Boy, does this take me back

Interesting close to "The Year of St. Paul"

On Saturday, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano announced the June 19 discovery of a fresco inside a tomb depicting St. Paul, which Vatican officials said represented the oldest known icon of the apostle.

Benedict said archaeologists recently unearthed and opened the white marble sarcophagus located under the Basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, which for some 2,000 years has been believed by the faithful to be the tomb of St. Paul.

Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century.

"This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul," Benedict said, announcing the findings at a service in the basilica to mark the end of the Vatican's Pauline year, in honor of the apostle. Read More

Prolonged Detention

Granted if Bush did this it would be no big deal, but isn't this sad?

Thought Provoking

Wretchard, over at Belmont has a couple of thought provoking pieces. First, a bit about George Orwell which includes a couple of videos. (note that the embed has been disabled, but you can click on the "Youtube Direkt" link below the video and watch it at youtube). Second, a piece about Michael Jackson. Now, I know you're probably sick of hearing about Jackson, but this is truly a bit different take on the whole affair.

Look in the Mirror II

Two more protesters were killed. We must support these poor protestors! The purpotrators have to be brought to justice! We need to use strong words! WAIT! We did that. Uh......Uh...... Nevermind.

Take a Look in the Mirror

While everyone has their panties in a wad about what we good Christian Americans are doing to help those Iranians, at least 80 people were killed as US drones attacked a funeral procession in Pakistan. I'm just so proud that we Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard than those nasty Iranians.

I'm sure the jingoes will have an explantion. America can do no wrong. "My country right or wrong, and my mama drunk or sober" sez they.

"'If GM had kept up with technology..."

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the
computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

'If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we
would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating:

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash....... . Twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy
a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would
have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off
the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For
some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your
car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable,
five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five
percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be
replaced by a single 'This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation' warning
light.

7. The airbag system would ask 'Are you sure?' before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and
refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle,
turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how
to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the
same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off

PS - I'd like to add that when all else fails, you could call 'customer
service' in some foreign country and be instructed in some foreign language
how to fix your car yourself!!!!

Iran: Where Have All The Principled Libertarians Gone?

I stumbled across this piece, asking where the individual liberty supporting Libertarians are on Iran.

What a reversal. Freedom is breaking out across Iran. We are witnessing one of the most historical events of our lifetimes, comparable no doubt to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet, Libertarians, outside of this political news blog, Atlas Shrugs, the Libertarian Defense Caucus, and a few other libertarian Republicans, are for the most part silent.

Virtually no reportage at Reason. In the last week, just two articles on the whole Iranian Revolution at Reason, and one was more of a criticism of how CNN was covering the event, than coverage of the event itself. Cato is similarly unengaged.

The usual suspects on the Libertarian Left, LewRockwell.com, Justin Raimondo and AntiWar.com, and the Ron Paulists, are preaching the same "stay the hell out" line, they've been arguing for years. Some are even cheering on Obama for not making any statements seemingly in support of the protesters.

Incredibly, not a single press release has been sent out by the Libertarian Party on the biggest issue of the day.

So, where are all the freedoms lovers in the United States to be found?

The rest is here.

Fake Iran Protests

Have been meaning to post on this, but saw a post on it on another blog and so I commented as follows:

The Iranian "revolution"/"protests" are a creation of outsiders. There are real people over there protesting and upset (and there are people here and in the rest of the world protesting various things), but this is largely being staged/pumped up by outsiders. Several commentators have indicated it has all the marks of a staged CIA "color revolution." The fact that all the signs are written in English is a big tip off. If I'm not mistaken, according to the CIA factbook, only 1% of Iranians know English and the language is considered with distain. All the twitter accounts were created about the same time and are largely identical to each other. The Iranian twitter people will discuss blog posts where the blogger has confirmed that no one from Iran visited their blog. There are a number of other indicators that this whole thing is nonsense and there is no popular support. If you look at either of the following books you will see that we have staged this sort of thing in the past and the usual result is either a new regime that is twice as bad or it fails and a bunch of people are slaughtered:

http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805078614

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245860730&sr=1-1

We're from the Government and we are Here to Help

Here is a cool article about "urban farming", though the NYT has to weave in how the government can help.

