Joel's Rant

It was reported earlier this week that former Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was cleared by the Department of Justice of any wrongdoing related to his firing of 9 U.S. Attorney’s.  If you recall, the Democrats in the House and Senate, along with their compadres in the state-run media, created this controversy, politically damaging George W. Bush (GWB) and leading Gonzalez to subsequently resign his cabinet position. 

Besides the fact that GWB had every right, as the President, to fire these 9 people because they were political appointees of the Executive Branch, and therefore served at his pleasure, what’s interesting here is that the entire scandal was completely made up.  It was a lie. 

Just like the lie that GWB usurped constitutional authority by not getting search warrants before wiretapping suspected terrorists.  That lie was quietly put to rest by the Department of Justice, right after Barack Obama was sworn into office.  How convenient.  It was a very quiet announcement, but a lie nonetheless.

I remember another old lie, like the Valerie Plame case, in which a supposed CIA operative had been “outted” by GWB or Dick Cheney or someone in his inner circle.  In fact, Plame was not a foreign operative and was not protected by the laws making leaking her identity a crime.  In fact the leaker was Richard Armitage, Deputy Undersecretary State and a well known opposer of GWB’s foreign policy, and he was protected from being recognized as the leaker of Plame’s name by no less the weasel than Colin Powell.  Again, what’s interesting here is that the entire scandal was completely made up.  It was a lie.

Let’s fast forward to the present.

Last week it was reported that Federal money could be used to fund abortions.  That should come as a surprise since, unless you were living in a tunnel during the recent ObamaCare fiasco, you’ll recall Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak and his merry men were planning to vote against the bill unless federal funding of abortions was specifically removed from the bill.  To the health care reformers rescue came Barack Obama to sign an executive order forbidding such funding.  The fact that Obama’s action carried virtually no weight, and could be overturned by Congressional action, did not stop Stupak from caving.  The bill was passed; Obama signed it into law, and now guess what?  The funding is being provided anyway.  It was a lie.

In fact, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland have all released details of their high-risk insurance pool, known as the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP).  And just in case you haven’t yet guessed, these federally-funded PCIP’s were all found to cover abortions. 

Under Obama’s health care plan, each state will have its own PCIP to give temporary health coverage to those who can’t presently get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.  The states can either create their own PCIP or allow the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to run their program directly.  The Secretary of DHHS, Kathleen Sebelius, has indicated that each state’s program will be “funded entirely by the federal government.”  $5 Billion is marked for this purpose.

So ObamaCare was passed because Democrats promised to reject federal funds to be used to pay for abortions, and then like magic, abortions will be funded up to 100% anyway. 

Now this is critically important so pay attention, even if you’re a liberal or believe in a woman’s so-called “right to choose” and all that.  It doesn’t matter a damn if you believe in federally funded abortions or not.  What’s important is that the government purposely and proactively lied.   Their entire aforementioned “rejection” of using federal funds to pay for abortions was a ruse, intended to make you think one way when in fact they planned to do exactly the opposite.  They pulled the old switcheroo, the old bait and switch, the old up yours with a hot poker and who cares.

Let me know when you become fed up with being played for a sucker and not a very smart one either.

This past week the Obama regime headed for court to defend its ObamaCare law, passed just a few months ago.  In the debate before the bill was passed Barack Obama claimed the law would require everyone to buy health insurance.  In an unforgettable televised discussion with ABCNews and George Stephanopoulos, on September 20, 2009, Barack Obama stated emphatically that the “universal mandate” was not a tax, and in fact was an insurance premium guaranteeing that those without insurance would not have to rely on government to pay their health care bills.  Barack Obama stated vigorously, and just as forcefully, that no one earning over $250,000 a year would see their tax bill go up by so much as a dime.  His words, not mine.

Incredibly, in the brief filed with the court, the Obama regime specifically referred to the mandate that every American buy health insurance as, in fact, a tax.  They actually call it a tax.  They knew all along this law could not stand constitutional muster by forcing people to buy a consumer product from a third party that they otherwise would not want to do business with.  They used to same exact argument FDR used to get the Social Security Act (SSA) through the Supreme Court in 1937.  FDR also claimed, in the debate leading up to the SSA vote, that what people would be forced to buy was insurance, but in their court defense called it a tax, the “FICA tax”. 

