Joel's Rant

It was quite a spectacle to see earlier this week, Barack Obama standing among a crowd of auto workers claiming his stimulus and bailouts saved the industry from disaster and even increasing their payroll by 55,000 workers.  Didn’t Joe Biden state not too long ago that the 8 million jobs lost since the beginning of the recession were not coming back?  Didn’t the government recently announce 3 million jobs “saved” or created yet unemployment grew from 8% in February 2009 to today’s 9.5% and that doesn’t include those millions that have literally dropped out of the labor market, otherwise the jobless percentage would be over 17%, also known as “depression era territory?”  And wasn’t it just this week that the Obama regime floated the idea of another jobs stimulus on top of the $862 billion stimulus already passed last year?  And why would unemployment benefits need to be extended beyond 99 weeks if jobs were actually being created?  Is that progress, or is that admitting disaster?

Actually, having bailed out GM to the tune of $55 billion ($7 billion approved during the Bush administration and $48 billion under Obama plus Obama’s additional $25 billion to Chrysler) I’d expect some auto worker jobs would be created, although at $1 million per job I’d judge that action to have been quite the failure.  And the Obama regime’s forcing GM to build and market their new electric car, the Chevy Volt, reeks of dangerous and politically motivated tidings to come.  Getting only 40 miles to a 3-hour charge (and exactly where does that increased electricity use come from if not fossil fuel power plants) and with a sticker price of $41,000 per unit, and on top of that being subsidized by the taxpayers to the tune of an additional $7500 per unit, you can see this also will be a complete and utter failure.  Who, besides a complete fool or rich democrat (or is that the same thing) , would buy a car like that?  Only the government would miss seeing this effort as a failure.  You’d honestly expect decisions like that to be made by the Soviet Politburo, but that’s what happens when government invades and coerces the private sector.  We can only expect more of this in the other industries being taken over or being invaded by the government. 

And these are the same people who plan to control your health care and tell you what you can and can’t get from your doctor.

If that doesn’t scare the shoot out of you try this.

Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University, reports that the great nations and empires of the past were destroyed, and with the fantastic speed of only one or two generations, by ruinous debt and unsustainable ficsal policy.  As Ferguson writes, what are the implications for our country today? The most obvious point is that the fall of great nations are associated with fiscal crises, sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, and the mounting cost of servicing a mountain of public debt.  Sound familiar? 

Think of Spain in the 17th century; already by 1543 nearly two-thirds of ordinary revenue was going to interest to pay for the loans by which the Habsburg monarchy financed itself.

Or think of France in the 18th century; between 1751 and 1788, the eve of Revolution, interest and amortization payments rose from just over 25% of tax revenue to 62%.  With that, the Bourbon monarchy passed from triumph to terror with astonishing speed.

Finally, consider Britain in the 20th century. Its real problems came after 1945, when a substantial proportion of its now immense debt burden was in foreign hands, amounting to about 33% of the national GDP.  The Suez crisis in 1956 proved that a financially strapped and weakened Britain, beholden to the US for fiscal support, could not act in defiance of the US in the Middle East, setting the seal on the end of their empire.

If you believe the United States is impervious to those disasters consider the fact that the Obama regime has run a deficit of $1.4 trillion two straight years in a row, about 10% of GDP, with more $1 trillion deficits for the next several years in the future.  Since 2001, in the space of just 10 years, the federal debt in public hands has doubled as a share of GDP from 32% to a projected 66% next year. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections, the debt could rise above 90 per cent of GDP by 2020 and reach 146 per cent by 2030 and 344 per cent by 2050. 

So how will our leaders deal with this extraordinarily dangerous situation?  By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, thereby raising taxes on every person and every business in America that still pays taxes.  What that does is take money out of the private sector, where it is otherwise spent building industries, upgrading machines and equipment, providing dollars for research and development and thereby creating high paying jobs that expand markets and increase economic stability.  They’re also going to attack the energy industries and make it even harder to get credit and loans and eventually passing some form of card check to further cripple our ability to complete in the global economy.  And that doesn’t even include the coming VAT tax, wealth tax and potentially taking over your IRA.

Just look at how the stimulus money was wasted.  Look at how all the bailout money was spent.  Look at how Fannie and Freddie have been given, even with all we know about them, a free hand with no monetary limits to continue their destruction of the housing and mortgage industries.  It never ends.  
 
And isn’t it interesting that no matter how high taxes get, and how high the budget deficit gets, it is never enough.  Even with budgets now about $4 trillion each year, for some reason, there’s never enough money for everything.  It’s still not high enough.

How can any significant number of jobs be created when the US corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, is 35% while the tax on small business is set to rise to 39.6% after January 1, 2011?  Small businesses, like your local pizza restaurant and barber shop, the job creating engine of America, will pay higher taxes than even billion dollar corporations?  How can jobs be created when the people with the money to hire workers will have that money stolen away by the government?

It takes 150,000 new jobs created each month just to keep the unemployment figures stable.  It would take 400,000 jobs each month for 3-years just to get back down to 8% unemployment.  What’s the chance that’s going to happen with this Marxist, anti-business, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, government in control of this country?

The answer is none; there is absolutely no chance that’s going to happen.  In fact, it’s going to get worse, much worse.  Even Ben Bernanke this so.  We’re already Greece.  And when we get worse than Greece there’s going to be civil unrest. 

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.

Unless you’ve been living on another planet you know the case of Congressman Joe Barton (R, TX) and how he supposedly is an apologist for BP and how he’s being portrayed, along with every other politician in the Republican Party, as caring only about BP and its ability to function as a corporation and to hell with the people in the Gulf whose lives can very well be ruined by this accident.

By now everyone has heard the audio or seen the video of Joe Barton saying this:

“Now I’m going to speak totally for myself. I’m not speaking for the Republican Party, I’m not speaking for anyone in the House of Representatives but myself – I’m ashamed at what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown – in this case a $20 billion shakedown. The attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, participated in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund. That’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, has no legal standing and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future”.

“There is no question that BP owns this lease. There is no question that BP made decisions that objective people think compromised safety. There is no question that BP is liable for the damages. But we have a due process system where we go through hearings, and in some cases court cases and litigation and determine what those damages are and when those damages should be paid. So, I’m only speaking for myself – I’m not speaking for anybody else – but I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

What most people did not hear, and what Democrats and the state-run mainstream media are loath to discuss or report is what was deleted from Joe Barton’s full comment, what was in between the 2 paragraphs above:

“If I called you into my office, and I the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Stupak, with me, who was legitimately conducting an oversight investigation on your company and said if you put so many millions of dollars in a project in my congressional district, I could go to jail, and should go to jail.”

What Joe Barton was saying, and what is true and correct, is that what the Obama regime did to BP is seriously against the law.  If the Congressman did it, it would be a crime punishable with jail time.  When the President does the same thing, the media calls it a sweet victory for the people.  How can that be?  Something is very wrong, no?

And here is the problem, a problem which too many people are more than willing to ignore.  We are a nation of laws.  We are a nation of rules and due process.  We have a Constitution that sets out the blueprint of how the government is supposed to operate, what they are allowed to do and under what circumstances they are allowed to do it. 

What Obama and his regime are doing here is once again ignoring the Constitution, and because of the way they and their minions in the media are spinning it, most Americans are delighted that the President is again ignoring the Constitution. 

 Joe Barton is very specific in saying that in cases of corporate or individual malfeasance actions are necessarily brought against the wrongdoers but, and here is the really important part, those actions take place in court, or in some cases in congressional hearings, and there is litigation, and lawsuits, and responsibility is categorized and those responsible are called to account in a public forum.  And in the case where the wrongdoer is required to put money in an escrow the law demands who the money is spent on, whom and under what circumstances the money is spent, and that those believing they have been unfairly treated are provided recourse and on and on. 

And what if the money ends up being spent incorrectly, or used by politicians to promote their own nefarious agendas, the American people have redress for that as well.  That’s what would be spelled out in court or after a judicial judgment, not with some blatant shakedown behind closed doors, where absolutely no details are known.

And that’s what Joe Barton was saying.  That’s why what the President is doing is wrong and even worse, it’s setting a precedent that future presidents can ignore the laws of the land and set terms on their own, with no oversight, or hearings, or discussion and without any accountability except for his own and on his own terms.  And that, my friends, is tyranny.

And there’s more and much worse and here it is.  Where does the President get the power to “shakedown” BP?  Where in the Constitution is the President allowed to call BP to the Oval Office and “negotiate” with them, with some unknown and non-public pressure, and get them to “agree” to terms that no one knows what they are, if they’re even legal, and to whom and under what conditions money will be paid.  As it happens, no one knows what the deal with BP includes and the Obama regime will essentially be figuring it all out as they move forward.  Why am I not surprised?

And no one will ask the President for accountability.  Actually, if you have the temerity to even ask a question, the state-run mainstream media and the Democrats and Marxists will call you a hatemonger, or a racist, or a homophobe or whatever.  The state-run mainstream media definitely won’t ask any questions.  The Congress won’t ask, and in fact they have forfeited their constitutional duty to set these terms themselves.  They have instead abrogated their responsibility entirely.  And that, my friends, is tyranny.

Where does the President get the power and authority to take $20 Billion from a private corporation and put one of his own henchmen in charge of doing whatever he wants with it?  Who’s Ken Feinberg and where does he get the power and authority to pay out money to whomever and under what conditions?  He’s unelected and unaccountable yet he’s the one that will set all the rules and cut all the deals.  Why is he judge, jury and executioner all in one? 

There is already talk that Feinberg will allow seafood restaurants in Boston to sue BP because their actions have led to higher seafood prices.  There’s also talk that Feinberg will allow New York State employee pension fund to sue BP because this accident has caused BP’s stock share price to go down.  That kind of acceptance of collateral damage, and we ain’t seen nothin’ yet, my friends, is tyranny.

And what if someone has a complaint, where do they go, who do they talk to?  Does some fisherman have to call Ken Feinberg personally?  No one knows.

And here’s the amazing part that too many people are not thinking about.  The government has squandered every trust fund, every escrow account, every lock box in history, and they have bankrupted every Agency in existence.  Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already over $60 Trillion in the red, and all the unfunded liabilities the government has amassed through mismanagement and fraud already total over $100 Trillion.  Those are Trillions with a “T”.  And yet too many people have no problem turning all that $20 Billion over to the same government to do with what they like and there are completely no rules to guide them or restrict them.  Does this seem like a nightmare to you, because it should?

And it always comes down to where does the government, the President, get this authority?  It is not in the Constitution.  So where is it?  And why don’t enough people care about that?  What about the 40% of BP’s shareholders who are American citizens and who count on BP dividends for their retirement income or pension income?  Did the President consider them before he decided to shakedown BP for the political grandstanding it provided?  Not likely.

Look how, just last year, the Obama regime shook down the Chrysler secured bond holders and made them settle for pennies on the dollar when he undertook similarly unconstitutional action and nationalized that company.  I don’t know how many laws and contracts were arbitrarily broken by Obama, contracts previously protected by the Constitution, but he didn’t really care as long as his union supporters got control of the company.  That precedent is one of the reasons private investors are not running back into the free market, because Obama has unintentionally set new standards which are that the government can pretty much do whatever it wants at any time, including stealing money from their rightful owners.  Just ask those Chrysler bondholders.  How will other international and foreign investors react to BP’s treatment by the American President?  Will they continue to invest in America; will they continue to create American jobs?  Try and guess.

Or what about the health reform bill for which there is no basis in the Constitution.   Where in the Constitution does it provide for the government to order people to buy a commercial product, with their own money, from some third party that they don’t know and don’t want to know?  What precedent does that set for the future, for your children’s future?

When is the stealing going to stop?  When is the truth going to finally prevail?  When will the tyranny cease?

Earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down the government’s case that private corporations could not support their favorite candidates.  Remember the firestorm and how the Democrats yelled and screamed about the unfairness of that “Citizen’s United” case and even lied to the public about the court allowing foreign companies to support candidates?

Of course the court did nothing at all about foreign companies, as they left that part of the law in place.  It’s still unlawful for a foreign company to provide financial support to an American candidate.  That’s what the video of Samuel Alito, at the State of the Union address, mouthing the words “not true” was all about.  So it’s still unlawful.

But that hasn’t stopped Barack Obama from taking over $1 million in campaign donations from BP, a foreign company, a company that wanted to buy support and protection from the Obama regime.  What Obama and his regime have done by taking that money from foreign owned BP is against the law.  Will he return that money to BP?  Not on your life.

Conservatives know rape when they see it, and they don’t like it.

And that’s all there is to it.

There are so many bad things, all about to be brought to you by Democrats, that I can’t keep them all straight.

Try this on for size:

Why did the Obama regime loan Brazil $2 Billion in August, 2009 for them to develop their off-shore oil drilling industry?  Why wasn’t he developing our off-shore oil drilling industry or maybe even building wind mills or repaying debt or something like that?  That’s interesting by itself, no?  But here’s where the plot thickens.  I realize Obama’s not clairvoyant, so even I know he could not have predicted a disastrous oil spill in the Gulf, but look at what’s going to happen.

Because of the spill, the Democrats are going to try to get climate and energy legislation passed under the guise of developing non-fossil based resources.  Hey, nothing like not wasting a crisis.  Obama has already called for a 6-month moratorium on continued off-shore drilling and even falsely and fraudulently and despicably used the names of 7 expert engineers in the field to “document” his plan (lying has certainly become a staple of this regime’s modus operand, no?) and provide the “substance” it would not have otherwise had.  These oil drilling platforms cost about $½ million each day to operate, even if they’re sitting idle, like during a moratorium, and no oil company can afford that so they’ll be moved, and their likely destination will be……Brazil. 

Now oil is a fungible product, meaning it costs the same everywhere in the world, whether it’s developed in the United States or Angola or Iran or Brazil.  It makes no difference.  Once the drilling platforms are moved to Brazil, or wherever, they’re not coming back, at last not for a very long time.  Definitely longer than 6 months, maybe longer than 6 years.

Good riddance, right?  Wrong, you idiot!  The United States presently gets 30% of our national oil production from the Gulf.  If that oil is not replaced the price of gasoline will rise, meaning there’ll be less driving to the mall, meaning less spending money on stuff, meaning more layoffs of people normally selling that stuff, and leading directly to more unemployment and welfare payments and that’s money that is taken directly from you.  You get the idea, right?  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

Or the oil will be replaced by buying more from foreign sources, causing more and higher dependence on foreign oil, which is what our political class has been railing against for decades.  A bit of a conundrum, no?

But we can be developing “green” fuel resources so good riddance, right?  Wrong, you idiot!  Anyone who believes that is not thinking in reality.  Take a look at Spain, which dumped billions into restructuring themselves into a “green economy” and have recently announced publically their complete and total failure and which helped bring on their near-collapsed economy.  Those resources, if ever commercially viable, will not be ready for prime time for decades or longer.  Contrary to what Democrats think, developments in science and technology cannot be legislated.  If there was a possibility of their coming to market it would have happened already through the free-market, in the same fashion that petroleum oil beat whale oil, and cars beat horses, and computers beat typewriters and on and on.  That’s the genius of the free-market.  How many innovations and useful developments in technology have come out of central planning in China or Cuba or old East Germany, for crying out loud?

Oh, and let’s not forget the economies of 3 Gulf states, in which Gulf oil drilling is either the state’s single largest or second largest industry.  Those economies will be decimated, causing more of the previously mentioned unemployment and welfare payments and that’s money that is taken directly from you.

So why are Obama and the Democrats planning these political moves that will only cause economic destruction and misery on a grand scale, instead of just concentrating on plugging the oil leak?  Maybe because they’re Marxists?

Let’s look beyond merely BP.

Are you aware that the Democrats in Congress voted just two weeks ago to allow the EPA to set carbon limits for all industries nationwide?  Well, good riddance to carbon, right?  Wrong, you idiot! 

What that does is allow unelected bureaucrats, who are accountable to no one, and in most cases have no real-world experience beyond government, to set industrial policy throughout the entire economy of the United States.  The last time we saw this kind of central planning, on a scale that affects every commercial exchange in a nation, was during the Politburo days of the old Soviet Union.  Yes, the Soviet Union. 

By controlling carbon you control energy.  If you are the kind of person that turns on a light bulb, or drives a car, or takes public transportation, or likes heat or air conditioning, or likes to buy products of any type or uses services of any type, or eats food, or needs health care, or lives indoors, you’re going to be directly affected, which means you’ll either be paying much more or you’ll be doing without.  You get the point, right?  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

Are you aware that the unemployment rate in the United States will, with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, never again fall below 9% or 10% for any extended period of time (yes, if only we had that same GWB economy where “under 5% unemployment” was common)?  Sure, maybe if the government decides to hire another million census workers or hole diggers and hole fillers it may drop below, but not for long.  Do you want to know why?  Because Democrats have made it their business to sow the seeds of instability and chaos throughout the business community.

They forced the passing of so-called health care reform, using diabolical methods of coercion and fraud, which even the Obama regime’s own estimates assume 51% of all employers will need to change their present employee health plans to the new government plan because they don’t meet the definition of a “government approved plan.”  So much for keeping the plan to you like.  But the point here is that businesses don’t know what to do until all the policies have been written….by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.  Until then, no hiring.  And what about the uncertain impact on business of cap and trade, and “card-check” legislation and the coming increase of corporate, personal, estate and capital gains taxes that will hit everyone and everything that generates income when the Bush tax cuts expire on January 1, 2011.  Everyone person, and every business, that presently pays taxes will see a tax increase.  And what about the energy tax that’s sure to come out of this Democrat Congress because of the Gulf spill and what about the VAT tax that’s surely being planned?

All of those taxes and actions conspire to create an environment in which viable employers, those that need to make a profit to stay in business, as opposed to government that doesn’t have that handicap, will not do any hiring now, and maybe won’t in the future.  How can they? 

And needless regulation upon stupid regulation.  As if regulators caught Bernie Madoff before he did severe damage, even though the SEC knew about him and his potential for ponzi schemes years before that disaster hit.  They did nothing until then.  And the Department of the Interior knew there was trouble at the Deepwater Horizon rig days before that disaster hit, and they did nothing until it exploded.  And even then did nothing.  And the regulators of Fannie and Freddie knew a disaster was coming and they did nothing as well.  And the regulators on both the Senate and House Finance Committees not only did nothing to forestall the coming sub-prime mortgage and financial crisis they exacerbated it by encouraging and codifying bad banking policy and even in some cases shared in the greed they wrought.  That’s why unemployment is high and will remain high.  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

And now there’s a call for more regulation and ceding more and more power and control to government regulators that have proven over and over that they can’t regulate, can’t be trusted and often only make things worse, much worse.

And that’s your modern Democrat Party in action.

And there’s more, all being brought to you by those same Democrats.  Will your 401k be taken over by the government?  Will you lose your mortgage tax deduction?  That’s all being talked about now in the halls of the Democrat Congress as they search for every dime they can in an effort to slow the inevitable rise in interest rates.  You see, as the nation goes higher and higher into debt, at some point the people or countries presently lending us money will stop unless interest rates go up.  That’s what happens when a lender smells a bad loan risk.  We’re like the guy whose credit card debt balance is higher than his yearly earnings.  Those people all eventually go into bankruptcy or otherwise fail in some other fashion.  And if interest rates on that $13.5 Trillion in debt go up we’re not going to be able to pay and risk defaulting and bringing the entire economy of the United States to its knees, just like Greece.  And don’t forget the potential for civil unrest a defaulting economy brings; when government retirement payments and all other entitlement payments and Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors can’t be made and so on, just like Greece.  To forestall that, the government needs a different source of cash so it won’t need to borrow at the same “40 cents per every dollar spent” rate it’s been borrowing over the past 18 months.  That’s what’s generally meant by the phrase “unsustainable borrowing and spending.”  That new infusion of cash could well be your 401k and mortgage tax reduction.

What about a $165 Billion union pension bailout?  That’s on the table in Congress now, brought to you by Democrats.  What about dumping 30 million more people into Medicaid?  That was part of the Democrat health care reform bill and is a shared cost with the states, so look at your state treasury being drained because of this Democrat plan as well.

What we’re seeing here is the destruction of a once great country by the people that are bringing every conceivable economic insult and injury to you and your family, the Democrats.

(Just for the record, Republicans either voted or opposed virtually all of this stuff, even going so far as to try to reign in Fannie and Freddie during the GWB administration.  Sorry, that’s true.)

And that’s all there is to it.