Does God Exist?

Responsible Journalism?

What would you think about a journalist who targets young children who exercise free speech he does not care for including conduct that would constitute stalking? How about someone who takes a press release and broadcasts personal contact information and who refuses to stop broadcasting when the persons recieve death threats and request she stop spreading the personal information? How about a journalist who posts divorce papers of a person whose political views he does not like? How about a journalist who advocates shooting muslims with bullets soaked in pig blood? How about a journalist who advocates invading a country because one of it's leaders denied the holocaust?

In my humble opinion such conduct is a threat to the free press, and it's all coming from the self-described "right." The right finally has a voice in mass media and they are blowing it (not to mention that their message is generally not conservative).

Economic Reading

A friend from Texas and I are planning to read a book on Economics together and roping in others who want to join. I had suggested The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy by Thomas Woods.

He suggested one of these books. Of the books he suggests, this one looks somewhat interesting to me:


Economic Thinking for the Theologically Minded

This book provides an introduction to what has been called “the economic way of thinking.” This involves explaining some of the critical concepts and foundational assumptions employed in economics. To communicate these ideas effectively to those engaged in theological studies, this book avoids using unnecessary technical terminology. These concepts are then subject to analysis from the standpoint of Christian ethics, with emphasis placed upon the often-unsuspected degree of agreement between economics and Christian belief about the nature of the person. The second half consists of a collection of selections from classical economic texts, representing a range of authors from a variety of schools of thought. These selections have been arranged around ten key concepts, each of which attempts to deepen understanding of various ideas presented in the book's first half.

If any of you would be interested in joining in reading on economics and like one of these, or maybe have a better book to suggest, please let me know.

Happy Days Are Here Again!

Spinning the Stimulus

The Washington Times:

Self-appointed waste-watcher Sen. Tom Coburn says he's already identified as much as $5.5 billion in wasteful or bad projects among the economic-stimulus expenditures on tap.

The Oklahoma Republican, in a report being released Tuesday, argues that while there have been successes, he's found 100 questionable decisions. Among them is the case of an Oklahoma town that is getting $1.4 million for a water project: Federal restrictions that come with the money have raised the project's cost by nearly $2 million. The town is planning to raise utility taxes to cover increased costs.

The Obama administration, however, says the report is riddled with errors, and, taken altogether, the spending so far has been "a great success" that has produced jobs across the country.

The full report is here.

The Takeover

George Will:

"I," said the president, who is inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun, "want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector." He said that in March, when the government already owned 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision." But the government is GM's largest shareholder, customer, tax collector, regulator, partner in determining employees' compensation, protector of dealers and pension guarantor. GM's other large owner, the United Auto Workers, is increasingly a government dependent.


Yet Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom, two of the president's fixers of Detroit, recently wrote in USA Today that government "will play no role" in running GM. They were not under oath.


"What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM," says the president who, when not firing GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety). The president, overcoming his professed reluctance to run GM, resembles the journalist Don Marquis when, after a month on the wagon, he ordered a double martini and exclaimed: "I've conquered my ***dam willpower."

Washington mandates that Detroit must build cars for which there is much less demand than Washington demands that there be. Then Washington tries to manufacture demand with a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the electric Chevrolet Volt, supposedly GM's salvation. So, GM is to be saved by a product people will not buy without a cash incentive larger than the income tax paid by 83.4 percent of America's families.

It is reasonable to assume that GM will become profitable — if you make unreasonable assumptions about annual vehicle sales and GM's share of the market. Besides, the government that runs Amtrak (which has lost $23 billion, in today's dollars, just since 1990) vows to make GM efficient.


