three people listened to Air America, nobody heard the implied threats against the president. When Glenn Beck does something like THAT, then I'll listen to your complaints, haters.

- Obama's left wing buddy Bill Ayers bombed buildings as a member of the Weathermen.

- Left wing groups like Code Pink routinesly disrupt proceedings, such as the Republican National Convention, sessions of Congress, etc. Left wingers routinely shout down and attack conservative speakers at college campuses and at their homes. Left wing groups like PETA throw blood all over people wearing fur. Left wing environmental groups routinely spike trees, resulting in the maiming and death of lumberjacks. Left wing groups like Al Sharpton's National Action Network have incited riots against store owners, resulting in murder. And if we REALLY want to talk about fomenting violence, the leftist philosophy of Karl Marx was responsible for about 120 million people being killed in the 20th century.

I could give you scores more examples. If the stupid moonbats want to go on a witchhunt looking for people who incite hatred and foment violence, I suggest they go look in the damned mirror.

I don't usually take much stock in opinion polls, but a recent poll by Fox News got my attention. On February 17-18, 2009, Fox conducted a telephone survey of 900 registered voters, consisting of 375 Democrats, 319 Republicans, and 166 Independents. Here are some of the more interesting results.

Question - Do you think Americans are starting to rely too much on the government and not enough on themselves? Yes – 76%, No – 20%, Don't Know – 3%

Good answer. It seems to show that people haven't been totally brainwashed into thinking the government must supply their every need. 63% of Democrats thought we rely on government too much, 91% of Republicans thought so, and 76% of Independents agreed. That's consistent. We already knew Democrats were the biggest government teat sucklers.

But things are not what they appear to be. Listen to the answers when the voters were asked whether the government should supply specific needs.

Questions – Do you think it is responsibility of the federal government to:
- Help rebuild communities affected by natural disasters ?
88% said Yes
- Make sure all Americans have food ?
68% said Yes
- Make sure all Americans have health care ?
66% said Yes
- Provide housing to those who cannot afford it ?
52% said Yes
- Make sure all Americans who want a job have a job ?
51% said Yes
- Rescue failing financial institutions ?
28% said Yes

So, Americans think we rely on government too much, but they want the government to provide food, housing, health care, and jobs for us. Um, what does that leave for us to provide for ourselves ? Maybe Americans think we should still dress ourselves and wipe our own butts. That's the old American can-do pioneer spirit that made this country great !!! We don't even know that much, because Fox didn't ask. I'm afraid what the answer would be if they had. We're becoming a nation with our hand out. Like babies, we cry "gimme" and demand our "rights" to everything under the sun. Again, on every "needs" question, Democrats thought the government should provide those needs at far higher numbers than did Republicans or Independents. Wah, wah, teat, teat.

Here's the kicker.

Question – Overall, would you say you generally trust the federal government, or not ?
41% said Yes, 54% said No

Question – In general, do you think most elected officials in this country are honest and ethical, or not?
32% said Yes, 63% said No

So, we want the government to provide all our basic needs, but we don't trust those corrupt sob's very much. That's like gladly ceding all responsibility over to the Mafia, and then hoping the mob will come through for you. Maybe narcotics are more rampant in this country than I thought. This is starting to give me a headache.

I think it's time for another lesson from Alexander Tyler, the Scottish history professor from the University of Edinburgh, who said the following in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage”

Can't say it any better than that.

I think I'll call 911 and have the government deliver me a pizza now. Me hungry. Bye, bye.

Last sunday on Face The Nation, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said [Rush Limbaugh is] “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.” Emanuel also said Limbaugh has been "praying for failure' of the Obama administration. He went on to say "…it’s our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh.”

Notably, nobody had asked Rahm Emanuel a question about Rush Limbaugh. Emanuel just volunteered the above information. Previously, President Obama said people shouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, as if the entire GOP is but a parrot of Rush's daily radio talking points. ABC News' George Stephanopolous and talking head James Carville, both refugees from the Clinton administration, have called Rush Limbaugh the head of the Republican party. You may remember that Stephanopolous was criticized recently for getting HIS talking points directly from the White House. It seems abundantly clear that the strategy to demonize Rush Limbaugh, and by extension to demonize the entire conservative Republican ideology (by casting Limbaugh as it's leader), is coming directly from that same White House.

