Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck

Polls are showing (and Town Halls and Tea Parties are reinforcing) that America may have finally woken up this summer to the error of its decision to elect Barack Obama and his band of merry socialists. But is it too little, too late?

Sadly, yes.

To those of you who are regretting your decision to put a community organizer into the White House all I can say is -- you blew it.

You ignored the obvious facts about Barack Obama that were there for anyone who would listen. That he is a radical socialist wrapped in a nice package of smooth eloquence. That he associated with a known domestic terrorist with blood on his hands and sat in a hate-spewing church for 20 years. That he studied at the Saul Alinsky institute of hard-ball community activism and believes that America is a flawed nation. That he believes in "change" -- but the kind of change he really wants is of the revolutionary variety based on racial justice. That he is a product of his radical associations with little individual accomplishment outside of his electoral successes. And that he is essentially weak -- unable (or unwilling) to control a radical Congress that wants America to look like France. Obama walked like a socialist, talked like a socialist. Surprise! Obama is a socialist.

Tonight, Barack Obama goes before Congress for yet another high-minded speech on health care -- a "crisis" of his own creation, that he hopes to use to stab the free market for health care (such as it is) in the heart. He will push for a socialized option run by Congress because he believes that government should be running our lives. He will criticize (politely, of course) the opposition for having the temerity to question his goals. He will talk in soaring platitudes about the "historic opportunity" we have to fix a system by further destroying it. It makes no sense to those of us who believe that government destroys everything it touches. But to those who believe that their "social justice" goals can only be solved by forcing government down our throats, government-run health care is the first step toward a new and better America.

Viva la America!

The election results of November, 2008 foreordained this result. Voters decided to put Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Schumer, Boxer and Obama in charge of this nation. They neutered the opposition and gave a potentially filibuster-proof majority to the left. It isn't a monolithic left, fortunately -- and there are some "conservative" Democrats who are giving Pelosi fits. But in the end the numbers will ensure that some form of government-run health care -- with individual mandates, increased regulation and fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device companies and hospitals -- will become law. It pains me to say it but it is true: more government is coming to your physician's office -- along with higher taxes, fees and rules that will govern your personal lives.

As I have said many times before, elections have consequences. The consequence of 2008 will be a tremendous amount of damage to our country. We can only hope that in 2010 and 2012 voters will restore balance in Washington and vote to limit the size and scope of government. It is the only hope we now have to keep this great country free.

Socialism really is a bad idea

As I noted last week, whenever a critic of Democrat policies uses the term "socialism," Democrats bristle. But if a policy or measure gives ownership of some business or industry to the government, (e.g., General Motors), socialism being defined as government ownership of the means of production, then it is entirely fair to call it socialistic. Not that this offends or renders defensive everyone on the left. Despite the fact that Democrats last year defended "spread the wealth" schemes - - without acknowledging their socialist pedigree - - last spring liberal columnist Evan Thomas of Newsweek devoted a cover article to proving that socialism is not such a bad thing even as he conceded that that is what the Obama Administration stands for.

Liberals know that Americans are not supportive of socialism in spite of their interventionist policy changes over the last 76 years, beginning with the New Deal, which brought massive government controls, intervention and regulation with the National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Social Security Act; supplemented by the Great Society’s War on Poverty, Medicare and Medicaid.

The liberal strategy largely has been to advance in increments, their big innovations depending upon massive electoral victories in 1932 and 1964. They have been quite successful in getting the camel’s nose under the tent for years, without acknowledging the ultimate goal of their legislation.

One wishes that the American people as a whole could discern more readily that socialism by degrees is still socialism, even if we must be grateful to the American Constitution for making it difficult for American liberals to go as far as European social democrats.

The question must be posed: what’s wrong with socialism? Isn’t it right that the people have protection against wealthy corporations that have unlimited power to hire and fire thousands of people and earn unconscionable profits at the expense of the public? If the foregoing were an accurate description of the American marketplace, I might support socialism too. But it is not.

In the past I have written about the uncoerced trading relationship that exists between businessmen and their customers, and indeed their employees. Unlike the peasants of old in Europe, or millions of unfortunate people in unfree countries around the world today, no one in America  is forced to work for anyone in business or to fork over money to them. Despite government intervention that has distorted the marketplace, there is more "upward mobility" among Americans than any other people in the world.

Much of what rightly offends Americans is actually a product of government intervention. Why did three companies dominate the automobile business for so many years? The oligopoly of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford was necessary to pay the inflated wages and benefits of their employees who had the advantage of being represented by a powerful union that could negotiate contracts for the entire industry, thanks to the National Labor Relations Act of 1937. The Obama Administration is attempting to perpetuate that advantage through its majority control of GM.

Why do utility companies enjoy local or regional monopolies and have their rates set by a government agency? Where’s the competition in that? Why were there so few broadcasting networks which were (and are) practically mirror images of each other? Government regulation of these industries has restricted competition.

