The Hostile Takeover - Big Government and the Obama Legacy

Mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers are commonplace in the private sector. They are a necessary byproduct of a free, dynamic, and evolving marketplace. They serve to combine services and products, eliminate inefficiencies, lower costs, and improve quality. All of these things are performed with the ultimate goal of profit - a villainous fiend in the eyes of some, and the wheels of prosperity in the eyes of others.

When such reckless, wild, unabated profiteering falters, as it tends to do under a cyclical economic system...

Enter Big Government, Stage Right.

There are many who may argue Barack Obama's legacy. Was he a uniter? A divider? A visionary? An idealogue? These arguments currently continue to rage. I've been caught up in many of them myself, and spent many an hour eviscerating the drones who buzz overhead, blissfully uninformed and cheerful as they blindly applaud the demise of our great nation. If someone handed them popcorn, they'd munch gleefully while the theater around them collapsed in flames. The orgy of spending sends a thrill and a tingle up their leg (shout-out to Chris Matthews, who actually had the guts to confess what many of us have long suspected - that the attachment to liberalism causes an uncontrollable tightening of the pants in many American males).

I digress.

Since coming to office, the Obama government has commenced an unprecedented hostile takeover of massive segments of our once-free market. Never before in this country has capitalism been attacked from within by its own government in this manner, with such lusty zeal. And its happened with frightening speed. Think of the Obama administration like a Toyota with a stuck gas pedal.

Take stock - Government now runs the following industries (in addition to those they have always run):

Automobile (via takeovers of GM and Chrysler)
Health Care (our newest entitlement)
Student Loans (a complete takeover slipped in with health care - barely reported on CNN or MSNBC)
Banking (forced them to take money, now they assume vast control over their lending practices)
Mortgage (good luck finding mortgages not somehow tied to, or backed by, the Feds)


They have their sights set on:

The Air
The Water
Anything that harms either of the above

And the left wonders why so people take to the streets in protest. Worse, the left enjoys insulting those very same people. They egg Tea Party buses. They make false claims that Tea Party folks are shouting racist insults and spitting on Congressman left and right.

When private business takes over other businesses, the results are evident. But when the government takes over businesses, can any right-minded citizen not buzzing around in post-euphoric liberal ecstasy imagine the results being more efficiency, lower cost, or better quality?

Maybe the folks choking on their popcorn can comment on that after their next trip to a government run clinic. For the tingly-leg checkup.

Freeze on Discretionary Spending is a Hoax

Tonight, Barack Obama will parade out his newfound fiscal conservatism for the world to see. The magician with the tophat will dazzle you with his rabbits and cape. His eyes will sparkle, his teeth will gleam, and behind him, his lapdog Pelosi, the Queen of Mean will grin and grin and you won't even notice it. Years of plastic surgery have frozen her face into a perma-smile that looks alarmingly like the adult blowup dolls popular at bachelor parties circa 1980's.

He'll wax eloquent, be self-effacing, act charming, and appear iron-fisted in pursuing this shockingly recent problem of Government spending. After all, it was only after the Paul Reveres of Massachusetts alerted him to this that he caught wind of it. He's going to want to thank them for cluing him in to this nefarious, secret, hidden little problem we've got with exploding deficits. I wonder if he'll actually say 'This is all news to me!' in relation to the spending crisis in Washington.

With all this said, it's likely that during the speech all of Twitter will be abuzz with some combination of anticipated tweets: He's lying. That's a lie. Stop lying. You're a liar.

Because what he's not going to tell you is far more important that what he is going to tell you. To wit:

1. He has raised discretionary spending a sickening 24% since Bush left office, including built-in increases for next year. Those aren't going to go away. It's akin to one of us withdrawing $100k from our credit cards, and then the next day declaring that we won't use our credit cards any more - in fact are going to cut them up! - while our pockets are bulging with the $100k. He succeeded in pre-fluffing goverment expenditures so he could then later pretend to draw the line on them and reign them in. Only, he's not reigning.
   
2. This 'discretionary non-defense spending' impacts about 1/8 of our budget. And he's not cutting it, mind you. Simply 'freezing' it. Also, entitlements are excluded - ironically, the biggest problem area we have.
3. There will be other exemptions allowable, and you can bet your bottom dollar (borrowed from the Chinese) that there will be a mad scramble from all bureaucrats across the vast federal horizon as they try to jam up the system with appeals and requests for exemptions.
4. It's rumored to be indexed for inflation. Pretty terrifying, considering that there is no longer any real debate that runaway inflation, due to massive government spending, looms just around the corner.
5. Finally, ever notice that the 'long term savings' associated with such things only occur well AFTER the President leaves office? First year savings here are supposed to be $10-$15 billion but eventually after 10 years "could" equal $250 billion. Nice.
6. Since when is freezing a GROWTH in spending considered SAVINGS? That's like me saying today "I am thinking of buying a $50,000 BMW next year, but now, I won't, so I just saved $50,000."
   

All of this begs the question - why is there ANY discretionary spending budget AT ALL while we're throttled with economic slowdown, job loss, deficits, and a recession?

If he can answer that question, maybe he might really just be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

Ted Kennedy Killed Health Care

There is little so delightful as the juicy irony of knowing that Ted Kennedy singlehandedly killed the Democrats hope of Health Care 'reform'.

After all, if he hadn't spent his last days clinging greedily to power and being wheeled around on a stretcher so he could continue his lapdog voting, this special election could have occurred long before the winds of change blew liberalism out of the water.

This fact hasn't gotten much attention yet, but it will. Thus it ends this way: the man who dedicated and pledged his life to socializing health care managed to singlehandedly kill it, as his greed for clinging to power overshadowed common sense, which suggests that when you have to be brought to the Senate floor on a gurney with oxygen tanks clinking around, it's time to retire.

Remember: the guy collapses with a seizure at Obama's inauguration luncheon on January 20th. It takes him a full 7 months before he passes away, and from April to June he didn't cast a single Senate vote. Yet he refused to retire.

In the end, the man who many most remember for killing Mary Jo Kopechne will now likely be most remembered for killing Health Care reform.

Col. Barfoot - A Hero Once, A Hero Again

Maybe you've heard about the Flagpole fiasco in Virginia, and maybe you havent. It looks like it's died down a bit now, and common sense has won out, so maybe I'm late to the game, but here's the lowdown:

A 90 year old Congressional Medal of Honor winner, Col. Van T. Barfoot, decides to raise his American flag on Labor Day and Veterans Day in a quiet suburban neighborhood in Virginia. He does this not only to honor his country, but to honor his friends and fellow soldiers that were left behind.

Some obnoxious Homeowners Association decides they have a problem with this and tells him he has to remove his flagpole. I happen to believe that the only cause for removing the flagpole should be related to the reinsertion of said flagpole in a new location far more uncomfortable for the Homeowners Association...but maybe that's just me.

Regardless, it's dumb enough that they tell him to remove his flag and allow this to become a public issue. Worse yet, they actually retained LEGAL COUNSEL to support them in this effort.

I wonder where the ACLU was on this issue? Seems they only support the notion of 'Civil Liberties' as it relates to flags when one is actually burning. American flags flying in the wind, and the rights of a war hero to show pride in their country, mean little to the ACLU...but if you want to set one on fire on the steps of the Capital - they've got your back!

Hooray for some measure of justice on this matter, as the Association has now backed off and come to it's senses. I've taken the liberty of posting Col. Barfoot's Medal of Honor Citation directly below - it's worth the read. If this type of bravery doesn't give you a bit of a chill just reading, have your heart checked.

--------

Col. Barfoot's Medal of Honor citation, taken from Wikipedia:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.^[7]

The Government Job Creation Myth

You'll frequently find those on the left, or those simply uninformed or disinterested in spending a spare moment to really consider an issue, touting the notion of "Government Job Creation". These folks believe that when Government expands, it's a great thing for the economy. They'll kneel before the altar of Big Government without even knowing they've been duped.

They assume simply because the Government expands and hires more people, that this means the Government in itself is a job creation entity. For someone who looks at the issue superficially, it's easy to miss the fallacy. If one questions them about the topic, they'll look at you as if you're dimwitted, and say something simplistic like "Hey if the Government hires 1 million more people, they've created 1 million more jobs and those people are no longer unemployed! Now they're paying taxes and working!"

They couldn't be more wrong, and that thinking couldn't be more dangerous. The notion of "Government Job Creation" is a Myth. Here's why:

The government isn't an instrument of productivity. It is the byproduct of it.

It receives an incremental, confiscated portion of the activities of the free market, and allocates a small percentage of that to governmental jobs and salaries whereas the rest is often used or wasted in a variety of other areas (direct handouts, entitlements, administrative expenses, etc).  

The very first obvious point here is that this process is a clear law of diminishing returns. Hand the Government $100, and a fraction of that will go towards someone's job with the rest vanishing along the way. Thus what appears to be 'created' is actually a 'diluted' amount of the original.


The second point is stated as such: Because the Government is wholly dependent on the private sector for revenue, it is accurate to say that the Government cannot ever "Create Jobs". It can simply "Consume Jobs".

Perhaps to put it simpler: If Peter (Citizen) makes $100 and Paul (Government) confiscates $25 of it and then uses it to hire someone, Paul has not 'created' anything. Paul has taken the fruits of Peter's labor and reallocated it. Further, Paul has no ability to confiscate the $25 if Peter doesn't earn it in the first place, so in any assessment, there is no way to claim the Government can ever actually 'create' jobs.

They can simply confiscate and redistribute wealth from those who do.

Without Peter, Paul cannot exist. The opposite is not automatically true.


To expand upon this a bit, one might argue that the government is a 'Consumer', and that 'Consumers' are a part of the transaction process vital to job creation in a free market society. To an extent, this may be true - The Government 'Consumes' taxes, jobs, and freedom routinely. But therein lies the rub - the 'Consumption' of tax revenue violates the core principle of free market transactions, which by definition are voluntary, of mutual benefit, and free of coercion.

Taxes aren't voluntary, our surrendering of ever-increasing percentages of our income to the federal government yields us little mutual benefit, and the process certainly isn't free from coercion. Thus, our relationship with the federal government is not a free market relationship, and therefore, they are not a true 'Consumer' of goods and services as would be found in a free market system. 

At least, not any more so than a Feudal Lord who enslaves his serfs to work his farms, and then bestows upon his serfs the pleasure of the Lord 'consuming' the harvest produced by others, while simultaneously the Lord claims to be creating jobs and helping the economy. He has in truth helped only himself to what someone else worked for.

Mary Landrieu - Bought and Paid for by the American Taxpayer

You know, sometimes you see the stuff that goes on in Congress and it sickens you more than usual.

The latest escapades of Mary Landrieu and her payoff from Harry Reid are a shining example of gutter politics.

Consider this for a moment: The Senate version of the Health Care Bill devotes 2 pages of convoluted legal text, designed to obfuscate the fact that the Senater Democratic Leadership, and Harry Reid in particular, are purchasing Mary Landrieu's vote at a price of $100 million in taxpayer money that doesn't currently exist.

When I say 'doesn't currently exist', what I mean is, it will need to be printed by the Federal Reserve, because we sure as hell don't have $100 million in "REAL" money when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit.

The upshot of the 2 pages is that it describes a complicated system of access to Federal Grant money for which a state must qualify by having it be declared a Federal Disaster Area within the past 7 years. California perked up when hearing this, wondering if their staggering budget deficit would qualify it as a Federal Disaster Area.

My immediate thinking is 'Yes', but apparently it's not quite as simple as that. Overspending yourself into oblivion may, after all, NOT be an automatic trigger for the seizure of more federal tax money.

In any case, the Democrats lock on the ultra-liberal Senators from California is so strong it's no longer even necessary to bribe them anymore. Throw Feinstein and Boxer a doggie biscuit and a chewtoy and they're off squealing and happy.

Back on point, after working through the descriptions and legalese buried in this Senate Health care monstrosity, it's clear that the number of states that would qualify tops out at a whopping number - 1. Louisiana. Coincidentally the state from which a wavering, self-described 'fiscal conservative' Senator Mary Landrieu represents.

I caught wind of pseudo-Republican Olympia Snowe saying this morning that she is not happy with the Health Care proposal as it did not contain 'concessions' for her state. Translation: "Where's my $100 million!" she says, sniffling.

Don't worry, Olympia. Keep sniffling and you'll get it. The Congressional liberal wing has shown no lack of desire to bribe whoever they feel like bribing so they can finish destroying our economy. After all - it's not their money. Many of them don't even pay their own taxes.

If this system is ever going to be fixed, then the electoral process needs to find a way to reward fiscal responsibility versus take-home pork. One of the easiest ways I can imagine is to determine a flat percentage of the federal budget contributed to States, divide that amount up proportionally, and have the Senators determine exactly where it's allocated. If they want to build a bridge to nowhere, great. If they want to fund a homeless shelter, great. But what they CAN'T do is decide how much federal tax money they get - they can only decide what boondoggle it gets spent on, and can be held to accountability for that.

Teabagging - Stereotyping, Slurring, and Labeling by the Left

Since when is Teabagging an acceptable mainstream media term?

I'd like to think I have an average sense of humor. Slightly above or below, actually, depending on who you ask. But I have to admit, hearing the 'major news networks', their pundits, and more importantly, the White House, throwing this term around for months has grated on me a little.

Now I should first say, in general, that their attempt to marginalize and mock average American citizens (a rare breed known as "taxpayers", more often than not!) who take to the streets in peaceful, lawful protest is something I support in principal. Because it seems the more they do it, the angrier it makes people, and the more it shows just how out of touch our leaders are with the issues of the day. After all, most of us our common folk, many taking to the streets for the first time. When you call them silly names, you're calling someone's friend, brother, sister, mother, father, or loved one by that name. That doesn't seem to help the cause of the left.

Ultimately, when the leadership of a free nation invests so much time and energy in mocking the citizens who pay their wages, as said leadership endeavors to drive our country to financial ruin, something good must be brewing. Find those who are ridiculed by morons, and you have likely found genius. So I say, in that sense, keep it coming.

But the specific use of the term, a widely known slang term for a specific sex act, doesn't seem to fit the concept of neutrality on the networks, and more to the point, is nothing more than a label and a stereotype bandied about by the crowd who most often claims to loathe - you guessed it - labels and stereotypes.

It seems even the White House and the President are prone to using this term, with barely a wink or a nod acknowledging the true meaning behind the joke.

The question becomes this: Would anyone ever imagine a day where this type of label were thrown around the airwaves in reference to same-sex marriage / gay rights supporters? Would it be as amusing then? Or would a similar sexually-oriented slang term be more palatable? If gay rights protesters rally at the fence of the White House, should we call them "Fence-Sitters"?

I somehow doubt we'll ever hear CNN or MSNBC joking about those marching for gay rights. I don't recall them joking about the anti-war crowd, either. Or throwing labels around to describe pro-immigration supporters. I guess some lowlife could come up with a cutesy term for them too - maybe "The Dirty Sanchez"? Come to think of it, can we start calling Terrorists like this knucklehead Hasan "the Brown Bombers" now, too?

The whole thing is silly and absurd. That said, when the entirety of your defense of a radical, budget-busting social agenda amounts to name-calling the other folks, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've already lost the debate. Wonder if that will slow them down in the slightest.

Gay Marriage Ballot Initatives - 0 for 31

It's pretty obvious that the public doesn't support gay marriage, despite the onslaught of ballot initiatives that have swept the nation putting the question to popular vote.

In fact, the record is 0 for 31, with the only successes occurring through a variety of legislative or judicial maneuvers. I'm at a loss to find any other social issue of the day that could lose so resoundingly across such a broad array of constituents. If someone proposed free lunches for aliens from outer space in 31 states, odds are at least one would sign up enthusiastically. Massachusetts comes to mind.

Personally, this isn't a huge issue for me. It's a complicated issue and, as most social issues, probably best left to the voters to decide. I tend to think more in terms of the impact of expanded entitlements and additional pressure on legal system particularly as it relates to divorce courts.

What I do find compelling is the arguments from the left who are pushing these measures, and, as the left is prone to do, falling victim to their own hypocrisy.

Remember, these are the same folks who remind us time and time again that Obama received a mandate, and therefore, those of us who disagree must stand down and accept the will of the people. To accentuate this, they hurl insults at us - Teabaggers, Astroturf, Paid Protestors, and such. It's important that they not only diminish our relevance, but give us a swift boot to the backside to punctuate their indignity as being challenged.

And yet when the tide of public opinion crushes them so mightily as shown in this long saga of ballot initiatives, they are the first to cry foul and run to the legislature or the courts to overturn the will of the public. Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us had such opportunity to challenge the federal governments behavior on Constitutional grounds...

When even the voters in the most extreme liberal states don't support something agitated by the leftists, it's a sure sign to us common folk that the country isn't ready to head in this direction yet. Anyone want to lay odds on whether that slows down the left?

Health care, anyone?

The Obituary of the United States of America

Taken from an email I received. Hopefully it strikes a chord.

--------
Born 1776, Died 2008                 
It does not hurt to read this several times.
               
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law,  St. Paul,  Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19    Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000    Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million    Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2    Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Barney Frank is a Blubbering Idiot

Not quite content with nearly single-handedly destroying the Housing Market, the Supreme Idiot of Congress, Barney Frank, is back at it again.

It's not enough that Taxpayers are revolting in more ways than just Tea Parties. If you haven't seen it yet, it appears that the massive tax burden in New York City is finally having the most obvious of consequences - the high-income earners in the Big Apple are fleeing in droves. It seems that when you punish the wealthy for their success, and confiscate absurd percentages of their income to fund social programs, government boondoggles, and entitlements - people are apt to pack up and leave. Who woulda thunk? Fortunately, according to Barney, there are always 'more rich people we can tax'.

It's not enough that he ran a gay brothel in the basement of his townhouse and pretended not to know about it.

It's not enough that this knucklehead from Congress strong-armed Fannie and Freddie into making extremely risky, low-interest loans to those who couldn't afford houses, simply to advance his obvious social agenda [Check out how Vanity Fair exposes him here]. This was of course the domino that tipped all the other banks into doing the same thing, since they had little choice but to compete with the federal government blazing the trail with lower interest rates and no income verifications.

It's not  enough that, when the size of the Housing Bubble was so large and looming it threatened to block rays of sunlight from striking the earth, Barney Frank was denying there was a problem.  He was probably busy in the basement of his townhouse....

It's not enough that he berates citizens at his Town Hall meetings, blustering and blubbering his insults in such a way that, even though you probably can't understand what he's saying, you can still cringe and wonder if the people in the front row got wet from his rebuttal. [You probably haven't seen the FULL version, which was EDITED to negate the points this woman made before the much publicized Nazi reference].

No, it seems now Barney Frank has finally been honest about something. As always, the wet blubbering is a bit hard to digest, but we can now confirm the shocking news: Barney Frank is "Trying on every front to increase the role of government".

Occasionally, these big government folks are honest, and for that, I commend him. But I still think he's an idiot, and I still wish the 'mainstream media' would cover news like this. Barney Frank never met a big government program he didn't like, and he has the spittle on the chin to prove it.