When Rahm Emanuel says Republicans shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh," what does that mean ? What is Limbaugh's philosophy ? We can find out by perusing Limbaugh's recent speech at the CPAC conference. Limbaugh literally tells us what his definition of conservatism is:

"I want to tell you who conservatives are…When we look out over the United States of America… we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit…We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government…We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.
We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty…There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance…We want everybody to succeed. You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people — its individuals — must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us… take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any [who's problems have been solved]. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us.
…I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed…the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party.
"President Obama…he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable.
President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration? Now, this is not prosperity."

Thus, when Rahm Emanuel says the GOP shouldn't "adopt the philosophy of Rush Limbaugh," he is saying the GOP should stop being the GOP, because individual liberty, equality of opportunity, limited government, low taxes, etc. are supposed to be core Republican principles (I say "supposed to be," because Republicans often haven't followed their own stated conservative principles). Such a philosophy isn't something Rush Limbaugh dreamt up. That philosophy predates Rush by over two hundred years. It's the philosophy espoused by our founding fathers and enshrined in our founding documents. It's the philosophy of freedom that made America great. Obama, Emanuel, and company would have you forget all that, by placing the focus on the "divisive" Rush Limbaugh instead. They are saying, in effect, 'forget about America's founding principles, because Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard." I'd respond, "Rush Limbaugh is not the issue, the abandonment of America's core principles is the issue." The Democrats are using the Limbaugh distraction to mislead Americans into blind submission to the will of the Obamans. That's utter nonsense. You SHOULD listen to Limbaugh or someone similar, just as you SHOULD listen to Obama, and SHOULD listen to everyone else, from the far left to the far right. That's the only way to arrive at an informed decision. When political operatives like Emanuel tell you to STOP listening to the opposition, to stop questioning Obama for the sake of "unity," and when they start characterizing any disagreement as divisive and destructive, well, those are the very people you should be worried about. There should never be a time in America when Big Brother is not questioned, and Obama is certainly no exception, especially with so much at stake. Rush Limbaugh doesn't represent power in this debate. Obama does. And we should pay very close attention. Pre-Obama, liberals said it was imperative to speak truth to power, but now, it's questioning power that troubles them. Yesterday's activist becomes tommorrow's oppressor. No, thanks. All oppressors are the same to me. You can have them.

Here's Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) listening to the voice of the people who think Obama's stimulus bill wastes WAY too much money on non-stimulative pork spending:

"…and let me say this, to all the chattering class, that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments. The American people really don't care."

So shut your faces, you chattering class you. All that incessant chattering is harshing Big Brother's mellow. Just be good little sheep, and let Lord Obama and Sir Chucky lead the flock (over the edge of the cliff). Gee whiz, you chatterers act like trillions of dollars in government spending is something to be concerned about. And those "tiny, little porky amendments," hey, those only add up to tiny little porky billions of dollars. Clearly, there is no problem. A billion is pocket change. Y'all keep forgetting about the CHANGE thing.

Speaking of CHANGE, power has slapped truth upside the head on energy too. Remember last summer, when gas prices were skyrocketing and Republicans were making gains in the polls with their advocacy of drilling offshore and in ANWR ? Then, Lord Obama CHANGED his mind and said he was open to considering offshore drilling. Well, it seems he has now considered it (for at least a second or two), and decided – NO. In only three short weeks, Lord Obama and the Dems have cancelled Bush era oil and gas leases in Utah, introduced a bill in Congress to permanently ban drilling in ANWR, and have shelved Bush's plan for offshore oil drilling. The Dems continue their 30 year assault on America's energy independence. But not to worry, we still have biofuels (which studies have shown produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels), inconsistent windmills, and inconsistent solar power. Comforting, isn't it ?

I guess Lord Obama showed you, suckers. And stop that chattering out there. It's giving power a headache. Power can barely hear itself not think. If you don't pipe down, power will institute the Fairness Doctrine. That'll show you. You chatterers can just go to your rooms. You're grounded.

One last bit of chatter, however. Wouldn't all that oil and gas drilling our Lord has banned have created lots of JOBS and stimulated the economy, WITHOUT REQUIRING MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ??? I guess some jobs are more equal than others. Power blasts truth in the chops again.