But one reason Amtrak runs on red ink is that legislators treat it as their toy train set, preventing it from cutting egregiously unprofitable routes. Will Congress passively accept auto plant-closing decisions? Rattner says that Washington's demure vow is: "No plant decisions, no dealer decisions, no color-of-the-car decisions." He is one-third right. Last week, under the headline "Senators Blast Automakers Over Dealer Closings," The Post reported, "Because the federal government is slated to own most of General Motors and 8 percent of Chrysler, some of the senators said they have a responsibility, as major shareholders do, to review company decisions."


The pressure to politicize the economy is spreading. John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, and Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — which is government organized as an interest group to lobby itself — have demanded the resignation of two directors of Citigroup. Their premise is that businesses receiving direct government subventions should conform to the wishes of the president's allies.


GM is adopting new ways to lose money: Responsive to its UAW masters, GM is moving from China to America the production of some components of one Chevrolet model. Says UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, "It should be built here if it's going to be sold here." That principle, now successfully asserted, means economic autarky — the end of international trade, and of prosperity.


The government's $50 billion — so far — acquisition of the shadow of GM will injure, with unfair financial advantages, the surprisingly healthy U.S. auto company, Ford. Of course, the government does not intend that injury, any more than it intended to cause protests in Mexico over the high price of corn tortillas, a result of Washington's mandate that Americans burn corn (ethanol) in their cars.


Washington's "rescue" of GM began because GM is "too big to fail," and bankruptcy is (well, was) "unthinkable." Big? GM's market capitalization, $375.8 million on Wednesday, is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen's ($340 million) — is it too big to fail? — and one-eleventh that of Harley-Davidson ($4.3 billion). Fail? If GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success.


The administration is determined to prop up GM as a jobs program for the UAW and Midwestern states rich in electoral votes. This frenzy will intensify as the administration's decisions deepen the debacle.

Iran on Fire

Michael Totten posts on widespread discontent within Iran over the purported re-election of Mahmoud Admedinijad.

Iran on Fire.

Transparency, Integrity, Accountability, Blah, Blah & Blah

Has the administration fired an inspector general for investigating an "untouchable" political supporter of the President?

There are a number of unanswered questions today about President Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin. Obama sent letters to House and Senate leaders yesterday informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General," the president wrote. "That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General."

The 30 day requirement is important because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House. Part of the Act was a requirement that the president give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an IG. One of the co-sponsors of the Act was then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The Act also requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG. Beyond saying that he did not have the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, Obama gave no reason for his action.

There are two big questions about the president's actions. One, why did he decide to fire Walpin? And two, did he abide by the law that he himself co-sponsored?

According to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a strong advocate of inspectors general, Walpin received a call from the White House Counsel's office on Wednesday evening. Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired. Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, "The answer that was given was that it's just time to move on. The president would like to have someone else in that position." Walpin declined to resign.

Grassley's version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process. It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president's intention to fire Walpin.

The bigger question is why the president is doing this and why he is attempting to do it so quickly. Senate sources now believe Obama is firing Walpin over Walpin's investigation of Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent supporter of the president.

Johnson, now the mayor of Sacramento, California, started a non-profit organization called St. Hope. The group's mission, according to its website, is "to revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts." As part of its work, St. Hope received a grant of about $850,000 from AmeriCorps.

Last year, Walpin began an investigation of how Johnson's group spent the money. According to the Associated Press, "[Walpin] found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car."

It will be interesting see how much attention this story gets, if any, in the mainstream media. Further, it will be interesting to see how much fortitude, if any, the members of Congress have in fulfilling their duty of oversight.

The whole report, with updates, at the DC Examiner.

Abortion Abroad? It's now in the Senate.

This past Wednesday night, the House voted to approve the Foreign Relations Authorization bill that will create an Office for Global Women’s Issues. Under the leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, this office will actively engage in the promotion of abortion in other countries.

Now the bill moves to the Senate. Please contact your Senators today and tell them to oppose the promotion of abortion abroad!