The Obama regime knew all along this universal mandate would have to be called a tax, and in fact is a tax.  But they dared not say so because otherwise it would have been rejected even by those Democrat fools in Congress that voted for it.  It was all a ruse.  It was deceitful.  It was duplicitous.  It was a lie. 

Also this week the Obama regime went to court to stop the Arizona immigration law from going into effect on July 29^th as scheduled.  All along, for these many months, Barack Obama and his minions have been wailing against the law because it amounted to racial profiling, even though a simple reading of the 17-page law completely refutes that dastardly contention.  Astoundingly, in the brief filed with the court, the Obama regime did not mention racial profiling at all.  Instead Obama’s argument is that the Arizona law, they now claim, only supersedes federal law, which of course it does not. 

Wasn’t Obama’s demagogueing really meant only to stir up the racial passions of the left and Hispanics in particular?  Do you suppose Barack Obama and his allies would have taken up the mantle of racial profiling if Hispanics, stealing into the country, were likely to become Republican voters? 

So what was all that instigating stuff about “racial profiling” that filled up the 24/7 news cycle 24/7?  It was bullcrap.  It was a lie.

And what about the NAACP calling the Tea Party a racist organization?  No proof, no nothing, all lies.

And what about the Obama regime and their state-run media allies calling Fox News racist for airing the edited video of Shirley Sherrod?  In fact, the Department of Agriculture, and with the approval of the White House, had already fired Shirley even before the first mention of her name appeared in any show on the entire Fox News Channel.  Did you know that? 

Likewise, she was also denounced by the NAACP, who had the entire unedited tape in their possession all along since her speech was before the Georgia chapter of the NAACP.  But that didn’t stop the NAACP, another political arm of the Democrat Party, from calling Fox News racist.  It’s all a lie.

Another political arm of the Obama regime, MSNBC, filed a report last year about health care protesters showing up at Tea Party protests armed. I hear this all the time from friends of mine from the political left and is the source of a lot of this “tea partiers are racist” stuff.  In the report, MSNBC showed a man carrying an assault rifle and said “there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.”  Of course, as it turned out, the guy carrying the gun was black. But you never would have known because MSNBC strategically edited the tape, so the race of the armed man wasn’t revealed. You just assumed he was white.  It was all a lie.
It’s always lies.

Obama blaming Republicans for stone-walling the extension of unemployment benefits to 126 weeks (that’s pushing 3 years my friends) and for being cold and cruel, yet all Republicans wanted was for the extension to be paid for.  Did you know the $862 Billion stimulus still has $400 Billion unused and the extension could have been paid out of that without having to borrow additional money from the Chinese to pay unemployment benefits?  And if the stimulus was really working, why would unemployment benefits have to be extended to almost 3 years?  It’s all a lie.

Obama declaring 3 million jobs created or saved, yet not being able to provide any data, at any time, under any circumstances that would back up that nonsensical claim?  It’s all a lie.

Black Congressmen claiming they were spat on, and had racial epithets shouted at them, at the April 15^th Tea Party protest on Washington.  Never has anyone provided any evidence that ever happened.  With every camera, seemingly in the entire world, focused on the black congressmen’s walk through the crowd, has any image shown any of the claims to have happened?  There is even a $100,000 standing reward for anyone who can produce any evidence anything untoward happened.  Yet nothing.  No evidence.  None.  Guess what?  It was all a lie, a lie meant to denigrate and cast aspersions on the peaceful protestors.  It doesn’t get much more vile and loathsome than that.

It’s as if our country is being run by the Mafia, except even Tony Soprano went on vacation once in a while and let all his victims breathe for at least a while.  This is worse, much worse.
So here’s a question.  How can a civil society continue to exist if the government and its leaders, and the media that support them, lie to the people regularly and with pathological ease?  The answer is it can’t.  We’re headed for disaster.

 And that’s all there is to it.

There’s a famous laboratory test that psychologists use to measure things like “fairness” and “altruism” called “The Ultimatum Game.”  There are 2 people that are anonymous to each other.  One person, person A, is given $20.  Person A is told that she must offer Person B a portion of that money.  If Person B accepts the offer they both get to keep the money they have been given.  If Person B rejects the offer, they both go home penniless.

According to the world of economics, if Person A offers $1 to Person B, Person B should accept the offer.  Even though Person A gets to keep $19, at least Person B gets something out of the deal.  If Person B rejects Person A’s offer of only $1, both Persons A and B get nothing.

To me, this is how those on the political left view the Bush tax cut policies of 2001 and 2003, which are presently set to expire on January 1, 2011, thereby instituting the largest single tax increase in American history.  As long as they perceive, incorrectly I might add, that someone is getting more of a tax cut then they are, they don’t want anyone to get the tax cut.  It’s as simple as that.

I have liberal friends tell me all the time that they can’t wait for those tax cuts to expire because they only favored the “rich” or only provided tax cuts to “millionaires.”  They also want “rich” people to finally pay their “fair share” of income taxes.  Never, of course, does anyone provide any data to back up those claims nor do any of them want to actually know the truth.  That would include state-run media people as well.

Don’t you hate that, when the truth gets in the way of making your point?

In fact, the truth is quite the opposite.  But first let’s stipulate a few facts.

1. Poor people do not create jobs.  Unfortunately, that’s a fact.  People without the financial means to hire workers, who expect to be paid for their efforts, are not going to create jobs.  They’re not going to create industries or businesses or provide any of the instrumentalities an economy requires in order to be prosperous.  Generally speaking, only “rich” people can do that and having those people available to provide that kind of support is necessary in a free-market, capitalist society.  Again, that’s a fact.
2. In 2008, the last year in which complete IRS data is so far available, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of all the income taxes collected that year.  In fact, under George W. Bush (GWB), the tax liability of this top group grew faster than their share of the income.  Now, I don’t happen to be rich, and I’m certainly not feeling sorry for anyone who is rich, but what part of 40.4% is not a “fair share?”  If 40.4% of the taxes being paid, by only 1% of the payers mind you, is not absolutely amazingly fair, can we at least stipulate it comes very close to being fair?  By the way, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 60% of the income taxes and the top 10% paid 75% of the nation’s income taxes.  Oh, and the bottom 50% paid only 3% of the taxes and 47% of the nation paid zero income taxes.  So much for the argument that so-called rich people are not already paying their fair share.
3. Despite the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the same amount of money was deposited in the U.S Treasury as there was before the cuts.  That’s a fact.  The conventional wisdom that receipts to the Treasury suffered because of the tax cuts is completely bogus.  The average Treasury collection from federal personal income taxes averaged 18% of GDP from 1953 through 2006.  The Bush Treasury averaged that same 18% from 2001 through 2006.  Even with the cuts, the same amount of tax money was collected. 

However, there were 2 differences from the averages of the past.  First, 6 million new jobs were created during the GWB years, from 2001 through the end of 2006.  That’s a fact, as inconvenient as that is for some to grasp.   Second, while Treasury revenues remained the same even after the tax cuts, spending increased to historical heights, at least historical before Barack Obama. 

An interesting factoid regarding that level of spending is that never one time, not once, not one single time, not for even one moment, did the Democrats in Congress during the GWB years offer a lower budget, filibuster for decreasing spending, or in any way, shape or form recommend cutting spending in any program except for one….the Defense Department.  In fact, the only response to any of the budgets submitted by GWB was that he wasn’t spending enough.  Every GWB budget eventually ended up being raised because of Democrats’ higher spending requirements.  That’s a fact.  And every single higher spending requirement was fully endorsed and approved by…….Barack Obama.  Go figure!

The facts I’ve indicated above are not meant to absolve the GWB presidency of mistakes they made, because they made many.  Every president makes mistakes.  Even the hero of the political left, FDR, took a recession in 1930 and created a Great Depression that did not officially end until 1947.  FDR’s economic policies and his social engineering initiatives were a complete and utter disaster, and breached the fire walls of the Constitution, thereby creating the mechanism of big government that extends into every facet of our life and society that we experience today.  But he was an excellent, politically conservative, and America loving, wartime president.

But the conventional wisdom that the economy under GWB was a disaster is bullcrap. 

I don’t believe GWB ever nationalized an industry, business, company or corporation.  He also recognized potential economic disaster and tried twice to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was repulsed by the Democrats in Congress (unlike the filibuster proof Congress enjoyed by Barack Obama, GWB has to cater to Democrats’ to get any legislation passed).  With unemployment around 5%, with home values doubled, with low inflation, with a record high stock market, with over 6 million new jobs created through 2006, the GWB economy was something that should be envied today given our current state of distress and danger to the health of the very Republic itself.  Let’s also try to remember that in addition to the recent financial crisis wrought, in large part, by government regulation like the Community Reinvestment Act and the criminality of government agencies like the aforementioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the Congress was taken over by Democrats in January 2007, a Congress which included, as one of its most vocal and strident members, one Barack Obama.

So, what are those GWB tax cuts that favor only the rich?

In the chart below you’ll see the tax years 2002 and 2003.  The tax year 2003 shows the rates with the GWB tax cuts, the rates we presently pay. If the tax cuts are allowed to expire by Barack Obama, the tax rates in 2011 will revert essentially to those shown below in tax year 2002.  Got it?

You might want to pay particular attention to how earnings from $46,700 to $56,800, the proverbial middle of the “middle class”, will have their marginal tax rate raised from 15% (2003 chart) to 27% (2002 chart), a rate increase of 12%.  That doesn’t sound too bad, right?  Actually someone paying 15%, and having their tax rate raised to 27%, has just suffered an 80% increase in their income tax!

So it turns out that GWB tax cuts actually helped middle class tax payers the most, with the biggest reductions going to those that needed it the most.  In fact, the GWB tax cuts were targeted to the middle class.  Those are the facts.  Any of that other rhetoric is bullcrap.

Tax Year 2002                                                 Tax Year 2003
 
up to $12,000 10%                              up to $14,000 10%
$12,000 – $46,700 15%                       $14,000 – $56,800 15%
$46,700 – $112,850 27%                     $56,800 – $114,650 25%
$112,850 – $171,950 30%                   $114,650 – $174,700 28%
$171,950 – $307,050 35%                   $174,700 – $311,950 33%
over $307,050 38.6%                          over $311,950 35%

But wait, that’s not all that’s going to change when the GWB rates expire on January 1^st.  In addition to the higher tax rates above, this is what’s going to also change so strap yourself in for the bumpy, and painful, ride:

The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.  For you liberals, pretty good, no?

This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55% top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  Actually, $1 million’s not that much.  A person leaving behind two homes, or one home on Long Island, and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15% this year to 20% in 2011, a 33% increase.  The dividends tax will rise from 15% this year to 39.6% in 2011, a 164% increase.  These rates will rise another 3.8% in 2013.  These are the kinds of taxes that affect people with retirement savings, pensions, and others who might want to sell assets and take a profit.  That means it includes most people, including you liberals, in the middle class.  (And don’t forget the VAT tax that’s coming as well as the often discussed “wealth tax” on yearly assets owned.)

Here’s a real good one.  You liberals will really like this too.  Congresses failure to index the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million in 2011.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. 

And there are all sorts of higher business taxes that will guarantee higher unemployment and more failed businesses.  The recently passed financial overhaul bill, often referred to as Dodd-Frank, has virtually guaranteed that small banks and small financial organizations will go out of business leaving fewer options for consumers seeking loans and mortgages, thereby tightening credit even more than it is right now.

Oh, and don’t forget the first ObamaCare taxes go into effect on January 1^st as well.

Here’s the important thing for my friends on the political left to remember.  The rich can pay taxes.  They’ll either always be able to pay taxes or they can fashion their income so they appear to have no income.  The truly rich can do that.  That’s the beauty in being truly rich.  Got it?

That’s not the same for the rest of us.  That’s not the same for people like you.  Even if you confiscate every dime of every rich person there won’t be enough.  That won’t nearly be enough because there are not nearly enough rich people.   

But the people on the left don’t care.  It’s the Ultimatum Game for them.

But at least you now know the truth.

And that’s all there is to it.

I was just this evening driving back from a GOP “Happy Hour” and was listening to the radio and heard that super-duper star basketball player LeBron James had decided to move from playing ball in Cleveland to playing in Miami.  My take on LeBron is that he seems like a pretty good guy, good to his teammates, and willing to extend himself to fans and their kids.  That’s all good.   Then I started to think about his new Miami contract. 

Now LeBron had been sought aggressively by most every basketball team with cash to spend, and while I don’t know what Miami finally agreed to pay him, I believe it could have been as high as $100 million for 5 years.  That’s a lot of cash, enough for several people’s lifetimes and all that.  It also turns out that LeBron’s a big Barack Obama supporter, just like the other 95% of blacks that support him nationwide and apparently will continue to support him no matter what and regardless of the circumstances, even if it’s over a cliff.

Now this is interesting.  It turns out one of the reasons LeBron chose to play in Miami is that Florida has no state income tax, as opposed to New York or Ohio, teams in cities of those states also contesting for LeBron’s contract, which has some of the highest state income tax rates in the nation.  So who cares?  What’s the problem?  Lots of people don’t want to pay taxes.

Here’s the problem.  LeBron supports Obama.  He supports Obama’s programs, and policies and spending.  He’s in favor of it all.  Yet LeBron, just like other liberals who are among the richest people on planet Earth, would just as soon support all that crap, be vocal about it, yet have other people pay that Obama freight.  He’ll leave Cleveland for Miami, save himself about $10-12 million, and not look back because he’s trying to get away from the high taxes, even though he supports the policies and spending that make those very taxes high.  Let the “small” people pay.  Isn’t that the liberal attitude?  Isn’t that an amoral attitude?

Who does he think is going to pay for all of those programs?  He’s certainly trying to avoid paying for those programs, which he apparently likes so much.  You see my point, right?

Why do the Hollywood types, who can be valued between $1 million and $1 billion, leave California for their ranches in Wyoming or Montana or abroad?  Why do all those rich liberals leave Massachusetts for New Hampshire and California for Arizona and Nevada, and New York for Florida, and Washington DC for Virginia and on and on?  They do it to lower their taxes, even though they support the policies and spending that make the taxes so high.  Isn’t that the liberal attitude?  ?  Isn’t that an amoral attitude?

A liberal friend of mine recently told me that he thinks business is amoral.  He actually said that.  There are those that think the truly rich are amoral.  Barack Obama thinks both business and the truly rich are both amoral and has said so many times, in many places, to many different audiences, all to huge applause.  Of course, he doesn’t like to talk about himself being rich, and needless to say his state-run media friends never ask him about  that either.

Back in the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt, that new favorite of the modern liberals, took on the so-called “Robber Barons” because he and his other “Progressive” elites thought too much wealth in just a few hands was dangerous to the country.  Oh, really?

And what did those Robber Barons do with their money?  What did Rockefeller and Carnegie and Vanderbilt and others do with their riches?  They invested it. They invested it in America.  They used it for research and development.  They loaned it out for others to use to develop their own ideas and products and on and on.  And in doing so they developed companies and businesses that employed tens of millions of Americans and provided the wages and inexpensive products that raised the standard of living in America.  Was that amoral?

And what about the captains of industry in our modern world?  Haven’t they stolen from the people and created chaos?  Haven’t they destroyed our society?  Aren’t they amoral?  Are they really?

Let’s for a moment try to be honest.  Hasn’t industry and free market capitalism provided life saving drugs, and cheap fuel and air conditioning and computers and cheap air travel, and cheap food in amazing quantity and medical care and insurance and cars and dazzling electronics?  And haven’t they, when not forced to do stupid things by the federal government, provided financing for mortgages and credit for average Americans?  And haven’t they created jobs and jobs and jobs, over 40 million jobs and Trillions in wealth from 1980 to 2007.  And don’t you assume there will be bigger and better and more and more in the future?  If you’re an American, you definitely assume that.  Is that amoral?

And who do you suppose does that stuff?  You think the government does that?  If you had to depend on the government for food, how much food would there be?  If you had to depend on the government for gasoline, how much gasoline would there be?  If you had to depend on the government to heat your home in the winter, how long would it take before you froze to death?  If you had to depend on the government for jobs, how many jobs would there be?  The government just spent over $1 TRILLION to create jobs and after more than one entire year not one job was created.  Not a single one. Is it the government you want in control of the free markets?  Are you a complete idiot?  Are you amoral?

Because of capitalism and free markets and big business, poor people in America can essentially enjoy much of the lifestyle of even the richest among us.  Even poor Americans own cars, and have televisions and computers, and own their own homes, and can buy cheap fuel and drive to every part of the country.  And if poor Americans don’t have the money to buy those things they can develop skills and work and save until they do.  Is that amoral?

About 6 weeks ago my wife and I were on vacation in Las Vegas and staying at the Bellagio Hotel, one of the finest 5-star hotels in the world (we got a great deal, it being during the week and the off-season and all that).  But there we were at the Bellagio, having breakfast in the Promenade, where all the expensive and fancy shops are, and I was reminded of a story about capitalism that the great economist Walter Williams likes to talk about, that capitalism really benefits poor people the most. 

To borrow from Walter’s story, here I was having breakfast in the Bellagio and thinking that if Bill Gates suddenly came to Las Vegas that day he might just as easily also be staying at the Bellagio, just like me.  And that if Bill wanted some breakfast he might just as readily come down to the same restaurant as me and maybe even sit 10 feet from where I was sitting.  And the reason is that I could afford what Bill Gates can afford.  Only capitalism could make that happen.

Yes, Bill’s room would likely be much more luxurious than mine, but we would still both be staying at the Bellagio.  He might order more expensive stuff off the menu than me but we would both be eating at the same restaurant.  He might leave the hotel and rent a Ferrari for the day while I rented a Mustang, but we both would be able to rent cars and enjoy the day.  I realized I could essentially do what the richest man in the world can do.  Is that amoral?

Only capitalism could make that happen.  Only under capitalism could I aspire to live the “Bill Gates” life.  Only under capitalism could I develop the skills to work at what I like and perhaps fail as I might. 

In a socialist society, like the one imagined by Barack Obama, and the Hollywood liberals, and rich sports-heroes that support Barack Obama, the place you are is the place you’ll stay no matter how hard you try or what skills you have or dreams you might dream.  In a socialist society, Barack Obama’s society, you are what he says you are and you ain’t stayin’ at no Bellagio, that’s for sure. 

And that’s amoral.

And that’s all there is to it.

My favorite political movie is “V for Vendetta” (2005) in which a masked freedom fighter takes up arms against a totalitarian government and urges the citizenry to fight the oppression of the state.  Since the main character is a super-hero named “V” you obviously need to suspend some disbelief to make this work, but work it does, all too alarmingly well.  What I find most chilling in this story is how the tyrannical government purposely and clandestinely creates a frightening crisis, then uses its power to “resolve” the catastrophe, but in the process takes complete control of the population. 

Yes, a crisis can indeed be considered a terrible thing to waste.  The blatant tyranny that takes place in V’s world, once uncovered, is easy to understand.  But in a movie you’d assume the depiction of evil would have to be at least somewhat blatant since the “hero” only has about 120 minutes to reestablish justice, and secure domestic tranquility, so the moviegoers can walk away and still be able to sleep at night.

Real life isn’t restricted by artificial time frames like that and so malevolence, or the appearance of it, isn’t always so noticeable, even when starring you straight in the face.  Having said that, consider the following.

Is it possible that the oil gusher in the Gulf is being viewed by the Obama regime, not as a crisis that needs to be corrected as quickly as possible, but rather as an opportunity to advance the Democrat’s economy-killing energy bill?

Don’t believe me?  Even after more than 75 days, in which over 100 million gallons of oil have already spilled into the Gulf, and expectations are that at least an additional 100 million gallons will be spilled before a second “relief” well is drilled in August, the Obama regime still rejects help from 13 countries that have offered oil skimmers and technical expertise.  Of the 2000 skimmers in the American skimmer fleet, only 400 are operating in the Gulf.  The Jones Act, which would allow foreign ships into the Gulf to help with the cleanup, has not been waived (George Bush waived the Jones Act 4 days after Hurricane Katrina).  Obama has not waived the Davis-Bacon Act, which prevents non-union labor from helping with the clean-up.  Obama has not suspended FEMA contracting and bidding rules, which would provide for more rapid assignment of contractors to help with the clean-up.  Coastal governors have not been allowed to dredge their coastlines to create barrier islands.  Obama’s EPA will not relax the 15 parts per million restrictions, required during normal times, on the amount of oil remaining in discharged water, meaning water must be continually re-cleaned before returning to the Gulf, thereby taking more time and effort to keep the cleanup moving forward.

In other words, every single positive proactive measure that could be taken to lessen the spill’s impact has been rejected or delayed, the exact and complete opposite of what one would expect in such a dire circumstance.  Instead, the only actions taken by the Obama regime in response to the spill have been to blame the crisis on George Bush and set an energy and economy destroying moratorium on off-shore drilling that was overturned by a federal judge, who’s reasoning in demanding the overturn was essentially that Obama’s action was self-serving, questionable and stupid (although he made it sound more scholarly).

Why would the Obama regime do that?  What’s the rationale?  What do you suppose would have been Obama’s response to the crisis had it affected 4 blue states instead of 4 red states?  Would the delays, rejections and inactions indicated above have taken place had Deepwater Horizon exploded off the shores of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Delaware?

Consider what that means?

Then there’s the curious case of the “slam-dunk” voter intimidation case being dropped against the New Black Panther Party.  In case you’re not aware, armed thugs of this group were stationed outside a polling place in Philadelphia during the November 2008 election to keep white folks from voting, and there’s extensive video and audio to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The fact that the New Black Panther Party perpetrators refused to challenge the Justice Department’s case against them might signal even they understood the gravity of the situation.  And then, just literally moments before justice was to be announced, and completely out of the blue, the Obama regime terminated the case, all charges, except for the most minor dropped, and everyone allowed to walk away free of harm. 

What the fudge is going on here?  Blatant voter intimidation and no action taken?  The most sacred right of American citizens completely trampled on and no Justice Department action taken?  Is it possible that this is what can be expected from a “terrorist-sympathetic” Justice Department filled with pro bono Al-Qaida lawyers?  Does it matter that one of the perps, Malik Zulu Shabazz, was a previous visitor to the White House personal residence last year? 

Consider what that means?

And what about Elena Kagan being nominated to the Supreme Court?  Here’s a person who has essentially served only in administrative positions being awarded a lifetime opportunity to shape the futures of every American for literally generations to come.  Yes, she was a clerk for Thurgood Marshall, served in an administrative capacity in the Clinton Justice Department, was the Dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General (SG) of the United States.  Yes, many credentials.  Interesting that as the SG, she actually only argued one single case, and very poorly, before the Supreme Court herself, leaving all the other cases to underlings.  Interesting too that she was never a judge herself, or has written anything of scholarly substance in her entire life.  Interesting too that she believes the Constitution of the United States allows for books to be banned if they’re “too extreme” and that the government can literally force Americans to eat 3 fruits and vegetables every day.  She actually said those things.

In other words, this person, who alleges to “love the law”, believes there are absolutely no limits to what the government is allowed to do to YOU.  No limits at all.  She actually believes that.  While she claims most sincerely to “love the law” she demonstrates through her own words that in reality she hates the governing document of our nation, Constitution of the United States.  And this is the person Barack Obama has nominated as the final arbiter of everything Obama.  Why do you suppose he nominated her above all the other liberals he could have nominated?  Is it because she’ll do whatever the Obama regime wants done?  Does that make her a political operative of Barack Obama?

Consider what that means?

Consider the news this week that Bucyrus International, a mining equipment manufacturer in Wisconsin, was denied a contract this week by the Obama regime to build machines for the Indian mining industry.  Because mining coal contradicts the Obama regime’s stance on global warming and green house gas emissions they will not allow Bucyrus to build those mining machines.  The cost to the company will be over 1000 jobs and $300 million in sales.  India, incidentally, immediately turned around and accepted equipment bids from companies in China and Belarus, so those jobs and that money will go to one of those countries instead.

So here Obama’s political agenda has cost this company dearly and its workers even more.  Here the government of the United States has taken action, for purely political reasons, to interfere with and quash the actions of a private sector company doing legitimate business in the free-market.  Where in the Constitution does the president or government get the authority to do that?  How will that power be translated to the health care industry once the new laws regarding that sector go into effect just a few years from now?

Consider what that means?

Consider the finance bill making its way through Congress and how that will affect the new fees you’ll need to pay for your banking business and the obstacles that will prevent even the most liquid people from getting loans and mortgages, yet does not mention the spending gusher (already over $150 billion and growing) at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in any of the bill’s over 2000 pages.  And consider the Disclose Act, also making its way through Congress, that will essentially set up differing standards for who is allowed to exercise “free speech” and who is not and how that will affect your use of the Internet.  And what about the coming VAT tax and all the other plans for taking as much of your money as possible?

Consider what that means?

Consider that, since January 2009, every action this Obama regime has taken, or has plans to take, is aimed and focused at controlling you and stealing and limiting your liberty.  Consider that.  Consider “V”.

And that’s all there is to it.