As if that isn't bad enough, Lord Obama appointed an attorney general, Eric Holder, who doesn't believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Power is telling the Constitution of the United States to stop chattering too. In an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller, Holder cosigned a brief which argued the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one. In other words, Holder recognizes the "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the Second Amendment, but pretends he can't see the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's a common left wing dodge. I guess they think we'll form that militia with broomsticks and shovels. Btw, gun sales have increased rapidly since Lord Obama took office, in anticipation of a coming, um, shortage.

And have you met Obama's deputy attorney general, David Ogden ? He sounds like a moonbat, and a creepy one at that. Some of his stranger positions – He opposed parental notification on abortions for 14-year olds. He opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (Hmmm. Pro-child stalker). He challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Act of 1988, arguing that requiring pornographers to verify that their porn viewers were over 18 was too much of a burden and infringed on their First Amendment rights (hmmm. Pro-porn for kids.) He tried to force the Library of Congress to use taxpayer dollars to produce pornographic materials in Braille (Pro-porn for the blind).

What is one to surmise from this ? I guess Ogden likes his porn, wants kids to see it (or if blind, they can feel it), wants them stalked online, wants them impregnated, and then wants them to have an abortion on the sly without telling their parents. That's his take on the First Amendment. Nothing creepy about that, right ? Wrong. Ugh. This guy is a kiddie porn and sexual predator's dream come true. That's our deputy attorney general, and he is rumored to be Obama's first pick for a Supreme Court replacement.

Great. Just freaking wonderful.

That's enough for now. I'm getting sick just writing about this.

President Obama signed the SCHIP expansion into law yesterday amid great Democratic fanfare. As Democrats like to do, Obama pointed out a family that would benefit by his wonderful legislation (this time it was the Secrest family). Unmentioned, of course, were the hundreds of thousands of families to be hurt by the tax increase which pays for the SCHIP expansion. I've written before about how Obama is paying for SCHIP with a 61 cent tax on cigarettes, which studies show falls mainly on the poor, who smoke at much higher rates than more wealthy people do. I don't want to rehash all that again, but Obama made some comments during yesterday's SCHIP victory speech that I can't let pass:

But, as I think everybody here will agree, this is only the first step. Because the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American…We'll have made the single largest investment in prevention and wellness in history, attacking problems like smoking and obesity, and helping people live longer, healthier lives.

I've heard politicians make stupid statements before, lots of them, but I want to nominate this one for the stupidity hall of fame. In the same speech that Obama is celebrating an SCHIP expansion funded by cigarette smokers, he says he wants to eliminate the problem of smoking…..which would eliminate the funding for his SCHIP expansion. Duh. In fact, SCHIP funding depends on the creation of 24 million NEW smokers.

Obama seamlessly morphed his "for the children" plea into a reason we should fork over $1 trillion+ for his pork-filled stimulus bill. He's promoting the dubious proposition that we can "help" our children by deficit spending ourselves into oblivion, which will saddle our children with mountains of debt and certainly lower their future living standards. This is precisely what Ronald Reagan warned about when he said the scariest words in the english language were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Our post-partisan president also took a shot at Republicans who oppose The One's spend-a-palooza:

Now, let me say this. In the past few days, I've heard criticisms of this plan that, frankly, echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can address this enormous crisis with half-steps, and piecemeal measures, and tinkering around the edges, that we can ignore fundamental challenges like the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

Yeah, those rotten tax-cutting Republicans. How can those GOP wingnuts possibly think that giving people more of their own money back through tax cuts will help them…to….have…..more….money ? That's just crazy talk. Divisive. As for those "same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place," why does Obama think it was 10% tax cuts that did it ? Why doesn't Obama recognize the 50% increase in GOVERNMENT SPENDING during the Bush years as a contributing factor ??? How about the fact that government spending has doubled in the last decade ? Why doesn't Obama recognize that failed policy ? It couldn't be because Obama wants to DOUBLE OR TRIPLE that spending increase, could it ? What a bunch of malarkey our president is trying to push on us. He's trying to pass the largest government spending bill in history off as a "stimulus package", and then condemns the GOP for wanting to restrict the bill to things that actually might have a chance to stimulate the economy. I'm also pretty sure the GOP isn't strenuously objecting to the infrastructure projects either. Mr. Post-partisan forgot to mention that too.