Mary Landrieu 202-224-9735 Fax
One Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1260
Lake Charles, LA 70629
Voice: (337) 436-6650
Fax:(337) 439-3762

David Vitter
3221 Ryan St., Suite E
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Phone: (337) 436-0453
Fax: (337) 436-3163

An Abortion in your Honor

Health Care

The Health Care reform debate is heating up and I ran across this short description and prescription for our current health care woes from Leo Linbeck III:

The market for healthcare services today is greatly distorted by the intervention of the Federal Government, which is the largest payor for those services.

In 2007, Americans spent about $2.2T on healthcare. Of that, about 20% was spent on Medicare, 18% was spent on Medicaid, and 7% was spent in other public programs. This means that about 45% of all healthcare spending was controlled by government. The Federal Government sets its prices through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS). It establishes the reimbursement for doctors, physicians, drug companies, etc.

Reimbursement rates set by CMMS do not cover the cost of healthcare. As a result, private payors effectively subsidize healthcare for Medicare and Medicaid users. Last year, according to Millican, a healthcare consulting firm, hospitals lost $30B on Medicare. Hospitals get about 32% of total Medicare dollars, so this equates to about $141B in revenues, meaning a margin of about -21%. If everyone in the country moved onto a Medicare system, this would mean that Medicare healthcare reimbursement to hospitals would be about $704B, and hospital losses would grow to $148B - an annual increased loss of more than $100B. These losses would bankrupt the entire hospital sector. And the economics of Medicaid are much, much worse.

At the end of the day, there are only two ways to match supply and demand: a market and a queue. The question of universal access is a crock. Today, everyone in the US has access to healthcare; the problem is that not everyone can afford to pay for the access they would like to have. But this is true of all goods and services - I have access to a private jet, if I can pay for it. But I can’t, so I have to fly on commercial airlines (or ride the bus, or drive my car, or walk).

Right now, the system uses market mechanisms, but the price-setting role of CMMS is straining the system in the extreme. How much longer can private payors subsidize government healthcare expenditures? We are essentially faced with a choice between

a) moving away from government price-setting toward letting buyers and sellers set the price (i.e. a market), and

b) moving toward a government-controlled system, which will result in healthcare rationing (i.e. a queue).

It seems to me that the best way to reform the system is to implement the following:

1. A catastrophic healthcare insurance program funded through taxes. Essentially, this is a high-deductible insurance policy that will keep people from being wiped out by a catastrophic illness. This is what insurance is for - a low-probability, high-damage event - not what it is currently being used for - reimbursement of regularly-consumed goods and services.

2. Removal of the tax-deductibility of health insurance and reduce tax rates to compensate. Why should healthcare be paid with pre-tax dollars? After all, food is paid with after-tax dollars, and it is more critical to our survival. Forcing people to rely on their employers to purchase their health insurance is a huge distortion of the market. Removing this would allow individuals to purchase policies on the same basis as corporations, and put the consumer in control of the type of healthcare they wish to buy. If they don’t want to buy any, that’s fine; after all, they will have a catastrophic policy that will cover costs if they have a really bad illness. Otherwise, they should decide whether they want to buy healthcare or some other good. This would significantly shrink the private insurance market, but who cares? If people want to purchase insurance, fine. But a lot of folks would be better off paying as they go, and avoiding the cost of insurance. Insurance is a lousy vehicle for most folks to finance the consumption of goods and services.

3. Transparent pricing. Require healthcare providers to provide prices for their various healthcare services. Let consumers decide where and from whom to purchase their services, and let prices be used to match supply and demand. Currently, if you ask a hospital how much, say, a bunion removal costs, you might get a quote of $15,000. But, when you look at what a private insurer actually pays, the number might be $5,000. You have no idea how much a particular procedure costs, so no one can shop based upon price.

Of course, with the current leadership in Washington, this sort of approach has approximately zero chance of being adopted. Rather, if the Obama Administration gets its way, we will eventually end up with a government-controlled system, i.e. Washington sets all prices. This means a queue for matching supply and demand. This means healthcare rationing. Sorry, it’s just the way it works.