The real driving force of socialism is hatred of the marketplace which, governed by the profit motive, is alleged to be nothing more than greed. Members of Congress who enabled the reckless lending of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thereby causing an unprecedented credit crisis, believe that such government-sponsored entities (GSEs) are morally superior to private corporations. That is why they are trying to take advantage of the recession, ignoring GSEs’ miserable performance.

The truth is, major government programs, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, stimulus packages and so on either do not pay for themselves or are facing bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Democrats think it is better for their cronies in GSEs to pull down huge salaries than for corporate executives to do so.

Socialism assumes that the amount of goods and services available is always limited, overlooking America’s incredible increase in individual wealth. The object of socialism is to establish "equity," but actually punishes people for being successful and rewards the unsuccessful. Every government program depends on taxing those who have earned their wealth in the marketplace and redistributing it to others, especially the well connected in politics and government. The key element is coercion, which betrays the lack of charity by that very fact.

Bag madness in Seattle

Here we go again. Leave it to government, in this case the City of Seattle, to find new and creative ways to reach into your pocketbook and grab more of your hard-earned cash. Recently, the Seattle City Council approved a 20-cent tax/fee (subject to voter approval today) on every plastic or paper bag you use to take your groceries home. Years ago, in the early stages of the environmental movement we were advised that the production of paper bags kills trees and emits high levels of greenhouse gases and that’s not good. Soon thereafter, strong, lightweight, low-cost, water resistant plastic bags came along years ago to help save trees, a renewable resource by the way. As the environmental movement gained popularity it was determined that plastic bags were also an environmental hazard since they are not biodegradable.

So now, thanks to the watchdog efforts of the City of Seattle, we are urged to use cloth grocery bags to save our environment and avoid this new tax/fee. As more and more citizens move to cloth bags they’ll need to clean them regularly, with detergent. That, of course, is a problem too. Many detergents, we are told, affect the quality of our water supply and cause algae blooms, which can also greatly reduce the amount of oxygen in the water and cause large fish kills.

So what’s the solution? Should we buy only the groceries we need for our next meal and consume them before we leave the grocery store? Voila, no bags necessary. But wait, that sounds like a restaurant. And surely we are aware of the many public health and environmental health hazards created by restaurants, aren’t we?

This all seems like a vicious cycle. What shall we do? What shall we do?

There should be little argument that we can all be more environmentally aware than we have been in recent decades. The use of biodegradable plastic, environmentally friendly laundry detergents, and making every effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases will go a long way toward reversing what many believe is an alarming trend.

But the biggest concern many citizens have right now, an understandably so, is the insatiable appetite at all levels of government for new taxes and fees…even if it is disguised as an important government intervention program to protect our environment.

Before you know it, some local government will invent a tax on citizens who choose to install a home security system or a fine if you don’t shovel your sidewalk, even though the City may have stopped plowing your street 5 or 6 years ago. Sounds familiar…did the City of Colorado Springs already do that? Yes, on top of the highly controversial storm water fee that about ten thousand citizens have refused to pay. Then, perhaps, a misguided, fiscally irresponsible and liberal Governor will revoke the property tax exemption on seniors on fixed incomes. You say “That will never happen?” Well that happened in Colorado this year!

So what’s next? Here are some ideas…

• a tax on unnecessary, luxury auto accessories (back-up cameras; sun roofs; CD players; automatic, remote or keyless door locks; satellite radios; more than two cup holders; low tire inflation indicators; electronic rearview mirrors; back seat DVD players; etc)

• a fee for each child who uses a swing, practices soccer, football or baseball in a public park...or a fee for mothers who stroll a toddler through a public park

• an annual mileage tax (in addition to the excessive taxes we pay on each gallon of fuel)

• a tax on ownership of household pets, or

• forcing military members to carry insurance to pay for their own war injuries

I know there are some elected officials saying right now “Why didn’t I think of that?” while others may be saying “Already thought of that, but do you think we can get away with it?” Ridiculous you say? I couldn’t agree more…and so is a tax on “paper or plastic?”

How about, from this day forward, electing only those city councilmen, county commissioners, state legislators, and United States Senators and Congressmen who pledge no new taxes or fees for at least their next term in office; those who pledge to support growing infrastructure and national security needs only through thorough elimination of waste, fraud and abuse in government spending and programs, and not new taxes? How about not electing those who may say “no new taxes”, but by their records have already proven they cannot deliver on those pledges…those who will say ANYTHING to get re-elected. If they have a tax and spend record, let’s get rid of them all...regardless of their political affiliation. Enough is, enough…throw the bums out!

In the morning we'll know if the citizens of Seattle voted to support or defeat this grocery bag tax/fee. If they support it, let’s call them enablers…feeding the habit of greedy elected officials who continue to tax and spend like there is no tomorrow. Some argue that unless we act now to protect our environment there will be no tomorrow…others argue that if our governments, at all levels, continue their reckless spending spree the greatest nation of Earth will no longer be the greatest nation on Earth. Count on it.