Finally, the president pushed his electoral mandate:

"I reject these [GOP] theories. And, by the way, so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

Now, I don't want to be a stickler or anything, and as mesmerized as I am by that word 'change,' I don't recall Obama campaining on the idea that he was going to pass a $1 trillion spending bill right after he was elected, do you ??? I don't remember him saying he was going to raise the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack either. Such things might have influenced the outcome of the election. If only Obama had been more "transparent" about the policies he intended to pursue. What I remember Obama saying is "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" over and over, just like those failed Republicans are doing. What I remember is Obama saying he'd make health care more affordable. Now, objecting to his tax increases and massive spending increases is a "failed theory." No, Mr. President, what you are promoting is the failed theory, the one that says we can continue to live beyond our means. It's the same big government theory we've been operating on all along, except now you want to put it on even more powerful steroids, to make it a super-failed theory. No thank you.

And the polls are showing Americans don't want the stimulus bill passed in it's current pork-packed form. By all means, Mr. President, listen to the people.

President Obama said the SCHIP expansion was "only the first step."

That's precisely what I'm afraid of.

“This is a mandate to get along, to get something done in a bipartisan way. This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology.” – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), when asked if tuesday's election results gave his party a mandate.

"…as we unify the American people. And I pledge again, as I did last night, that we will do so in a strong bipartisan way, with civility in our debate" – Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in a post-election press conference.

Here we have two of the most partisan members in Congress, calling, like Rodney King, for us all to just get along. This is literally the first time I can ever recall Harry Reid speaking in a manner other than the politics of the divisive partisan attack. Pelosi hasn't been much different. In Pelosi's newsconference, she used the words "unity" or "unifying" over and over again.

So what gives ? Why all the calls for unity and bipartisanship ? Have these two former attack dogs suddenly seen the light of brotherhood after all these years ? Not hardly. The answer is much simpler. It's because now, with the incoming Obama presidency, it's the Democratic agenda that Reid and Pelosi will be pushing through, and they want the congressional Republicans to go along with them. The Democrats didn't reach a filibuster-proof majority in tuesday's elections. They also know the Republicans WON'T go along with all the Dem plans, so they are setting the stage to call the GOP obstructionist when any Democratic measures fail to pass.

Reid/Pelosi aren't really calling for unity, they are calling for submission. They want the loyal opposition NOT to oppose them. That is an impossibility. There will be no unity, and there shouldn't be. The GOP can no more check their beliefs at the door than the Democrats did during the Bush presidency. What will exist is the same bitter partisan battles, but with a shift in the balance of power toward the Democrats. Unity is an utter illusion. The only way we could achieve unity is if we only had ONE political party, and I believe the word for that wouldn't be "unity", it would be "totalitarianism."

So spare me the faux Kumbayah stuff.

Here's a definition of "totalitarianism" from Wikipedia.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. The term was applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. A perfect example of a present-day Totalitarian state is North Korea.

I ask you, which political party most closely resembles the totalitarian model ? Which party thinks the state should regulate so many aspects of public and private life ? Which party is so skeptical of free markets ? Which party advocates more state control of mass media ? Which party desires more control over the economy ? The Democratic party, that's who. Run away from Democratic so-called "unity" as fast as you can, folks. Run toward liberty instead. That's the American way.

Speaking of controlling mass media, regulating private life, and controlling the economy, here's what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on FoxNews about the Fairness Doctrine (which would shut up all those Conservative talk radio voices), and the Employee Free Choice Act (which would eliminate the secret ballot in union voting):

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

WTF ? Talk radio is the same as pornography now ? Like hell it is. Far scarier is the notion promoted by Schumer that the government should regulate EVERYTHING, that the government should intervene in ALL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES. Like I said, run as fast as you can away from people like Chuck Schumer. Also note that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied only to radio, where the Right has an advantage. It wouldn't be applied to any mass media that favors the Left. What a coincidence, eh ? Totalitarians on the march.

On the Employee Free Choice Act, Schumer says we need it because only 6% of businesses are unionized. Say what ? Here, Schumer is saying we should take away the right of the secret ballot because American workers are choosing not to unionize. More freedom-killing from Schumer, this time because unions are a big-time Democratic special interest. I have nothing against unions, but I have a lot against removing essential rights, such as the secret ballot, in order to promote the paid-for Democratic political agenda.

