Communists Love Environmentalism

By the way: no one should be surprised that Van Jones--an avowed marxist and recently resigned adviser to Obama--held an environmentalist post in the administration. Environmentalism has been a boon to communists, for it offers them a pretext for seizing control of industry. The average American simply won't buy into dialectical materialism, but their wholesale ignorance of science and economics leaves them vulnerable to the left's ecological scare tactics.

When you support these eco-communists, you think that you're saving the world. Instead, you're playing right into their hands.

Van Jones Resigns: One Down, The Rest of The Administration to Go

Van Jones has resigned his post in the Obama administration. He was simply too openly a marxist for Obama's agenda to remain under the weak radar of public awareness.

The White House Press Secretary stated that Obama did not endorse Jones's "past controversial statements," but note that nothing is said of Obama not endorsing Jones's sentiments.

Am I reading too much into that? Perhaps I am, but then this question must be answered: Why did Obama appoint the man in the first place if he did not approve of Jones's sentiments?

The NYT piece quotes Howard Dean on Jones's resignation:

This guy’s a Yale-educated lawyer. . . He’s a best-selling author about his specialty. I think he was brought down, and I think it’s too bad. Washington’s a tough place that way, and I think it’s a loss for the country.

Having an avowed militant marxist resign from his executive post is a loss for the country? This should tell you where to stand (or at least be suspicious) on any issue that Dean endorses.

Dean further defended Jones's having signed a petition that accused the Bush Administration of being complicit in the 9-11 attacks:

Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign. And he learned the hard way you ought not to do that.

How surprising that someone who spouts out marxist rhetoric might not really think about what he's endorsing!

Real Change (for the better) Has to Start Somewhere

If you agree with me that this government is out of control in its foreign and domestic policies, especially--but not exclusively--in its willingness to spend, spend, spend; then I urge you to do one of two things in the next election.

Suggestion 1: Vote Libertarian. Currently, there's not much (if any) chance for a Libertarian candidate to win an election, but don't think that the ruling parties won't notice and begin to make accommodations if they see an increase in Libertarian support.

Suggestion 2: Don't vote. If you can't bring yourself to support the Libertarian cause (i.e. reduced/constitutional government; maximum civil liberties), at least don't carry on as part of the current system. Voting Republican won't change things for the better: just look at the Republicans' record when they had power. Voting Democrat won't change things for the better either: Just take a look around.

Stimulus Is Working Says Biden; Things Must Be Great Because They Could Be Worse

Biden and all of Obama's other henchmen keep insisting that the stimulus package is working according to plan.

All that they offer in evidence, it seems, is their support, or (through their media outlets) reports like this from CNNMoney celebrating fewer net job losses. Or BusinessWeek noting that nonfarm employment "fell below expectations." So they're essentially saying that things suck, but they sucked more last summer--and this just has to be because of the stimulus package.

Politicians also add that recovery will be slow.

This stinks because well-documented (though largely ignored) evidence suggests that the stimulus package and other federal actions will actually slow down recovery (read this). However, people have been primed to focus not on the slowness but on the recovery. This way the elected felons up on Capitol Hill can have enjoyed the largest heist in American history and enjoy the gratitude of the dimwits who know no better.

The Onion News Reports on Neil Armstrong and Conspiracy Theorists

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

Obama Does Not Bring Change

An old French saying exists among historians especially: "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."

Translated, it means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

How odd is it that so many people refer to Obama and the democratic takeover of Congress as change, indeed.

The most significant trend in American politics since the Civil War has been the increase in federal power at the expense of the states and the people. Very rarely has a president and his party actually met the standard required to suggest real change. Thomas Jefferson's Republican Revolution of 1800 is an obvious example.

However, ever since Lincoln established federal domination of the states, "change" has been a code for politicians who want the same thing but a hell of a lot more of it. Just look at a couple examples of what "changes" Obama has in store for us.

The health care system is over-regulated, one of the chief causes of high health-care prices. The health care system is already quasi-socialistic because of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more regulation and socialism.

Federal spending is a huge problem. Our federal government is literally spending our way into economic oblivion. Obama's "change" is a hell of a lot more federal spending.

Already the federal government too often violates the Constitution. Obama's change is to violate the Constitution a hell of a lot more.

Imagine a husband and a wife who are having extreme marital difficulties. The wife is upset that the husband drinks and sleeps around. The husband says that he drinks and sleeps around because the wife spends all of her time nit-picking every thing that he does and has the libido of a ninety year-old nun.

You might recommend divorce, but let's say that the couple really would like to re-connect but just don't know how to start doing it. You might then recommend a marriage counselor.

Whatever you do, for God's sake, don't recommend that they consult with Obama.

Obama's advice to the husband: switch from beer to vodka, and--instead of sleeping around with other women--sleep around with other men too.

Obama's advice to the wife: You need to point out every little thing (however minuscule) about your husband and his actions that you don't like, and you need to make it clear that you will not be welcoming in bed until he addresses every little thing.


Ladies and gentlemen, don't be fooled. The Emperor is naked. More of the same is not change. More of something that's bad is worse.

Hail to the Thief!: Obama's Plans Amount to Armed Robbery

An article at the Wall Street Journal is headlined "Democrats Target High Earners to Help Fund Health Plan."

I wonder how much of this is a Marxist attempt to redistribute wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, and how much of this is politicians pandering to the masses: "Vote for me, and I'll get you stuff with other people's money!"

It's sick is what it is. No one has the right to another person's property, and this proposal amounts to little more than legally sanctioned plunder.

Obama is a bandit not in the likes of Robin Hood (who stole not from the rich but from the Lords who had unjustly taxed the peasantry). Obama is a bandit in the likes of Jesse James: no matter how beastly his actions, he will be loved by the simple folk.

Obama the Partisan

Obama is always talking about and extolling the virtues of bipartisanship, and yet, to him, bipartisanship is merely the other side either going along with his wishes or shutting up and getting out of the way.

He's a hypocrite of the first order. And yet he is so worshiped by so many.

There's room at the top, they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill.
--John Lennon's "Working Class Hero"

Cheney Defends Torture

According to the Los Angeles Times, former VP Cheney takes offense at recent inquiries into whether the CIA might have broken anti-torture laws.
The Times quotes the former VP:

I just think it's an outrageous political act that will do great damage long-term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say.

However, the issue isn't if Obama's motives are political. They may well be (and probably are). The issue is did the CIA torture prisoners? In Cheney's lexicon, torture is just one of those "difficult decisions," and in his own words he wants the CIA to be able to do it freely "without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say" (i.e. without having to worry about consequences).

If Cheney can somehow prevent the looking into this issue, he and his cohorts can see to the complete suppression of all incriminating evidence. It makes me think of 1984:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'

What Cheney doesn't like is that he doesn't control the present right now, and that's what he's pretty much all about: control, power.

Contrary to what he thinks, officials should have to worry about the consequences of their actions. It's when there is no worry at all that they become the most bestial. Which, I suppose, is exactly how Cheney wants it to be--so long as he's pulling the strings.



Note: If you read the whole Times article, you'll see near the end that Cheney says that he's OK with it if the interrogations were indeed illegal acts of torture.

A Tribute (of sorts) to Elmo

Yes, it's been too long since I've posted. Frankly, I've been a bit tired since my return from Seattle. Nonetheless, I have something for you--for you specifically if you are or have ever been a parent whose child/children went through the dreaded "Elmo phase."

Grandma C. Rest in Peace

My grandmother died a few hours ago, shortly after I purchased a ticket to fly out to see her one last time. At least I won't have to see her in critical condition, but I will never see her again.

Food has tasted a bit bland since I heard the news. My wife says that it's grief. Who knew how bland grief tasted?

I would have pegged it for bitter.

She was a kind woman who spent the last several years battling several medical conditions. I hope her soul fares well, and I will miss her dearly.

Giving the House to the Bank

I'm rather tired of people who say that they are "giving the house to the bank" instead of just admitting that their home is in foreclosure.

They shouldn't phrase it in such a way to make it sound any less than the bank is seizing your house because they have failed to make payments on their mortgages. They're not "giving" the house away. It's being taken away.

I'm not degrading anyone because they've fallen on hard times. I'm just annoyed with this sweet little phrasing that makes it sound like it's a choice and no big deal. It is a big deal.

I'm also tired of the state complaining that it is losing revenues right and left. These past few months, I've seen dozens of street construction projects that were not necessary. When money is tight, you're supposed to watch your spending. Instead, I just watch the state spending, and spending, and spending. Hearing the state complain about revenues is like hearing a compulsive gambler complain about having to give his house to the bank.

I'm also irked by the notion uttered by politicians like Sen. Arlen Spector that those in vocal opposition to the government's health-care plan are not representative of the people. Yes, their are millions of Americans who do not have health care insurance, but this does not mean that they are not able to receive health care. Furthermore, these millions of uninsured Americans do not make up the majority of Americans, so perhaps it is politicians like Sen. Spector who are not representative of the people.

And now I tire.

Obama: Government Run Health-Care Will Suck (paraphrase)

At Free Advice, Bob links to this video showing Obama poorly defend his health care plan. To the argument that the so-called "public option" would threaten the solvency of private insurance companies, Obama says that insurance companies have nothing to worry about by comparing how the post office is always in trouble but private companies like FedEx and UPS thrive.

In other words, private companies shouldn't fear government competition because government competition sucks.

True, very true; however, government coercion remains to be feared, and this government is more coercive than ever before.

Opposition to Government-Run Health Care Heats Up

Claire McCaskill, a U.S. Senator from Missouri, faced an angry crowd recently as she stumped for government-managed health care.

