Recently in Socialism Category

As if we need any more evidence that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are paying off the public employees unions for their past support, there's this little $26 billion bribe just passed by Congress and signed by the Socialist In Chief.

Never mind that we don't have to money to pay for this. Never mind the string attached that are trying to force states accepting any of this money to bypass their own budgeting process. Never mind that the $10 billion of that money to be used for education won't help anyone because it won't be available until after the school year starts and cities and towns have already set their budgets and their personnel requirements.

It is a blatant, in-your-face bribe to the unions using our money and the Democrats in Congress don't care who knows it. It doesn't help that President Obama helped sell the lie by making claims he knew the general public wouldn't accept. For one thing there isn't a single public union contract out there that guarantees employment for life, but to hear the President tell it the $26 billion he and Congress just spent are supposed to help spendthrift states do just that. Since when are public employees supposed to be immune to the effects of a recession? Since when are we supposed to fund pay raises when many of us haven't seen a pay raise in two years, or worse, have received pay cuts?

All this little $26 billion bribe does is further illustrate the utter contempt the Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House have for those of us actually paying the bills.

It has become quite evident to me and many millions of others that the Powers-That-Be, meaning the so-called 'Political Class', are clueless and out of touch with the rest of America and the people who live there. What's worse, they are convinced they are the anointed, the only ones with the knowledge, wisdom, and the will to use it even though those they look down upon see them as nothing more than elitist snobs without a lick of common sense or decency.

What's sad is the 'common folk' - that's you and me - are right and they are so incredibly wrong. The political class has no advanced wisdom, no special knowledge divulged to them through secret and ancient organizations, and no divine right or ability to rule you, me, or anyone.

They are nothing more than a mutual admiration society striding within the halls of power with impunity, an undeserved sense of entitlement, and the arrogance to believe they are the only ones with the answers. They believe the rest of us are incapable of running our own lives and need to be taken care of. That's ironic considering how many of them can't even run their lives. They have the same problems, the same foibles, the same weaknesses, the same flaws as everyone else. But somehow I doubt you'd ever get them to admit that, for to do so would mean they aren't any more enlightened than the rest of us and that doesn't track with their belief system.

How do I and the rest if America know this? Because we see it every day on the news, on CSPAN, in the newspapers, and in almost every law passed by Congress or a large number of blue state legislatures over the past few years. Our wishes, our desires, our demands, and our knowledge of the real world is dismissed out of hand because we aren't them. Never mind that we're the ones who pay the bills, create the jobs, build the cities, grow the food, and everything else they depend on. Without the rest of us they are nothing.

Wait. What the heck am I saying? I meant to say that even with us they are nothing. Perhaps it is time for them to learn this truth.

One of the more lucid commentaries I've ever read dealing with the financial mess the Democrats have been foisting upon us came not from this Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, but from a WSJ reader who manages to put it into perspective for those of us not infected with the progressive mind rot about economics (how it should work rather than how it does work).

Reader Geoff Wilson writes:

The Progressive mindset is a curious one. It only makes sense or becomes predictable once you realize that to them, Utopia is reached through faith in the inherent goodness of their goals. As such, it is really a religion. I say this not to disparage the concept of religion in general, but to recognize that religion is marked by a belief that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Thus, to a true believer, no amount of logic or objective evidence will sway their opinion, since in their eyes, the true test of faith is to adhere to your beliefs when all else tells that your course of action has no chance to bring about the result you wish it to.

Thus, Progressives cling to their backwards, illogical view of the workings of the economy not because they have ever been proved correct, but because they have faith that this is the way the world works, and because this is the only pseudoscientific framework that has ever been constructed that gives their desire to control other people for their own good some sort of supposed systematic logical basis. Thus, telling them that their logic makes no sense actually only serves to solidify their resolve, because Keynesian thought is actually based on the economy being controlled by "animal spirits" that are illogical. Thus, economic crashes are not brought about by predictable, understandable chains of logical cause and effect, but instead are brought about by the capricious whimsy of illogical humans, who stampede over the cliff of liquidity traps with wild abandon like lemmings.

They don't expect the economy to make sense. Rather, they expect to follow the wisdom of their high priests no matter what the economic dials and guages (sic) are showing, because the two things they have faith in are that good intentions will always triumph, and that the economy is a backwards, illogical machine that can only be steered by turning left if you want to go right.

Ah, yes, good intentions. We all know where that road leads, don't we?