Message for president-elect Barack Obama: If you really want to show the people you are the president for all Americans, as you said in your acceptance speech, you can start by killing the unamerican Fairness Doctrine and the Employee Free Choice Act. Otherwise, your words of inclusivity will be meaningless.

If any of you read my last post, called A Deficit Disorder, you probably know my feelings regarding our federal government's economic policies range somewhere between cynical and disgusted. Lately, with mob boss Hugo Chavez Hank Paulson running the Treasury like Don Corleone, making the big banks an offer they can't refuse to force a partial nationalization of those institutions, "disgusted" might not be a strong enough term. Paulson even told Wells Fargo Bank, who didn't want to be nationalized, that if they didn't accept his offer, they should (cue Marlon Brando's Don Vito voice) "never seek my favors or protections again." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but Paulson really did say words to that effect. Heaven help us. That's what happens when you give the feds so much power.

So, I almost passed on watching the third presidential debate last night. However, I was interested to see if John McCain would go down fighting or go down easy, so I tuned in. I was glad I did. While the talking heads, with their sound-byte mentalities, were saying things like "McCain didn't score the knockout he needed", or that Barack Obama "didn't make a major gaffe" after the debate, I saw things much differently. I thought John McCain cleaned Obama's clock on almost every issue. As an economic Conservative and an economic Libertarian, I finally heard from McCain some of what I've been hoping to hear. I finally heard McCain outline some fiscal policies to balance the budget and reign in Fedzilla (as Ted Nugent calls it), and I finally heard McCain expose Obama for the wrong-headed, wealth redistributing, big government tax and spend liberal that he is. I only wish McCain had mentioned some of the fascist policies of the other two heads of the liberal triumvirate of terror who would control our government if Obama gets elected and the Democrats increase their control of Congress – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who would attempt to do things like eliminate the secret ballot in union voting (you VILL join ze union, comrade !) with the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, and squelch free speech on talk radio (which mostly happens to be Conservative free speech) by imposing the equally Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine. Ah, how I love the smell of our basic democratic principles burning in the morning.

McCain and Obama spent much time talking to Joe the plumber, who, after 15 years of working hard at his job, was finally in a position to own his plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's tax plans would steal his hard-earned success and limit his ability to expand his business. (you really need to watch the entire video of Obama and Joe talking here). Obama's answer really does amount to stealing Joe's success, squelching Joe's American dream, and Obama taking the fruits of Joe's labor and "spreading the wealth around" to others. It's classic big government liberal-speak. In contrast, McCain showed how his tax cuts for business and low capital gains tax rates would enable Joe to grow his business, allowing Joe to hire people and create jobs. Obama's answer to Joe is the perfect example of how big government high-tax policies work against wealth creation and economic expansion. Instead of penalizing Joe for his success, the government should get the hell out of the way of people like Joe and let them do their thing. That is what would benefit society. McCain also rightly pointed out that Joe the plumber is not rich, though he would be under Obama's entitlement mindset. When Obama talks about tax "fairness", there really is nothing at all fair about it. Joe the plumber mentioned the flat tax during his conversation with Obama. The flat tax would be fair, but to Obama, those "rich" folks like Joe, who pay 35% income tax rates, aren't being taxed enough, whereas the non-rich, who often pay little to no income taxes, deserve even more money from the government. Once again, the word "fairness" takes on an Orwellian meaning in liberaldom (some animals are more equal than others).

McCain also pointed out that the last president wrong-headed enough to increase federal spending and raise taxes during a severe recession like this one was Herbert Hoover. Hoover's policies are widely seen as leading to the 1929 Great Depression. Are we about to allow history to repeat itself by electing Obama ? McCain noted that we shouldn't be raising ANYONE'S taxes during these harsh economic times. Amen, brother. We should be cutting back on government spending and stimulating the economy instead, as McCain said he plans to do, with both a hatchet AND a scalpel, and the veto pen too. Aww, Johnny, you had me at "freeze government spending."

McCain's plans are responsible, at least relative to Obama's. Obama's plans are nuts, unless our desire is to create a socialist country. I know I don't want that. I hope you don't either. Our founders sure didn't, which is why we have that wonderful document called the Constitution. It's too bad that very few are paying any attention to it these days, and that goes for both sides of the political aisle, including both Barack Obama and Hank Paulson. I couldn't find where Paulson is allowed to forcibly nationalize privately owned banks anywhere in the Constitution, but I guess I just don't get the notion of the "living" and "evolving" Constitution (Damn right I don't).

McCain mentioned several times that Obama's answer to absolutely everything is more government spending, more government control, and more government, period. Obama would take our already overblown federal government and put it on even stronger steroids. That is exactly the wrong answer – wrong for liberty, wrong for fairness, and wrong for America. Taxes, while necessary, should always be kept as low as possible. We have an annual time known as Tax Freedom Day, which is when the average American has paid off his government tax burden. It varies from state to state, but now falls around the end of April. After the financial crisis is cleaned up, and counting all our unfunded liabilities and national debt, who knows, it might fall at the end of June, July, or even August. When the average American is working 4-6 months of the year just for the government, what is that, but forced labor ? And what is forced labor, but slavery ? Do we want to keep EXPANDING that ? Hell no. America isn't a government chain gang. That cannot possibly be good for any of us in the long run. Each and every one of us has a civic duty to keep America free, to keep taxes low, and to limit our Fedzilla, to keep the American dream alive. And if the citizenry can't see that now, with all that is currently going on in our country, then we are certainly doomed.

You can find a transcript of the third presidential debate here. McCain took it to Obama, finally, though I wish McCain had been even more forceful in making his case. In boxing parlance, McCain too often jabs and jabs, and then inexplicably backs off from throwing the overhand right that he just set Obama up for. Too bad, because I don't think Obama could hear the rest of us Conservatives delivering those overhand rights by yelling at the tv sets in our living rooms.

The political Left has two basic positions regarding business in America.

1) If a company is making a profit, they characterize the company as evil, and demand that their profits be taken away, so the government can use the money instead (this is known as THEFT in the non-socialist world, but you aren't supposed to think about that). It goes without saying that the bigger a company's profits grow, the MORE evil that company becomes. This means that Exxon-Mobil is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

2) If a company stops making a profit and loses money, the Left will subsidize the company (the Right tends to join in on this part too – Let's privatize profits, socialize losses, and join me on my yacht this weekend, old chum. Life is good).

The above is a twist on Reagan's old joke about government power: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; And when it stops moving, subsidize it.

A good example of #1 is Barack Obama traveling around the country telling everyone he wants to take the profits away from those evil oil companies (who, btw, enable our economy and society to function at a post-19th century level that keeps us off horseback and stagecoaches, but you aren't supposed to think about that. Just keep repeating to yourself – 'Oil Is Evil, Oil Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi (D-Venus) and Harry Reid (D-Mars) do. It's easier than thinking about things.

A good example of #2 is the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage mess, which included bailing out faltering companies like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those are private companies, aren't they ? Sure they are. Sort of. But talk about connected. They're practically a branch of government.

As far as I can tell, the following industries comprise the liberal Axis Of Evil Corporations: Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. I provide this list as a public service, so you lay persons out there can know who you should hate. Financial companies used to be on the Axis of Evil list too, but they lost so much money recently that they are no longer evil. Now, they must be subsidized.

The mantra the Left uses to demonize profit goes like this: How dare those greedy so-and-so's at the (fill-in-the-blank) corporation make so much money, when that money could be used for a) a government program, or b) the children ? 'The children' is practically foolproof as an excuse for the government to steal money from the private sector. An autocrat can justify anything if it's 'for the children' You aren't supposed to think about the fact that business profits enable people to have jobs, get paid, and become prosperous. You aren't supposed to realize business profits are the reason you live in a house, have an automobile, a refrigerator, a stove, a television, a phone, electricity, heat, and food. You aren't supposed to realize those business profits earned in a free market made the United States the world's leading superpower. Again, thinking is your enemy. Just keep saying to yourself, 'Profit Is Evil, Profit Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (D-Cuba) do – and Karl Marx did.

Our Glorious Exalted Leader Obama has even taken it a step further. He has proposed a windfall profits tax on the Devil Who Is Called Exxon and the other oily devils, and wants to hand $1,000 of the Devil's profits directly to each American, so Obama can literally buy your vote, er, help you combat the high costs of energy this winter, costs that Obama and friends won't do anything to help lower for maybe 20 years, and only then if the requisite alternative energy miracle happens in the meantime (except for that nifty 'inflate your tires' tip. That was quite helpful. Thanks, BO. If you were running for gas station attendant, you'd definitely get my vote).