Leftist agenda of TV entertainment

This month ABC’s crime drama Castle has emerged as the newest entertainment show used by the left-liberal political machine. What else could explain the subject matter which transparently resembled a recent GOP Senator’s love affair scandal to which the main characters made the comment, “so much for family values.” Not to be outdone, the show following, Eli Stone, depicted an ephemeral image of a woman dressed in a white sheer dress to which the star of the drama said, “…just like Britney Spears and Sarah Palin.” What? Did they write the show a few days before it aired?

Even more alarming are the re-runs of shows like Boston Legal and Will & Grace, which mysteriously appear at a time when certain political issues are in the news. Here are just a few examples: Boston Legal “Race Issa” (2004) makes a reference to a vice president shooting a hunting pal and the two stars laughing over a brandy about the obvious reference; “Squid Pro Quo” (2006) where the issue of abortion in India is debated in a court room referring to the “problem” of the U.S. refusing to provide funding for abortion clinics overseas.

In a Will & Grace episode, “Word Salad Days” (2006) re-run, a discussion ensues about the DiVinci Code and a reference is made to whether that would “turn him into the Karl Rove of the 16th century.” Another Will & Grace episode “A Gay/December Romance” (2004) created a scenario of an art show and having the character Jack remark how it is a good place to meet old gay men who support young gay guys, “just like [the relationship between] Dick Cheney and George Bush.”

These are TV sitcom shows…not media news. The scurrilous attacks on the Conservative Right inserted into what is meant to be simply entertainment is not only disturbing, but downright dangerous.

Do not let TV be turned into a political machine. Protest these shows by grabbing your remote and turn to another channel. Ratings rule. Write to the producers of these shows and their advertisers and tell them you prefer not to be inundated by their political message on shows meant only to entertain. Consumers control, express your right to be free of media sabotage into the sanctuary of your family home.

Illusionist in Chief

I've long argued that the basic premise behind liberalism is that you, as an individual, aren't capable of taking care of yourself properly. You need help. You need to be protected from your own mistakes, and further inured from being hurt by the countless others out there who are equally inept at life. Its a confederacy of dunces out there -- a mass population of the victimized, vanquished and violated. You need help, you poor thing. You can see this now at work in every aspect of the Obama presidency. Government has stepped in to remake industry and finance with your tax dollars to ensure that the UAW keeps their jobs and that banks don't have to suffer the penalty of making bad decisions. On the horizon are massive new rules on what you can eat, what cars you can drive, how much heat you can have in the winter and how much air conditioning you can use in the summer. And don't forget the impending health care entitlement, which is going to force you into a massive government-run insurance program. You need the government to provide -- and ration -- health care, because you just aren't capable of getting the coverage you need on your own. You are helpless, after all -- so in the great spirit of paternalism, the government is going to treat you like the child you are give it to you. For your own good, of course.

Remember, people! You are s-t-u-p-i-d!

And further proof is how Obama is saying one thing and doing another -- talking about "balanced budgets" and "being fiscally responsible", and yet embarking on the runaway spending that will result in crippling deficits for years to come. He has packages his health care reform as a "public option" -- that will preserve private insurance. But that's also a lie -- everyone knows that this is just a feint to a single payer system that ultimately forces out private insurance. Once there is a government (read "tax-payer" funded) option on the table, employers who are now footing the bill for their employee's insurance will quickly dump it. Why not have tax payers foot the bill? It's clear that Obama believes that the most important thing about universal health care is the "universal" part. The "health care" aspect -- meaning the quality of care -- is really secondary. Again, this is in line with the left's cornerstone belief that equality of access is more important than the outcomes it produces.

Today's Wall Street Journal has more on the Obama deception machine and its worth reading: Some things in politics you can't make up, such as President Obama's re-re-endorsement Tuesday of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. Coming after $787 billion in nonstimulating stimulus, a $410 billion omnibus to wrap up fiscal 2009, a $3.5 trillion 2010 budget proposal, sundry bailouts and a 13-figure health-care spending expansion still to come, this latest vow of fiscal chastity is like Donald Trump denouncing self-promotion.

Check that. Even The Donald would find this one too much to sell.

But Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same "paygo" promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is "very simple," the President claimed. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

That's what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that "the first thing" House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that "Republicans had let lapse." By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget...

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama's spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for "fiscal discipline," even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

The main political question now is when Americans will start to figure out Mr. Obama's pattern of spend, repent and repeat. The President is still sailing along on his charm and the fact that Americans are cheering for an economic recovery. But eventually they'll see that he isn't telling them the truth, and when they do, the very Blue Dogs he's trying to protect will pay the price. And they'll deserve what they get.

Obama is betting, of course, that we are all too dumb to see past the charm offensive, and that he can keep peddling his programs with a wink and a nod, talking about fiscal discipline all the while enacting the biggest expansion of government largess since...well...since forever.

Watch the shiny thing...see how it moves back and forth...isn't it pretty?