How many times have we seen a government decide it knew best how to handle its national economy, only to see all its efforts make things progressively worse to the point where the economy collapses, and with it, the government that tried to 'save' it? The harshest example has to be the the old Soviet Union, where all their 5-year economic plans failed to produce anything in abundance except inefficiency, shortages of vital goods, and misery. Venezuela has been heading down that road to hell and Argentina is following close behind.

Britain narrowly escaped the same fate when Maggie Thatcher became prime minister and proceeded to undo all the damage done to the British economy by her wrong-headed, though good intentioned predecessors. She understood, as did Ronald Reagan, that no one person or group of people are smart enough to control an economy to the betterment of all.

One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and cultures, and under government ranging from democracies to dictatorships.

The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as well.

The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of government behind them, to enforce the plans they created.

What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach.

All such control diminishes economies and acts as a disincentive for anyone trying to do anything to improve it. China and India came to understand the concept and abandoned tight government control over their economies and they boomed to a level never seen before in either country's history. It's too bad the Progressives in this country have failed to learn that lesson and are willing to make the same mistake. Of course I expect their refrain will be "But we'll get it right this time!"

The only explanation I can come up with for the Progressives' belief they can succeed where everyone else has failed is insanity. You know, the type of insanity defined so: "Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results this time."

Indeed.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record in regards to ObamaCare, but it appears our not-so-wise Congresscritters still don't understand the concept of It Ain't Gonna Work.

Again, the health insurance system upon which ObamaCare was heavily based is coming apart at the seams, with costs rising, courts overturning arbitrarily imposed rate caps, and actual access to health care declining.

But the Democrats in Congress and the White House insist everything will work just fine once the program goes national. Never mind that it's no better than what we're seeing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, just a heck of a lot more expensive and destructive. I guess they think that if they just believe it as hard as they can it will all come true. Too bad that history is against them.

There isn't a single member of Congress capable of pointing out a socialist health care system that works well and provides the level of care available here in the US. Why? Because it doesn't exist and never has.

Every such system eventually fails, either spectacularly or one slow painful step at a time. While a lot of people tout the British, Canadian, and French health care systems as superior to ours, they are wrong. Oh, they'll give us anecdotal evidence that out system really sucks, quoting long discredited WHO studies about things like infant mortality or life spans. But when it comes down to it, after taking a look at thinks like cancer survival rates, survival rates for strokes, heart attacks, actual infant mortality rates (taking into account that the US has a far higher survival rate for preemies, something the WHO stats ignore), the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy, and a host of other branches of medicine, the US comes out on top. That's why so many people come from all over the world to be treated here rather than going to the UK, France, or Canada. Once ObamaCare kicks in and does great damage to our health care system, that will all change because the US will no longer have such a great health care system.

I must change course on this a little bit to cover something that has become a big pet peeve of mine in regards to ObamaCare.

One thing that drives me to distraction is the mistaken belief that ObamaCare will somehow provide access to medical care. It won't. It isn't designed to do that, despite what many may claim. What it's supposed to do is provide health insurance to those presently without it. It doesn't guarantee access to health care at all. Even today people with health insurance may have limited or no access to routine health care because they can't find a doctor who is willing to take on new patients. (In many cases it's not that doctors don't want to take on more patients, it's that they can barely handle the ones they already have.) Others won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients because of the extra requirements the government imposes on them in regards to staffing and reporting and the poor reimbursements. And yet others in certain specialties won't take on high-risk patients because of the fear of malpractice suits.

Does our health care system have problems? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to pass poorly thought out and damaging legislation that will only make the existing problems worse? Of course not. But that's what we ended up with, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Economist Arthur Laffer (he of the Laffer Curve) gives us a reminder and a preview of how tax policies can affect economic activity, sometimes for the better, but this time around for the worst.

People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Anyone believing people and businesses won't change their schedules or behavior due to tax increases or decreases or government mandates are either deluded or have no understanding of human nature or business. The upcoming tax changes will certainly affect the revenues collected next year as anyone capable of taking advantage of the existing tax rates will do so before the rates change next year. To do otherwise would be foolish. (I am also assuming that many of the same people who deride others for taking advantage of moving up income or other disbursements will do likewise, showing that they are hypocrites as well.)

Probably the biggest problem facing us is that, as a group, far too many liberals have a very poor understanding of economics. How do I know? Because Zogby tells me so.

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country--liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Some commenting on the Zogby piece claimed the questions asked didn't include enough specifics, but the poll was supposed to cover generalities, not definitive economic principles. Zogby wasn't polling economists, but members of the general public, giving us a decent snapshot of economic knowledge and attitudes across America, including some of our politicians. And with a majority in Congress, the left has been making some major economic blunders in their ignorance.

Need we say more?

As I was heading out during my lunch break I made the mistake of listening to the Diane Rehm show on NPR, where guest host Frank Sesno had author/sociologist Juliet B. Schor as a guest. Schor's book, Plenitude talks about the need to make profound changes in how we live. As I listened I came to realize that while her goals may be laudable, those goals have ignored one thing that she, being a sociologist, should understand: human nature.

How many times over the decades have utopian/progressive/socialist plans for this country or for the world tried to make it sound that if people would only change how they look at things that we could create a perfect society/world? The problems is that people tend to resist change, particularly when they see little return for all the effort that will be required. They have higher priorities, such as providing for their families. Unless people can be shown up front such changes will benefit them and their families directly, they will resist those changes. To rely on altruism to fuel such changes is foolish and a waste of time. As I and many others have come to realize, altruism is something we feel from time to time. It cannot be sustained 24/7/365. Unfortunately far too many of the Left have chosen to ignore that one little truth. Most of there utopian ideals demand altruism from is all day, every day. It's the only way their world will work.

If people like Schor want to see those kinds of changes they shouldn't waste their time appealing to people's better nature. They may not have one, particularly when it comes to their families or businesses. Those are the most important things in their lives. If someone tries to convince them they should sacrifice the well-being of either in the name of some nebulous cause, the response they get will likely be "Screw you and the horse you rode in on!"

More than once during the show Schor lamented the "greed" that seems to drive the Western world and tried hard to guilt us into giving up everything everyone has worked so hard to achieve. I had a hard time figuring out exactly how she defined greed. Was it overweening avarice? Was it profiting from the misfortune of others? Or was it simply making money at one's job or business and having a little left over to do something other than buy necessities? (I get the feeling she didn't differentiate between them at all, with the last one being the worst of the three.) More than once she played the leftist egalitarian card, implying no one should have [place name of item or possession here] unless everyone can have one. But that's a straw man argument because by that logic no one will ever be able to have whatever it is because no one has them. Someone has to be first. Call it the Lowest Common Denominator premise, which always turns out to be false, unrealistic, and impossible to achieve.

One of her favorite targets was the oil companies. Another target was big corporations. While I have no love for either, her remedy (smaller innovation driven companies to replace them) isn't something that can be forced. For one thing, who decides and on what basis? Some things can't easily be done by smaller companies, if at all. Does that mean they shouldn't be done at all? Again, who decides?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Schor and those like her seem to think that someone should be making these decisions for us rather than letting things develop on their own. Forcing the issue, either by heavy government intervention or outright government control, never works out and always causes far more problems than such changes were meant to fix. History is rife with examples of how and why we should not to do such things. Yet the Left sees the previous failures not as a flaw in their theories but as poor execution of them. They'll explain that this time they'll get it right...but they never do.

It's bad when the folks running the government here in the US choose to ignore what's happening in other socialist countries (something they're trying very hard to turn the US in to) in regards to what occurs when the socialist system runs out of other people's money to pay for all the services and entitlements the system put into place.

Greece is merely the latest example of that, where the government can no longer support all those people they've made dependent upon the state for everything. The proles are upset now that the Greek government is broke and is putting austerity programs into effect, cutting budgets with a meat ax and doing likewise with entitlements (pensions, health care, unemployment, graft, corruption, and a whole host of other things that go along with a socialist state).

When the proles found out that the nanny state could no longer pay for all those neat things they were used to getting for 'free', they revolted, rioting in the streets and burning a bank (or two or three). It is somewhat reminiscent of the collapse of the ultimate socialist state, the Soviet Union, when the biggest socialist experiment in history came to an end after 74 years because their economy collapsed, mostly because of their economic model was seriously flawed (We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us). Unfortunately Greece followed a similar model and we can all see how that's worked out.

Now Greece expects the rest of the EU (and the US) to bail them out of the economic problems of their own making. Frankly, I don't think anyone should bail them out because they won't learn anything if we do. All a bailout will do is delay the inevitable: another request/demand for another bailout later. Greece will have no real incentive to fix their economic problems if they know the EU and/or the US will come to their rescue. All it will do is make them as dependent on us as their people have become dependent on them. They'll still be using other people's money to fund their bankrupt policies. It will be a vicious cycle that will merely prolong the pain.

It's a scenario we could easily fall into if we follow the same path. But we'll have no recourse but to bite the bullet and discard socialism as the failed experiment it is because there will be no one out there capable of bailing us out. Greece is an object lesson that far too many in Washington are ignoring as much as possible because it goes against everything they've been indoctrinated to believe. Heaven forbid if their utopian vision should be proven to be nothing more than a pipe dream.

This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

I attended the Tea Party in Manchester, New Hampshire this afternoon/early evening and got back just before 9PM.

I'll have an honest to goodness post about it tomorrow Saturday.

Mike W., a great gun enthusiast and young conservative who I believe is attending law school, has a worthy post showing how a 1976 Maggie Thatcher quote eerily matches up with the socialism rapidly re-making the country here today. He also brings up how gubmit totally botched up the projected costs of Medicare, which a surprising number of people know. But still, it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. You outta check it out.

Now that I've had a chance to cool down a bit and think more upon the effects of ObamaCare, I can see my initial thoughts about it were, if anything, far too optimistic.

While masquerading as a health care reform bill, ObamaCare is nothing more than yet another means to slowly achieve the socialist revolution rather than having to fight a bloody insurgent campaign. It's kind of like the old saw about boiling a frog - Don't drop the frog into the boiling water because he'll hop out. Instead, put him in a pot of cold water and slowly raise the heat. By the time he realizes the water is boiling he's already been cooked. And that's what ObamaCare is really all about, boiling the frog (or in this case the American people, our freedoms, and the Constitution).

Am I being paranoid? Could be. But the question I pose to myself is, am I being paranoid enough? Because when a bunch of progressive jerk with little true understanding of the American people, the American economy, or of the Constitution of the United States start dictating to us what is good and bad for us, it's time to take up arms, figuratively speaking, and disabuse them of the notion that they are somehow our betters. And if they still don't get it, then it may time to take up arms, literally.

The Democrats in Congress ignored the wishes of a majority of Americans. They only paid lip service to bipartisanship. (Their definition of bipartisanship is to tell the Republicans to sit down, shut up, and vote the way the Democrats tell them to vote.) While many on the Left will cite Social Security and Medicare as social programs people said wouldn't work and would severely damage the economy (which they both will unless both programs are revamped top to bottom), both of those programs had true bipartisan support. ObamaCare had absolutely none.

Well, maybe I should clarify something about that last statement. In actuality there was bipartisanship in regards to ObamaCare. Unfortunately for Obama it was bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Across America the response to the passage of ObamaCare was one of dismay, shock, and anger. Some few applauded its passage, loving the idea of a massively dysfunctional budget-busting government-run health care system. One commenter to this WSJ piece is not one of them:

I'm sure most Americans, or at least thinking Americans, those that considered their heritage one of freedom and liberty, had already condemned Obamacare on a gut level from the start, as they should, but probably few know the exact details of this gross unconstitutional intrusion into their lives and what it will mean to them. Here are the highlights divided into three lamentable categories: increased taxes and fees, spiraling costs, and reduced services.

Marc's comment, which is excerpted above, is rather extensive and covers the salient points of ObamaCare and its major downsides. As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

It isn't that I don't have anything to say about the debacle that took place Sunday evening in the Capitol. Rather that it's I have too darn much to say about passage of Obama's Health Care Destruction Bill, and very little of it polite.

So instead of resorting to invective and a lot of obscenities, I figured it was a good idea to put off until tomorrow my thoughts on this socialist piece of crap foisted upon the American people against their will by other people without a shred of intelligence, integrity, or honesty.

Massive journalistic failure? Yep. Just like the 1992 Boston Fed Study showing widespread racism in home mortgage lending. That was a crock, too.

One doesn't have to look far to find academics with a distorted view of America and its people. A local example: Prof. Leo R. Sandy a professor of Counselor Education and School Psychology at Plymouth State University.

The professor spouts the liberal/socialist line at every opportunity, in a weekly newspaper column and regular letters to the local papers. One of his latest pronouncements came in a letter to the editor (Laconia Daily Sun, Tuesday February 2, 2010), commenting upon Republican reactions to Obama's State of the Union address. (No direct link available.)

The Republicans had an oppositional air to them that causes me to question their commitment to the progress of this country. As regressives, they have been very effective in moving the Democrats so far to the right that nothing can be accomplished.

Excuse me? They've been moving the Democrats to the right? Not from what I and most of the rest of America have seen. With cap-and-trade, health care reform, stimulus, and a $1.6 trillion+ (and growing) budget deficit, I don't see how any of that can be considered moving the leftist Dems to the right.

Professor Sandy has never been shy about his political beliefs, espousing the leftist point of view for some time. Never mind that socialism in all its forms has failed miserably and done nothing but cause misery, poverty, and widespread diminishment or destruction of economic systems, supposedly 'for the good of the people'. He chooses to be blind to the downside of his political beliefs.

But then, he doesn't have to compete in the real world, worrying about meeting a payroll, filling out endless state and federal government reporting forms, ensuring compliance with US and foreign regulations, paying state and federal business taxes, and paying insurance premiums for a host of business policies (workman's comp, health insurance, liability insurance, etc). He doesn't have to worry about being laid off (if he has tenure), or paying for his health insurance (he's a state employee), so he's insulated from the effects of all the socialist policies and laws he supports. Then again, that's true of most academics in the soft sciences and liberal arts. They rarely have to deal with the real world. That's their biggest problem. With little or no connection to the real world, it is easy for them to support socialist ideals and policies abhorrent to average Americans.

UPDATE: Bird Dog asks the question "Why are Liberals so condescending?"

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Unbelievable video. I guess these marxists didn't get the memo to dress themselves in the green of environmentalism. They are straight up commies. I actually respect that more than the watermelons: green on the outside, red inside.

HT: Matt Drudge

First, it was the bogus "nuclear winter" the KGB came up with that was successful beyond their wildest dreams according to Comrade J, about the highest defector ever from that outfit--Sergei Tretyakov. I remember how controversial was the proposal to install nuclear bombs in Europe. So the KGB came up with a scheme to thwart its implementation that was nearly successful, except for the wonderful intransigence of Ronald Reagan.

The parallels are simply eerie:

"The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing missiles."^[1] Tretyakov says that from 1979 the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they used the Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, to organize and finance demonstrations in Europe against US bases.^[1][12][13] Misinformation based on a faked "doomsday report" by the Soviet Academy of Sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio

,^[1] which carried a key article on the topic in 1982.^[14]

Sound familiar? Now we have these present-day greenies, whom I consider socialists, trying to thwart capitalism and economic growth. It's not fair, after all, to have the poor parts of the world in comparison with the rich parts. Equality, doncha know. These watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside.

We have the left-ward drift of organizations like the UN. When the IPCC, charged by the United Nations to monitor global warming, acts more like the KGB than a disinterested overseeing body, one is left incredulous.

I must admit I've missed Steven Den Beste since he pulled the plug on USS Clueless a few years ago. When he resurfaces from time to time his postings are poignant and to the point, just as they have always been. His latest is no different.

In his new screed he ties together ancient Greek philosophies, modern Western society, and our Teleologist-In-Chief.

It does not bode well for the U.S. at all.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

While I'm at it, I might as well add insult to injury in regards to the the recently passed Pelosi Health Care Destruction bill.

While she has crowed her success into forcing the passage of an onerous and deceptive bill the American people don't want, at least one liberal has the courage to state exactly what Pelosi's health care reform legislation is really all about: making the American people more dependent on the US Government against their will...and not for their own good.

[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

"Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?

The answer to this last question is 'no', for Obama's equality has nothing to do with equality of opportunity and everything to do with outcome. We've seen such equality many times, both in the past and present, and it's nothing anyone should aspire to because all it really means is equality of misery.

Everyone will be equal...except of course the ruling elite. Nothing will be denied to them because, after all, they are more equal than the rest of us.

In making health care reform a misplaced priority, he and Pelosi and Reid have shown us what it is they really want to do is to make sure we are all good little proles on the hook to the 'benevolent' dictatorship that is The State. They have come to believe they know what's good for the masses better than we do, therefore they must control every aspect of our lives. Such is their arrogance. But like all statists their beliefs have one major flaw: they are no better at running our lives than they are their own. In fact, they are totally incapable of making our lives better by the means they have been pushing for all these decades. [/rant]

As more than one commenter to the Cassidy piece noted, the last thing we want to do is to be like everyone else.

We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?

Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.

We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?