The Left hates profit because America isn't perfect. There are still problems here, unlike all those other utopian socialist paradises, like, um, well, uh……….er, never mind. There must be some somewhere. I just can't think of their names right now. Even though we spend nearly $2 trillion each year on some type of entitlement program, the Left reasons that just isn't enough. Not even close to enough. Ever more and more and more money must be spent by the federal government, and ever more and more and more of your money must be stolen through taxation. Then someday, when NOBODY has any money left and the government is our supreme overlord and master of all things, that perfect socialist utopian nirvana will be achieved. I think it says exactly that on Obama's website, because his answer to absolutely everything is for big government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. I guess that's easier than thinking too.

Color me skeptical. It seems like $2 trillion per year should be plenty enough to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from starving. Yet somehow, it isn't. Could the problem be the government itself ? Nah, that can't be it. Impossible ! It must be the Republicans fault. Dick Cheney must be taking that money and giving it to Halliburton or something. It's a conspiracy of some sort. I know it, even though I have no proof whatsoever. I mean, c'mon, that Cheney guy just LOOKS evil. He's all old and corporate and white and stuff. Who needs proof ? And Cheney shot his buddy on that hunting trip. Don't forget that. What more is there to know ?

An old and very wise saying about democracy goes like this:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” – John Tyler

That was written in 1770, but it sounds pretty relevant to what's going on today.

Think of that when Barack Obama vows to steal someone else's money to give it to you, or to tax the hell out of the rich as if that won't affect you. It certainly will. We are just finishing with one president who didn't care much about fiscal responsibility, Dubya. Dubya was irresponsible on the spending side. Why on earth would we elect another president of "loose fiscal responsibility", but this time, on BOTH the taxation and spending sides ? $3 TRILLION per year should be plenty enough to run the federal government. Far more than enough, in truth. The tax and spend buck must stop here, or we will suffer serious consequences, the very ones John Tyler warned about back in 1770. Barack Obama wants to declare war on profits. I want to declare war on Barack Obama and all of his socialist/communist/totalitarian ilk, before it's too late.

Parents "do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote California appellate Justice Walter Croskey.

The hell they don't, judge Croskey. Have you read the U.S. Constitution ? Apparently not. Makes me wonder how you got to be a judge in the first place. Or maybe you should stay away from those west coast medical marijuana stores.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A California court ruled this month that parents cannot "home school" their children without government certification. No teaching credential, no teaching…The 166,000 families in the state that now choose to educate their children at home must be stunned.

No doubt. But look who's HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY about this act of judicial communism !

"We're happy," the California Teachers Association's Lloyd Porter told the San Francisco Chronicle. He says the union believes all students should be taught only by "credentialed" teachers, who will in due course belong to unions.

That's just great, Lloyd ! Think of all those brand new union dues ! Never mind the fact that home schooled kids perform way better than their public school counterparts.

For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education. Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT — and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.

Hmmm. That's an inconvenient fact for Big Brother. Sounds like they'll have to come up with some sort of phony excuse to impose the will of the Politburo here….

The case was initiated by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services after a home-schooled child reportedly complained of physical abuse by his father. A lawyer assigned to two of the family's eight children invoked the truancy law to get the children enrolled in a public school and away from their parents. So a single case of parental abuse is being used to promote the registration of all parents who crack a book for their kids.

I fail to see the justification for banning home schooling due to one case of child abuse. That's like banning automobiles because of one car crash.

This isn't the first time this was attempted. Congress made the effort back in the 90's.

In 1994, a federal attempt to require certification of parent-teachers went down in flames as hundreds of thousands of calls lit up phone banks on Capitol Hill. The movement has since only grown larger and better organized, now conservatively estimated at well over a million nationwide. But what they can't accomplish legislatively, unions are now trying to achieve by diktat from the courts.

Here we go again. This California judge isn't following the Constitution, he's attempting an end run around it. I'd love to hear the opinions of our three remaining presidential contenders on this issue. Let's see if any of the three still understand what liberty means. California has made all of the home-schooled children truants, and all of their parents criminals. At a time like this, I wish I didn't have an anti-profanity rule on this blog. I'll have to resort to cartoon profanity:

*&!!^$$!!* those *##!!%%%#ers !!!