Think bread lines in the Soviet Union. Not good for bread eaters, not good for bakers, not good for society. A true lose-lose-lose system.

L3

Its a thread worth reading.

Examination of Political Conscience

It's doubtful that anyone will want to discuss this topic, but I take a keen interest in political pigeonholes. I think I could define conservative (i.e. paleoconservative) fairly well (and I think I could give a pretty good definition of Neoconservative too), but I don't know that I have developed a solid definition of "liberal" in the modern sense ("radical" might be a better word for academic purposes) or a solid definition of "libertarian". I've been looking for some guidance on the latter for a while now.

Anyway, as I see it, the underlying political worldview and/or the way a person arrives at a position is what is key to defining a person's political persuasion rather than the positions themselves. You could tell me your position on a host of issues like abortion, gay marriage, war, etc. and though I may be able to make some educated guesses about where you fall on the political spectrum, the issues are not the key.

So who cares? IMHO, it is important to examine the underlying assumptions we have about government for two reasons: To see if they bear scrutiny and to give some integrity to our thinking on government. The first reason is self-explanatory, though there is a lot that could be said about it. The second, needs a little explanation. Without some overarching rule or measure we are liable to be tossed around with the wind. Without this measure, we are tempted to assume that because we agree with so and so on issue X and Y, he must be right on issue Z as well. In fact, media and information gurus use this as a way to foster "groupthink." Groupthink, evil enough in itself, leads to people being polarized into knee-jerk groups that are easy to manipulate.

So I would like to see an examination of political conscience and a dialog on why we hold what we do on various issues.

Here's my manifesto: I call myself a conservative because I believe in giving due respect to historical experience, tradition, religion (which is a part of that tradition and historical experience) and what works in the real world. I believe that historical experience has shown, among other things, but very importantly right now, that things go better when the federal government does not touch what the state can adequately handle, and the state does not touch what the parish can handle, and the parish doesn't touch what the town can handle and so on down to the neighborhood the family and the individual. Historical experience has also shows that war is destructive to the spiritual, moral, financial and liberty interests of a political community and that the real reasons for war are rarely those that are given to the public.

I agree with neoconservatives on some moral issues, and agree on far more with libertarians, though I take issue with them for being unproductively idealistic and utopian. Anytime you follow some ideology rigidly you run into trouble. There will be no perfect world this side of eternity and those who try to make only will only create a nightmare. The same criticism can be made of Liberals, whi like neoconservatives think that government is the answer to our problem. The conservative, like the libertarian, recognizes that government has a nasty tendency to create more problems than it solves.

Who will stop the Globalists?

From Chuck Baldwin:

As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech [in Egypt] was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:

"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)

Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order?

The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate institutions sell our country into global tyranny?

Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothing to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in Washington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue, and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.) Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if they love big national government, think how they will love big international government.

Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors. They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject.

Gun Owners in Calcasieu Parish Beware...

It appears our Police Jury (whatever the hell that is) is aiming to keep you terrorists from discharging your firearms in certain locales. Read all about it here.

Louisiana and the tenth amendment

This may be old news for you news junkies.

On May 11, 2009, the Louisiana State Senate voted unanimously in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (SCR2), which “Memorializes Congress to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Read More

No Man is An Island

Quote of the Day:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned. -Rev. Martin Niemöller, Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636

Torture?

Coming Soon...................Unless?

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

Turn the volume up.

Sean Hannity Likes Doublespeak

As a former public relations practitioner, I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to see how they try to shape public opinion. They both tend to offer up the same lines. My guess is that they receive some sort of daily talking points from the Heritage Foundation, which is heavily promoted on both programs (for a fee perhaps?) I would love to get some kind of concrete proof that they are shills for a think tank or PAC.