McCaskill admonished the rowdy crowd, saying "I don't understand this rudeness. I honestly don't get it." (source: msnbc)

I'm certain that Lords Greenville, Townshend, North, and King George III uttered similar sentiments when the colonists protested the various acts of parliament that were designed to fleece the Americans in the decade prior to the American War for Independence.

Both loyal supporters of English authority and well-established colonial protest leaders underestimated the self-activating capacity of ordinary colonists. By the end of 1765 … people in the streets had astounded, dismayed, and frightened their social superiors. (Gary Nash, 59)

It is rather astounding when politicians react disbelievingly towards increased-tax opposition.

Also astounding was the vandalism on representative David Scott's office sign.

I'm not quite certain what message the perpetrators intended, for I'm not able to see the connection between this debate and the infamous Nazi symbol. Perhaps it was made by educated (albeit foolish) well-wishers (before the Nazis adopted the swastika, it symbolized good luck). Then again, I'll bet that the perpetrators are indeed supporters of Scott and the government's health care plan, their aim being to portray their opposition as members of a fringe hate-group--as if only ignorant thugs could possibly disapprove of the government's plans.

If the swastika is indeed the work of a defiant opposition, then I am rather upset because it does nothing to help those of us who oppose the government reasonably. But of course, anyone who thinks that the swastika is a great symbol is too much of an idiot to know any better.

My Birthday Tomorrow

When my wife asks me what I want for my birthday, I usually announce something too expensive as my primary wish. That way, my second choice looks way more attractive and plausible.

P.S. Breathe a word of this to my wife, and you're toast.

P.P.S. Yeah, I'm talking to you.

Obama and Historic Approval Ratings

There is much talk of how Obama's approval numbers have been declining some, that while he is still liked as a person, many are becoming less and less content with his policies. Now we have all these Obama people jumping around, desperate to explain all of this, as if lower (that's lower, not low) approval ratings now will destroy his historical legacy.

Before Obama's supporters give themselves ulcers, they should pay attention to American history, enought to see that the most disliked--and most destructive--president in history is still considered one of the best.

Abraham Lincoln was so disliked (both as a man and for his policies) that eleven states seceded from the Union and sacrificed an entire generation of their young men (and a great many of their older men as well) in hopes of being independent of the man and his policies.

Rest assured, Obamanites, history can still look fondly upon your man, even if he gets lower approval ratings and even if he wrecks the hell out of the country (look out, Atlanta).

A Learned Man Came to See Me Once--By Stephen Crane

This poem feels so current...
A learned man came to me once.
He said, "I know the way, -- come."
And I was overjoyed at this.
Together we hastened.
Soon, too soon, were we
Where my eyes were useless,
And I knew not the ways of my feet.
I clung to the hand of my friend;
But at last he cried, "I am lost."
--Stephen Crane
Was Crane foreseeing America's waltz into Obamanomics?

You Owe No Taxes

I just read that (terrible) actor Nicholas Cage "owes" the federal government 6.5 million in unpaid taxes and penalties.

However,"owe" is the wrong verb.

Since the federal government does not solicit your consent for its "services," you are under no moral obligation to pay it anything. Your legal obligation to pay has the moral equivalent to your obligation to pay a mugger.

The fact that we are taxed by elected representatives does not change the fact that I have not consented to be taxed. Imagine that some guy just up and mowed your lawn (badly) and presented you with a $1000 bill. You'd be outraged. You'd point out what a crappy job he did, how ridiculously expensive is his fee, and on top of everything that you never gave the guy permission. He cannot justify his bill by saying, "Well, I asked your neighbors, and they said it was OK."

If you don't pay taxes, then the government will bring upon you much harm. That means that you had better pay your taxes, but it doesn't mean that you owe them.

Obama Already Is Taxing the Middle Class

The New York Times reports that Obama plans to stick to his pledge not to increase the middle class's tax burden.

Sorry folks, have you looked at our government's policies? All this spending, money from nothing. What do you think are the consequences?

Inflation, an "invisible" form of taxation.

As our dollar weakens, we become poorer. The result is much the same as if the government simply took more dollars in taxes.

Every dollar spent by the government has to come from taxpayers. If it's not taxed directly or borrowed (e.g. bonds), then it hits us as inflation.

Obama's reckless spending policies make him potentially one of the worst presidents in regards to easing the middle class's burden.

But Obama will blame everything on eight years of Bush, and most of his supporters will buy it and cry, "Four legs good; two legs better!"

"Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."
--The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again"

No Stimulus?

On Friday, a local newspaper published with the headline "No Stimulus for Cops," and it was about how puzzled local leaders are that they didn't get any federal money for police.

What in the hell does that mean? We should be "stimulating" the police industry? We already have a massive (and massively expensive) program installed to "stimulate" the police industry.

It's called the drug war. It keeps crime high in cities so that citizens demand police.

Spending money on more police will not "stimulate" anything,