Both broadcasters engage in a lot of doublespeak. For instance, today a caller on Sean Hannity's show mentioned that the Founding Fathers were very much against our country engaging in entangling alliances and he pointed out that this is the opposite of Hannity's philosophy on foreign affairs. Hannity told the caller that the world is a different place now (yes, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers can be so limiting, alas.) Hannity then accused the caller of taking the Founding Fathers quotes out of context and told the guy he obviously loves the State and must be a Statist! Go figure. Anyone who honors the Founding Fathers, those propagandists for Big Government, must be a Statist? Those who believe the United States government should have a limited role, both domestically and abroad, are Statists? Thank you, Sean Hannity, you are a great American.

Yesterday he said if he were president he would wage a preemptive war against Iran because their leader denies the Holocaust. There are so many buffoons in the world, saying ignorant and inflammatory things, we could be at war forever. Hey, and maybe a war would help the economy!

-Maureen

Example of why we need Government Restraint

This is what a police state is like. I found this story really troubling. This is a good example of why we need restraints on government and why we shouldn't necessarily trust the state with power. All branches of government need to be kept on a short leash. If you knock down protections to get at dirtbags, you also prevent them from protecting the innocent. And who decides who is a dirtbag and who is innocent?

We shouldn't trust them to torture, or to wiretap or otherwise invade our privacy without a warrant. We shouldn't trust them at all. They also should not have free reign to use disproportiante force on suspects. I plan to call the mayor, the sheriff and the chief of police to see what kind of policies we have around here. My standard, borrowing from training in the use of force in the military (as used against against the enemy or an unruly soldier), is that if you have to lay hands on somebody, so be it, but if they offer no threat or injury you have no right to tase them or do anything else that may result in injury or pain. Well, maybe a little pain. I had the experience of having to put handcuffs on someone once and it isn't easy if the person does not cooperate. I could understand a little pain like twisting an arm to get a person to comply with the cuffs.

A Rant I Got in the Mail:

Let me ask a rhetorical question - where were all the "concerned Americans" when over the last 8 years, the Bush Junta of RINOs ( Republican In Name Only ) , rammed the nefarious "Patriot Act" down our throat, lied us blatantly, in to a war with no Constitutional Authority, pushed blanket FISA infringements of the 4th amendment, got immunity for the telcomms for invasive privacy violations, cheered the John Warner Defense Appropriations act which put a knife in posse comitatus, added CAFTA to the insult of NAFTA & GATT & WTO , destroying our manufacturing base, oversaw the PLUNDER of this nations economy for the benefit ( almost exclusivley) of the Wall Street bankster-gangster cartel looting this economy with next-to-no oversight and TARP rape, and with control of all 3 branches of government for 6 full years did nothing to repeal any of the Klinton excesses, correct the Kelo decision, and actually REWARDED & PROMOTED the entire intelligence community for their abject (maybe even deliberate in some cases ) FAILURES on 9-11............all while leaving the borders WIDE OPEN....and erecting a massive militarized police state aparatchik and information - gathering intel community......against AMERICANS ???

I bet most people thought that 'radical right-wing' profiling began with the Obamunist - wrong......check this, under Jorge BOOSH, not DHS vile creature Janet Napolitano

http://www.radioliberty.com/fbipam.htm

yep.....right after 911 the Boosh junta had the FBI on the watch for people with a pocket Constitution !

Summary - we just went through the most FAR LEFT administration in this nations history, and the "Neocon Vichy" cheered it on.......and they mouth on the radio about " evil LIBRUUUULS", when their party had the most evil leftist puppet of all at the helm -

The above is the king of run-on sentences, but my point is, where were the tea party folk over the last 8 years when all of this was occuring ? The Republi-CON party put in a candidate and anything their junta wants to do is okay..........?

I find it rather disengenuous that all the now discontented RepubliCONS are upset with Obama - he is just continuing the Bush policies - unjustified wars, torture, rendition, open borders, police state, baliouts , debt upon debt, economic collapse etc.

A Made Man

Robert Samuelson, not your typical 'right-winger', writes about the "Obama Infatuation":

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press -- on domestic, if not foreign, policy -- has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

* * * * *

The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.

Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.

Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health-care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.

A Freeman Whimper

The Russian view, from Pravda:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin