"Live Free or Die" By Mark Steyn

Definition: "Ayatollah" = "Satan's representative on Earth"

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If Thou shalt not covet and Thou shalt not steal were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." -- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison

6/30/2009: from the Daily Reckoning: But, what is the point of keeping Madoff in prison? He represents no threat. Rather than pay $30,000 per year to keep him locked up, we suggest that he be forced to do community service work. He should be pressed into service as the next head of the Federal Reserve after Ben Bernanke's term expires in December. With Madoff in the big office, there would be no longer any illusions about what sort of bank the Fed is running.

"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens." --James Madison (likely), Federalist No. 62

6/29/2009: Politicians Bankrupted California, Not Prop. 13 by Carol Platt Liebau

As the end of California’s fiscal year approaches, the Governor and state legislators confront a $24 billion deficit. While Republicans and Democrats wrangle over how to address the gaping shortfall, some members of the press have started to look for a scapegoat for the fiscal train wreck. Many have blamed the California taxpayer’s only protection: Prop. 13, the 1978 measure capping state property taxes at 1% of a home’s assessed value.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the finger-pointing is a recent piece from TIME’s Kevin O’Leary, moaning that “Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase.” He insists that “at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13,” and concludes that “in California, the conservative legacy lives on.”

How ridiculous. Of all the problems contributing to the fiscal mess, state under-taxation is the least of them. California’s sales and gas taxes are the highest in the country – and it has the highest vehicle license fees and the second-highest top-bracket income tax, too. Its corporate tax rates are the highest of all western states, and for the fourth year in a row, a survey of 543 CEO’s found that California’s toxic combination of high taxes and intrusive regulations made it the worst place in the nation to do business.

In fact, at the real root of California’s fiscal misery is the profligacy of arrogant, big-spending, left-wing legislators, who have treated taxpayers as if they exist only to support the government. Their attitude was exemplified in a recent statement from state assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), chairman of the state Budget Conference Committee, repudiating the governor’s call for the state to “live within its means”:

Well, there is this mantra out there – “live within our means” – and while that sounds really nice... and it sounds really responsible, it’s meaningless. Our means are completely within our control... We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we’ve created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes... So “live within our means” doesn’t mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.

Her assertions – and the obnoxious sense of entitlement underlying them – defy credulity. For politicians like Evans (and the legislature is full of them!), when the hardworking or productive keep more of what they have earned, it’s only because politicians have been “giving away” the tax revenues that purportedly belong to them. In this mindset, meeting the “needs” of a greedy, ever-expanding government is the only imperative; taxpayers are nothing more than cash cows, commanded to provide the fodder that allows Evans and those like her to meet their “moral obligations” with other people’s money.

Remarkably, even as they have driven California into the fiscal ditch (and demanded ever-higher taxes from its citizens), Evans and her colleagues remain the most highly compensated state legislators in the nation. Along with their six-figure salaries, taxpayers supply them with cars, gasoline and auto maintenance. As regular Californians’ budgets are stretched to the limit, many of the “cuts” the state Senate is debating for itself are laughable. They include whether to reduce the benefit that provides their staffers with two new pairs of glasses yearly (or sunglasses, for those who don’t wear glasses). The change would limit workers to one new pair – of course, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Ultimately, any honest assessment of California’s plight must assign responsibility for the state’s fiscal crisis – not to the taxpayers who voted for Prop. 13 three decades ago – but to the politicians who have subsequently exploited them without mercy. Indeed, if spending had simply reflected average population growth plus the average increase in the cost of living since 1991, there would now be a $15 billion surplus. After adjusting for inflation, the state now spends nearly 20% more per capita than it did 18 years ago; even as California’s tax revenues increased by 167% during that period, state spending exploded by 189%.

Left-wing legislators like Noreen Evans can demand more taxes and journalists like Kevin O’Leary can bemoan the existence of Prop. 13 all they like. The people know better. And when voters overwhelmingly rejected further tax increases last month, they sent a clear message: It’s time for the politicians to start working for Californians again, rather than the other way around.

6/29/2009: The De Facto Slavery of the American People by Nathan Tabor

"Why would Americans turn over their health and welfare -- their very lives -- to a bunch of crooked politicians who spend most of their time covering up, lying, cajoling and cheating, all in the name of power?"

6/28/2009: “And Iran, Iran So Far Away, I Couldn’t Get Away”
Sung by Barack Obama by Doug Giles

Obama said in his latest hem-hawing, foreign policy bloviating, what-the-hell-is-he-talkin’-about press conference that “we need to have a vigorous debate” regarding Iran’s current tyrannical Muslim-based governmental crushing of young people who desire a touch of freedom.

We need to debate? “We” who, BHO?

I’m guessin’ he is talking about American liberals and conservatives because, from what I can deduce from the YouTube vids, it appears as if the Iranian dissidents aren’t looking for lively banter with the death dealing, lying through coffee-stained teeth religious whack jobs who look like a group of angry, homeless Santa Clauses on crack.

A debate, Mr. O? Really?

FYI to the Whitehouse: Ayatollahs, mullahs, and Ahmadinejads don’t discuss stuff. They shoot you in the face. You don’t believe me? Well, then just ask Neda, a beautiful freedom-loving 26-year-old Iranian protester who lives in Tehran. What’s that? The Tehran terror cops, the Basij, shot her? See, I told you so. Uncut Islam doesn’t debate; it deals death to dissenters and, it seems, Mohammed is cool with that. Jesus isn’t okay with it, but Mohammed is.

Yes, El Presidente, you kind of need two intelligent parties that are able to chill in order to actually have a profitable discussion.

From what I’ve seen, historically speaking, a vigorous and beneficial chat is the perk that a Judeo-Christian based nation, which has an armed citizenry, gets to enjoy. Oppressive, mucked-up Muslim nations like Iran don’t argue about their bogus elections or dictates with intelligent, liberty-loving, non step-n-fetch rebels. As stated, they pistol whip them, split their skulls with a night stick, drag non-compliant co-eds around by their scalps, or simply pull out their guns and double tap the center mass of the unarmed non-compliants. God only knows what we’re going find out about the June 24th, 2009 massacre in Baharestan square. I heard they used axes and threw protestors off pedestrian bridges.

Ah... Islam in action. How peaceful. What an awesome religion.

Y’know, after watching the past two weeks of Ayatollahs Gone Wild, slamming their zealous fists on their podiums, spewing more propaganda than Robert Gibbs does during his weekly presser, and pummeling any and all dissenting voices, I’m sure many people around the world are lining up to become Muslims and move to a country governed by mullahs. It looks fun, doesn’t it? I mean, it’s a little bloody and oppressive and all, but hey... nobody is perfect.

From a PR standpoint, Iran is for Islam what Perez Hilton is for homosexuality.

And Barack wants to have a debate? A debate? Puh-lease.

It must be nice to live in la-la-land where trees are made of chocolate, where cigarettes fall from heaven, where you can print trillions of dollars and idiots approve it, where your administration can Pac Man the private sector, tax the crap out of our people, rob their health care, hard sell us bogus energy bills, while gutting the constitution—a place where you get to be the leader of the most powerful place on the planet simply because you can read a mean teleprompter.

I don’t believe the Iranians who’d like a free election (shame on them) want us to mediate a spicy round table spat. I think they desire a little more. I think they want us to meddle on a Guns & Ammo type level. Thus the protest signs in English. Kinda seems odd they’d go English with their placards if they didn’t want our attention and involvement.

I, for one, believe that we should meddle in such slave states. The “we” I believe that should intervene is the old America spelled with a “c” and not the new Amerika spelled with a “k”.

The reason I think it’s a good thing Obama and his admin stays the hell out of this Iranian throw down is two fold: If the young Iranians can topple their crap government, it’ll be a real morale boost, eh? I know it was for America’s founding fathers, God bless ‘em.

Secondly, if I were a Neda in Iran, I wouldn’t trust Obama as far as I could spit a loogie. Why? Well, it seems as if he has a soft spot for Muslim terrorists. Yep, this President is the same guy who, just before Iran’s election, sent the Ayatollah a good luck letter, is releasing 250 of the worst SOBs on the planet (the terrorists from Gitmo) to foreign countries (I hear the recidivist rate among terrorists is rather high), whose DOJ appointees want to prosecute CIA operatives who crack down on terrorists (hello), and who’s giving, I believe, over a billion dollars in aid via the UN to frickin’ Hamas. Yes, if I were a dissident I would tell BHO and his boys thanks, but no thanks.

Finally, mad to props to GWB for spawning hope for free elections in the heart of young Iranians as they watched their next-door neighbors enjoy real democracy in Iraq.

Oh... and one more thing. I don’t hear too many “moderate Muslims” condemning Iran’s murderous mullahs. Hmmm. That’s interesting. You’d figure they’d be on those mooks like stink on a monkey. But maybe they’re just too busy. Who knows?

6/28/2009: Disability, Inc. by Debra J. Saunders

This is not a joke. Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that required an Oregon public school district to pay a $5,200 monthly tuition (plus fees) for a private boarding school for a high-school senior whose psychologist had diagnosed him with ADHD, depression, math disorder and cannabis abuse. [Read more]

6/28/2009: Little Boy Blue Devil by Mike Adams

[Although Mike Adams is anti-gay, it seems obvious that since the Duke University pervert "...made special arrangements when molesting the child... to make sure his partner did not find out." that not all homosexuals are child molesters. And it is equally obvious that not all child molesters are homosexual. I agree, however, that it will be interesting to see how the brain-dead liberal faculty ast Duke responds.]

It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. This one may hurt the university nearly as much as the one that rocked its campus back in 2006. Unlike the previous case, this one appears to involve a credible confession of sexual abuse. Like the previous case, crucial facts are already being filtered through the prism of identity politics.

Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he’s declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a “perv dad for fun.” The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

If Lombard is convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. His arrest comes about a year after the Court decided that child rapists cannot be executed because “society” has “evolved” to the point where such executions would be “indecent.”

If this case goes to trial, it could be an interesting one to watch. But it will be just as interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to these allegations. It didn’t take them long to respond when several white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper. A whopping 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape. Such was their regard for the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps even more stunning was the response of some professors after it became apparent that the white lacrosse players were innocent. After that became so obvious the school had to readmit the students, Professor Kate Holloway resigned her committee assignments in protest. By the way, the most common form of faculty protest these days is to refuse to work. Most people think this kind of protest is caused by arrogance. But the actual cause is a thing called “tenure.”

So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?

Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the affidavit in support of his arrest warrant shows that this second Duke rape case will also have a strong racial component. According to a confidential source (CS) a man using the user name “cooper2” or “cooperse” logged onto an internet-based video chat room. CS saw him perform oral sex on an African-American child under the age of ten. He also performed other acts on the child, which are too obscene to be described in this column.

The user name “cooper2” has now been linked to Frank Lombard, the associate director Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. A second source has now alleged that “cooper2” has confessed to being “into incest” and that he has adopted two African American children.

The only good news coming out of this story is about Frank Lombard’s live-in homosexual partner. The affidavit in support of Lombard’s arrest warrant shows that he made special arrangements when molesting the child – sometimes even by drugging the child – to make sure his partner did not find out.

Records also indicate that Frank Lombard made a contribution to the Genesis Home in 2003. The Genesis Home is an organization that assists needy families in making a transition out of homelessness, in part by maintaining a child care center. The organization’s website features numerous photographs of African-American children under the age of ten.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

6/26/2009: Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions

6/26/2009: The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Write to kim@wsj.com

6/26/2009: The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease
How three liberal states got into deep trouble with 'progressive' ideas

President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.

A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.

Here's a rundown on the results:

Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).

Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.

Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.

Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.

California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.

Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."

Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.

As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.

* * *

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

Happy Fathers Day 2009

"In a time when many homes are marked by absentee fathers, the last thing we need is to be beating up on fatherhood in general. Yet, 'dad' seems to be the only person in modern society whom it is acceptable to belittle. To what extent does such treatment pervert our son's developing attitudes about the men they are expected to become? And why would we teach our daughters that there's no real hope or need to marry a strong, reliable man of character? Timeless messages about the wisdom of fathers in shows like 'Father Knows Best' have disappeared. They just aren't 'politically correct' anymore. As a wife and mother of two young men who are being raised in an anti-male culture that spews the mantra of radical feminism, I'd like to say a few words to America's dads: We need you. Loving fathers are critical to the development of children. And the truth is that every woman is a better person when she has a good man to rely on. Dads are not an 'optional' family accessory to be tossed in the corner like dirty socks or trampled on like a door mat. We should reject the attitudes of both women who treat them that way and of any man who has bought the lie and started assuming the loser role. And we need to let our boys know that one of the greatest contributions they can make as adults is to be strong fathers who are committed to their families... To good husbands and dads everywhere, thank you for what you contribute to your families and to society. And to wives and mothers, let's make sure we affirm the men in our lives and teach our children to respect them too. A good man is a priceless blessing from God. Let's remember to treat them like the treasures they are." --columnist Rebecca Hagelin

6/20/2009: Absolutely the funniest joke ever...ON US!!!
Let it sink in. Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter.
Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the "Department of Energy" ... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so!

Bottom line... we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency... the reason for which almost no one who reads this can remember.

Ready??? It was very simple... and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate.

The "Department of Energy" was instituted on 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

...and now it's 2009, 32 years later ... and the budget for this department is $24.2 billion a year.

It has 16,000 Federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees and look at the job it has done! This is where you slap your forehead and say
"What were we thinking?"

Ah, yes, good ole bureaucracy...

And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System, Health Care & the Auto Industry over to them?

God Help Us !!!

6/20/2009: Illness as Economic Metaphor
The first rule, as always, is do no harm.
by Michael Milken And Jonathan Simons

...Consider someone rushed into an emergency room in severe cardiac distress. After starting acute life-support measures, doctors still apply the rule stated by Galen of Pergamum more than 1,800 years ago: primum non nocere, or "First, do no harm." Treatment interventions are selected carefully from a battery of technologies and potent drugs while recognizing that any one of them, or a combination, could hurt the patient if misapplied or given in the wrong dosage. Economic interventions require no less care...

[See "First, do no harm." www.dalefogden.org]

[Read the entire article]

"So I said to him, "Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't Abe Lincoln."

• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

• You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

• You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

• You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

6/17/2009: Pretentious Liberal Snobs by Ashley Herzog

Let’s put aside the fact that David Letterman’s jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughters were sexist, as NOW and other feminist groups have acknowledged. We should also ask why he thought it was a cutting insult to compare Palin to a flight attendant—and other normal Americans that upper-crust liberals would never associate with.

The obvious answer: they’re snobs.

It’s why they laughed along with another Letterman monologue likening Palin to members of the lowly working class. “She looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check,” he said. “She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes.” This was funny to people who look down upon nurses and grocery store workers.

It’s why the status-obsessed Keith Olbermann brags about his “Ivy League” credentials when he actually went to a state school affiliated with Cornell—as if there were something shameful about a public education.

It’s why Michael Moore writes book after book haranguing Americans for being racist, lamenting in Stupid White Men, “[I’m] trying to clock how long it is before I spot a black man or woman who isn’t wearing a uniform or sitting at a receptionist’s desk.” But as of 2005, Moore was spending two-thirds of his time in Central Lake, Michigan—a town that doesn’t have a single black resident.

Obviously, penning sanctimonious screeds about American racism is the job of rich liberals. But actually living in racially diverse neighborhoods is for the working class. (This also explains why popular vacation destinations for the liberal elite, such as Aspen and The Hamptons, are almost entirely white. Conversely, you’ll never see Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi hanging out at the Jersey Shore or other spots frequented by riffraff.)

It’s why a group of Hollywood aristocrats, including Barbra Streisand and David Geffen, illegally constructed fences to keep ordinary people off the public beaches near their Malibu homes. They’re all about the interests of the “little guy”—just as long as the peasants don’t obstruct their view of the ocean.

It’s why the Queen of Liberal Pomposity, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, suggested that George Bush was unfit for the Presidency because her friends made disparaging remarks about him at a Georgetown cocktail hour—as if any normal person cares about liberals’ insipid chitchat at their little parties. (The average home price in Georgetown: $1,435,180.)

It’s why they sneered at former Representative Tom Delay for building a successful pest extermination company (how blue-collar!). They instead admire people who inherited or sued their way to wealth, like John Kerry and John Edwards.

It’s why the liberal media elite fawn over Michelle Obama’s designer shoe collection, while joking that Sarah Palin looks like she belongs “at a TGI Friday’s happy hour.”

Hilarious, but only to liberal snobs who wouldn’t be caught dead hanging out at TGI Friday’s—or any other place they might encounter the “little guys” they claim to represent.

6/17/2009: Economic Liberty and the Constitution
by Jacob G. Hornberger

6/17/2009: Reason Foundation's Taxpayer's Guide to the Stimulus

6/17/2009: Michelle's Replacement

At the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009, was a short column entitled "Replacing Michelle" in the National Review "The Week" column. Here it is, word for word, as it appeared:

Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting".

In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317, 000 nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator. Oh, did we mention that her husband had just become a US Senator? He sure had. And that he immediately requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact?

You betcha by golly... He surely did. Way to network Michelle!

But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that possibly be??? Especially if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?

Oh, by the way, let me add that Michelle's position was a part time, 20 hour week job at $317,000.00 per year!! . And to think they were critical of Blagoyovich's wife for taking $100,000 in fuzzy real estate commission.

Question is How did this bit of quid pro quo corruption escape the sharp reporters that dug through Sarah Palin's garbage and kindergarten files?

6/17/2009: Live Free or Die by Walter E. Williams

"Live Free or Die" is the title of author and columnist Mark Steyn's speech at Hillsdale College, reproduced in Imprimis (April 2009), a Hillsdale publication that's free for the asking. Canadian born, now living in New Hampshire, Steyn has had firsthand experience with socialist tyranny in his home country that is rapidly becoming a part of America. Commenting on one of his run-ins with Canada's human rights commissions, Steyn points how it might seem bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of that alliance is pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists and the other half is homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Steyn argues what they have in common overrides their differences, namely, "Both the secular Big Government progressives and the political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential."

I doubt whether there are many Americans who think Congress has either the right or competency to choose where they live, what clothes they wear or what cars they drive. Yet many Americans stand ready to allow Congress to decide what doctors they go to and what treatments they receive. We forget that once we have government-sponsored health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on liberty. That's the justification behind helmet and seatbelt laws. Britain is well along the road toward totally controlling health care. Steyn says, "Under Britain's National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it's appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of 'lifestyle choices.'" Steyn adds, "Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his 'lifestyle choices' get a pass while theirs don't. But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical."

In most of the developed world, the government has gradually taken over many of the responsibilities of adulthood from health care, childcare, care of the elderly and other responsibilities formerly seen as individual or family. Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman suggests that American conservatives preaching "family values" is hypocrisy while Europeans live it. On the continent, Krugman says, "Government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff -- to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family." Steyn insightfully observes, "As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice that for a continent of 'family friendly' policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America's fertility rate is more or less at replacement level -- 2.1 -- seventeen European nations are at what demographers call 'lowest-low' fertility -- 1.3 or less -- a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greeks have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild." Steyn asks, "How can an economist analyze 'family friendly' policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?" My answer to Steyn's questions is: the kind of economist that looks at the seen and ignores the unseen.

Mark Steyn provides us with a historical tidbit. "Live Free or Die," which graces New Hampshire's license plate, are the words of John Stark, New Hampshire's Revolutionary War hero. He uttered those words decades after the War when he was 81 years old, the complete sentence being: "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." Steyn says these words should not be interpreted "as a battle cry: We'll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it's something far less dramatic: It's a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die."

6/13/2009: Dr. Charles Krauthammer speaks

As far as #7 below is concerned remember that Charles Krauthamer is a Board certified Psychiatrist.

This is from a friend who heard Dr. Krauthammer speak.

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright & careful in his analysis, & never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments & views. He is a fiscal conservative, & has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News & writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this w/ many of you & several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically & internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed w/ everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded & have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’, feel free.

Here is his resume from Wikipedia

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer’ who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's ‘behind the mask’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty by a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan & Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attn. to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward about his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to ‘level the playing field’ with income redistribution and punishment of the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His 3 main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal govt. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go thru the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever run even a candy store [nor has he]. But they’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama’s not a socialist; rather, he's a far-left secular progressive [what's the difference?] bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the USA, more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivilency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the 1st President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He’s now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not ‘come due’ until after he’s reelected in 2012. He’d like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcicist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We’re ‘pining’ for another Reagan, but there’ll never be another like him. He believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and information if she’s to be a legitimate candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller goverment, personal responsibility, strong national defense, & states’ rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We’re spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize that the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, [labor] unions, government workers, and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed. Fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of ‘change’ caused people to act emotionally. Any Democrat would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Democrats could continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it’ll be a dogfight. It’ll all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There’s a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

6/12/2009: Hovering on High: Obama Surveys the World by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus:

(A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew.

(B) On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the "divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence" (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab -- after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity.

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with "meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds -- while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well -- but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge?

That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Teheran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs. But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Baha'i, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other.

Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation" -- disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.

6/10/2009: Welcome Back, Carter by Anne Coulter

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

6/10/2009: Americans Love Government by Walter E. Williams

Philosopher Bertrand Russell suggested that "Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education." And, it was Albert Einstein who explained, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." So which is it -- stupidity, ignorance or insanity -- that explains the behavior of my fellow Americans who call for greater government involvement in our lives?

According to latest Rasmussen Reports, 30 percent of Americans believe congressmen are corrupt. Last year, Congress' approval rating fell to 9 percent, its lowest in history. If the average American were asked his opinion of congressmen, among the more polite terms you'll hear are thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks. But what do the same people say when our nation faces a major problem? "Government ought to do something!" When people call for government to do something, it is as if they've been befallen by amnesia and forgotten just who is running government. It's the very people whom they have labeled as thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks.

Aside from the general level of disgust that Americans have for congressmen, there's the question of whether there is anything that Congress does well. What about Social Security and Medicare? Congress has allowed Social Security and Medicare to accumulate an unfunded liability of $101 trillion. That means in order to pay promised elderly entitlement benefits, Congress would have to put trillions in the bank today earning interest. Congressional efforts to create "affordable housing" have created today's financial calamity. Congress props up failed enterprises such as Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service with huge cash subsidies, and subsidies in the forms of special tax treatment and monopoly rights. I can't think of anything that Congress does well yet we Americans call for them to take greater control over important areas of our lives.

I don't think that stupidity, ignorance or insanity explains the love that many Americans hold for government; it's far more sinister and perhaps hopeless. I'll give a few examples to make my case. Many Americans want money they don't personally own to be used for what they see as good causes such as handouts to farmers, poor people, college students, senior citizens and businesses. If they privately took someone's earnings to give to a farmer, college student or senior citizen, they would be hunted down as thieves and carted off to jail. However, they get Congress to do the identical thing, through its taxing power, and they are seen as compassionate and caring. In other words, people love government because government, while having neither moral nor constitutional authority, has the legal and physical might to take the property of one American and give it to another.

The unanticipated problem with this agenda is that as Congress uses its might to take what belongs to one American to give to another, what President Obama calls "spreading the wealth around," more and more Americans will want to participate in the looting. It will ultimately produce something none of us wants: absolute control over our lives.

The path we're embarked upon, in the name of good, is a familiar one. The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '30s and '40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the name of "social justice." In Germany, it led to the Enabling Act of 1933: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation and, after all, who could be against a remedy to relieve distress? Decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of what Nazi Germany would become, succumbed to Hitler's charisma.

Today's Americans, enticed, perhaps enchanted, by charismatic speeches, are ceding so much power to Washington, and like yesteryear's Germans are building the Trojan Horse for a future tyrant.

6/10/2009: The Character of Nations by Thomas Sowell

In an age that values cleverness over wisdom, it is not surprising that many superficial but clever books get more attention than a wise book like "The Character of Nations" by Angelo Codevilla, even though the latter has far more serious implications for the changing character of our own nation. The recently published second edition of Professor Codevilla's book is remarkable just for its subject, quite aside from the impressive breadth of its scope and the depth of its insights. But clever people among today's intelligentsia disdain the very idea that there is such a thing as "national character."

Everything from punctuality to alcohol consumption may vary greatly from one country to another, but the "one world" ideology and the "multicultural" dogma make it obligatory for many among the intelligentsia to act as if none of this has anything to do with the poverty, corruption and violence of much of the Third World or with the low standard of living in the Soviet Union, one of the most richly endowed nations on earth, when it came to natural resources.

"The Character of Nations" is about far more than the fact that there are different behavior patterns in different countries-- that, for example, "it is unimaginable to do business in China without paying bribes" but "to offer one in Japan is the greatest of faux pas." The real point is to show what kinds of behaviors produce what kinds of consequences-- in the economy, in the family, in the government and in other aspects of human life. Nor do the repercussions stop there. Government policies are not only affected by the culture of the country but can in turn have a major impact on that culture, for good or ill.

Written in plain and sometimes blunt words, "The Character of Nations" is nevertheless the product of a man whose knowledge and experience span the globe, extending into economics, philosophy and other fields, as well as encompassing the wisdom of the ancients and the follies of the moderns. The book is an education in itself, more of an education than many students are likely to get at an Ivy League college.

However, its purpose is not academic but to clarify the issues facing us all today when "the character of the American way of life is up for grabs perhaps more than ever before," as the author puts it. While nations differ, particular kinds of behavior produce particular kinds of results in country after country. Moreover, American society in recent years has been imitating behavior patterns that have produced negative-- and sometimes catastrophic-- consequences in many other countries around the world. Among these patterns have been a concentration of decision-making power in government officials, an undermining of the role of the family, a "non-judgmental" attitude toward behavior and a dissolution of the common bonds that hold a society together, leading to atomistic self-indulgences and group-identity politics that increasingly pits different segments of society against each other.

Those among the intelligentsia who say that we should "learn from other countries" almost invariably mean that we should imitate what other countries have done. Angelo Codevilla argues that we should learn from other countries' mistakes, especially when those same mistakes have repeatedly produced bad results in many countries and among many very different peoples, living under very different political systems. Putting ever more economic decisions in the hands of those with political power is just one of those mistakes with a track record of painful repercussions in many countries around the world. These repercussions have included not only serious economic losses but, even more important, a loss of personal freedom and self-respect, as ever wider segments of the population become supplicants and sycophants of those with the power to dispense largess or to make one's life miserable with legalistic or bureaucratic harassment.

We in America have taken large steps in that direction in recent years, and are accelerating our moves in that direction this year. Getting some clearer sense of what this risks is just one of many reasons to read "The Character of Nations."

6/9/2009: Varieties of Nothing by Thomas Sowell

Doing nothing might seem to be simple and easy. But there are many varieties of nothing, and some kinds of nothing can get very elaborate and complex.

In courts of law, for example, "concurrent sentences" mean that nothing is being done to punish a convicted criminal for some of his crimes, since the time he is serving for one crime is being served concurrently with the time served for other crimes.

A study in Britain found that, among criminals caught, convicted and sentenced, only 7 percent of these sentences involved being put behind bars. Most of what is done in the other 93 percent of the cases amounts to virtually nothing.

People convicted of burglary in Britain are seldom jailed. For this and many other crimes, they will get a stern talking to. And, if they do it again, they will get an even sterner talking to.

The idea is that burglary is "only" a property crime and the left intelligentsia in Britain show their disdain for property rights by not taking property crimes very seriously. The net result is that burglary is far more common in Britain than in the United States.

Moreover, burglars in Britain seldom bother to "case" the place as most American burglars do before breaking in. Even if someone is home, that is far less of a danger in Britain where severe gun control laws greatly reduce the dangers to burglars.

A British homeowner who held two burglars at gunpoint until the police arrived was arrested-- even though the gun he used turned out to be just a realistic-looking toy gun. The British intelligentsia take guns much more seriously than they take burglary, even when it is only a toy gun that is used to "intimidate" a burglar, as they put it.

People who say that we should learn from other countries seem to have in mind that we should imitate those countries. But some of the most valuable lessons from other countries can be had from seeing the disasters their policies have produced-- especially when our own intelligentsia are pushing ideas that have already been tried and failed elsewhere.

We need to pay attention to these sneak previews of coming attractions, even if they consist of doing nothing. Whether in the United States or in other countries, the purpose of all this nothing is of course to pacify public opinion by pretending to be doing something.

The criminal justice system is not the only arena in which doing nothing is often common-- and often gets complicated. On the international stage, the great arena for doing nothing is the United Nations.

We have, for example, been doing nothing to stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs, but it has been elaborate, multifaceted and complexly nuanced nothing.

Had there been no United Nations, it would have been obvious to all and sundry that we were doing nothing-- and that could have had dire political consequences at election time.

However, thanks to the United Nations, there is a place where political leaders can go to do nothing, with a flurry of highly visible activity-- and the media will cover it in detail, with a straight face, so that people will think that something is actually being done.

There may be televised statements and counter-statements-- passionate debate among people wearing exotic apparel from different nations, all in an impressive, photogenic setting. U.N. resolutions may be voted upon and published to the world. It can be some of the best nothing that money can buy.

Even when United Nations resolutions contain lofty and ringing phrases about the "concerns" of "the international community" or invoke "world opinion"-- or perhaps even warn of "grave consequences"-- none of this is likely to lead any country to do anything that it would not have done otherwise.

Iran, for example, has for years ignored repeated U.N resolutions and warnings against building nuclear facilities that can produce bombs. There is not the slightest reason to believe that they will stop unless they get stopped.

Certainly doing nothing will not stop them-- not even elaborate diplomatic nothing or even presidential international speech-making nothing.

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

--John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

6/7/2009: Auto Takeover Will be Worse Than Than AMTRAK and Last Forever

6/7/2009: Have We Got a Deal For You by George Will

WASHINGTON -- "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 dependant.

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 goddam 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 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 Washington 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.

6/7/2009: If Congress Ran a Car Company by Steve Chapman

The Edsel was one of the biggest flops in the history of car making. Introduced with great fanfare by Ford in 1958, it had terrible sales and was junked after only three years. But if Congress had been running Ford, the Edsel would still be on the market.

That became clear last week, when Democrats as well as Republicans expressed horror at the notion that bankrupt companies with plummeting sales would need fewer retail sales outlets. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., led the way, asserting, "I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves."

Supporters of free markets can be grateful to Rockefeller for showing one more reason government shouldn't rescue unsuccessful companies. As it happens, taxpayers are less likely to get their money back if the automakers are barred from paring dealerships. Protecting those dealers merely means putting someone else at risk, and that someone has been sleeping in your bed.

The Constitution guarantees West Virginia two senators, and Rockefeller seems to think it also guarantees the state a fixed supply of car sellers. "Chrysler is eliminating 40 percent of its dealerships in my state," he fumed, "and I have heard that GM will eliminate more than 30 percent." This development raises the ghastly prospect that "some consumers in West Virginia will have to travel much farther distances to get their cars serviced under warranty."

Dealers were on hand to join the chorus. "To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Whatley, owner of a Chrysler outlet in Mineral Wells, Texas.

But unwanted events are one of the hazards of operating in a modern economy that is subject not only to changing consumer preferences but occasional downturns. Absent the Obama administration's rash intervention, Chrysler might well have gone out of business -- in which case not only these dealers but all the rest would be left in the lurch.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not supposed to be pleasant for anyone. It's supposed to involve painful and expensive sacrifices that are slightly less dire than the consequences of liquidation.

It should come as no surprise that as these corporations find fewer and fewer buyers for their products, they need fewer car lots. Today, Chrysler sells about half as many vehicles in this country as Toyota, but it has more than twice as many dealers.

Does Rockefeller get complaints from Toyota owners about the grueling trips to get service? Chrysler, by the way, admits that the average customer's drive to the dealer will increase -- from 6.67 miles to 7.09 miles.

But once senators get the chance to micromanage business decisions, they are reluctant to pass it up. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proved that meddlesome government is not a Democratic monopoly. She proposed that Chrysler be forced to give its dealers 60 days to unwind their operations instead of less than a month, as the company decided.

Hutchison fondly recalled that when she was selling ads for the high school football program in her teen years, a car dealer provided the school's first sale. Retailers should be accommodated, she insists, because they have "nothing to do with the cost of the company."

But CEO Fritz Henderson, whose job, unlike hers, actually depends on knowledge of his company's cost structure, said the support GM provides to dealers amounts to about $1,000 per vehicle -- a figure that would be lower with a downsized network. Cost aside, the companies say an excess of dealers means some can't make enough money to serve customers well, damaging their brands.

While lamenting the fate of the unfortunate dealerships that will be dropped, the senators overlooked another group that will be deeply affected by the closures -- the remaining dealers. They can expect to capture more sales, boost their profits and even provide new jobs in sales and service.

One Detroit-area Chrysler dealer told a local newspaper that he plans to add at least 30 employees to his staff of 85. When that happens, don't expect a Senate hearing for them to express their gratitude.

Now that Washington has intervened to rescue these corporations, it can easily justify reviewing and even reversing their business decisions. But, as the senators proved, having the excuse is not the same as having the competence.

6/6/2009: The Failure of Obamanomics by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The data is in for April. Here's what happened:

1. Household personal income (inflation adjusted) rose, but every penny -- and then some -- went into savings or paying down debts. Consumer spending, on which Barack Obama is betting to stimulate the economy, actually fell. None of the stimulus money was sent. None.

2. Meanwhile, to pay for this stimulus spending that didn't stimulate, Obama had to borrow so much money that long-term interest rates have almost doubled since he took office, forcing postponement or abandonment of business expansion and hiring across the board.

What a record!

Here are the details. In April, personal household, inflation-adjusted income rose by $122 billion. Of that increase, one-third -- or $44 billion -- came from the government's stimulus program. But while personal income was rising, household savings (which includes paying down credit-card balances, mortgages, student loans, car loans, etc.) rose by $132 billion -- $10 billion more than the rise in income. So personal consumption dropped 0.1 percent.

The stimulus package was a total and complete failure. As predicted, as happened with Bush's 2008 tax cut, as happened with the Japanese stimulus packages of the '90s, fearful consumers sat on their money and wouldn't spend it. Keynesian economics didn't work. Again.

But the debt sure piled up. The deficit quadrupled and is sending interest rates soaring, as the government elbows aside businesses and consumers at the loan window, all in a desperate effort to borrow enough money to spend enough money to stimulate the economy, which isn't happening.

Keynesian economics doesn't work. The theory for rational expectations has taken its place. Consumers are not idiots. They know that when their paycheck is fatter -- either because of tax cuts or government spending -- that it is not the beginning of Nirvana, but just a short-term, one-shot respite from hard times. They know the difference between standing in front of an electric fan and a windy day.

Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability and -- ultimately -- our economy, all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

Is Obama a failure? Not by his lights. His goal was never to stimulate the economy. His goal was to expand government spending, and he used the recession as an excuse to do so. And, by this standard, he is a raging success. With the stimulus spending, the government proportion of gross domestic product will rise from about 35 percent to about 40 percent, and with health care "reform" it will go soaring into the mid-40s, bringing us to parity with Germany en route to France!

But the results are in: None of Obama's spending is doing anything to help the economy.

Of course, the process of household savings, designed to pay down debt, is very healthy.

Economists call it de-leveraging. By the start of the recession, the debt American households owe had risen from 70 percent of their annual income in 1995 to 140 percent (excluding mortgages). Now it's on its way back down again. And, eventually, that will lead to a real recovery -- if Obama doesn't wreck the currency and bring on mega-inflation before then (but he probably will).

6/6/2009: Springfield Tax Revolt

Taxpayer victories are rare these days, so let's cheer the good news in Illinois, where earlier this week the state House in Springfield voted 74-42 against a plan to raise the income tax rate on individuals and businesses by 50%.

When Governor Pat Quinn succeeded Rod Blagojevich in January, he immediately proposed raising the personal income tax to 4.5% from 3%, the business tax rate to 7.2% from 4.8%, and expanding the sales tax to services ranging from dry cleaners to Internet hookup. The Democrat says the income tax hike is "based on a principle as old as the Bible. Taxes should be based on the ability to pay." But voters can distinguish between rendering unto God and unto Quinn, and public dismay was so widespread that even 26 Democrats voted to kill this tax grab.

Just as surprising, not a single Republican voted for the tax increase. In recent times the ideological distinction between the GOP and Democrats has been as murky as the Chicago River. Former Governors "Big Jim" Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan transformed Republicans into the tax-and-spend party.

Solidarity has given Republicans new leverage in the budget debates because majority Democrats are terrified to pass a tax hike on their own. Mr. Quinn may call for a new tax vote, but the GOP can now instead demand spending and ethics reforms in a state where political corruption is at New Jersey proportions. One reason Mr. Quinn's tax plan failed is because there was little effort to slow down spending that has increased 45% (to $4,700 from $3,250 per person after inflation) in the past decade.

Following the defeat of California's tax increase, the Illinois revolt is more evidence that voters are rejecting tax-and-spend politics. Beltway Democrats, take note.

6/4/2009: Gun Control

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

"Live Free or Die" By Mark Steyn

6/3/2009: Dumbest Generation Getting Dumber by Walter E. Williams

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international comparison of 15-year-olds conducted by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that measures applied learning and problem-solving ability. In 2006, U.S. students ranked 25th of 30 advanced nations in math and 24th in science. McKinsey & Company, in releasing its report "The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America's Schools" (April 2009) said, "Several other facts paint a worrisome picture. First, the longer American children are in school, the worse they perform compared to their international peers. In recent cross-country comparisons of fourth grade reading, math, and science, US students scored in the top quarter or top half of advanced nations. By age 15 these rankings drop to the bottom half. In other words, American students are farthest behind just as they are about to enter higher education or the workforce." That's a sobering thought. The longer kids are in school and the more money we spend on them, the further behind they get.

While the academic performance of white students is grossly inferior, that of black and Latino students is a national disgrace. The McKinsey report says, "On average, black and Latino students are roughly two to three years of learning behind white students of the same age. This racial gap exists regardless of how it is measured, including both achievement (e.g., test score) and attainment (e.g., graduation rate) measures. Taking the average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for math and reading across the fourth and eighth grades, for example, 48 percent of blacks and 43 percent of Latinos are 'below basic,' while only 17 percent of whites are, and this gap exists in every state. A more pronounced racial achievement gap exists in most large urban school districts." Below basic is the category the NAEP uses for students unable to display even partial mastery of knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient work at their grade level.

The teaching establishment and politicians have hoodwinked taxpayers into believing that more money is needed to improve education. The Washington, D.C., school budget is about the nation's costliest, spending about $15,000 per pupil. Its student/teacher ratio, at 15.2 to 1, is lower than the nation's average. Yet student achievement is just about the lowest in the nation. What's so callous about the Washington situation is about 1,700 children in kindergarten through 12th grade receive the $7,500 annual scholarships in order to escape rotten D.C. public schools, and four times as many apply for the scholarships, yet Congress, beholden to the education establishment, will end funding the school voucher program.

Any long-term solution to our education problems requires the decentralization that can come from competition. Centralization has been massive. In 1930, there were 119,000 school districts across the U.S; today, there are less than 15,000. Control has moved from local communities to the school district, to the state, and to the federal government. Public education has become a highly centralized government-backed monopoly and we shouldn't be surprised by the results. It's a no-brainer that the areas of our lives with the greatest innovation, tailoring of services to individual wants and falling prices are the areas where there is ruthless competition such as computers, food, telephone and clothing industries, and delivery companies such as UPS, Federal Express and electronic bill payments that have begun to undermine the postal monopoly in first-class mail.

At a Washington press conference launching the McKinsey report, Al Sharpton called school reform the civil rights challenge of our time. He said that the enemy of opportunity for blacks in the U.S. was once Jim Crow; today, in a slap at the educational establishment, he said it was "Professor James Crow." Sharpton is only partly correct. School reform is not solely a racial issue; it's a vital issue for the entire nation.

6/3/2009: Dems Plan to Reinstate and Ban Slavery by Mike Adams

The GOP recently discovered some once-secret memos exchanged between top Democratic operatives. These memos have revealed three interesting facts: 1) Democrats engaged in systematic character assassination in order to keep Miguel Estrada from being appointed as the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. 2) The same thing was done to Alberto Gonzales for the same reason. 3) This was done so the Dems could eventually appoint the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic justice.

The Dems’ success at “solving” the problem of Hispanic exclusion from the Supreme Court was brought about by first excluding Hispanics from the Supreme Court. Now, they are planning to use similar strategies to help “solve” other problems.

Sources also indicated that they intend to launch a nation-wide effort to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Shortly thereafter, President Obama will sign an executive order banning slavery. This will help the Dems improve on their 92% showing among black voters in 2008. After the Dems capture at least 99% of the black vote in 2012 they plan to rename themselves the “Party of Lincoln.”

Other sources indicate that President Obama plans to increase the budget by 400% in the first year of his second term in office. He will then reduce the budget by 50%. This will show his party’s commitment to fiscal responsibility.

As part of the present economic stimulus plan, the Dems are about to tack on five billion dollars to bring gay bath houses back to San Francisco. After the number of AIDS cases rises dramatically, the Dems plan to introduce new legislation to close the bath houses. This will show their commitment to the gay population, which, in turn, will deepen its loyalty to the party of Pelosi.

The Obama administration will, of course, pay for the new economic stimulus plan by increasing taxes. The tax increases will force the few remaining stay-at-home moms into the workforce. The administration will build new government daycare centers to help taxpayers raise their children.

The effects of lack of parental supervision on juvenile delinquency will be countered by building more prisons. The effects of lack of parental supervision on literacy will be countered by funding more prison literacy programs.

The Dems also plan to release from prison all of those convicted of property crimes since the onset of the economic downturn in 2007. Those previously known as burglars and thieves will now be known as “wealth redistribution specialists.” After the crime rate spikes, they will be re-arrested to demonstrate the Obama administration’s commitment to law and order.

Sex educators will receive good news from the Obama administration in the coming weeks. The president will announce a five billion dollar proposal to put one million sex educators to work in the year 2010. These educators will encourage teens to experiment with sex earlier, more often, and with greater numbers of people. The administration is planning to increase funding for abortions in 2011 in order to subsidize failed attempts at birth control.

Funding for the arts will increase substantially in the next few years. This will include forms of art not traditionally subsidized by the government – such as tattoo artistry. The government will, in the meantime, give one billion dollars to a California tattoo removal program. The program will be directed primarily at former gang members.

The Obama administration plans to hire one million new workers to travel the nation dumping trash along the sides of American Interstates. Another one million workers will be hired to pick up the trash. This new initiative is expected to create two million new jobs.

Finally, the Obama administration plans to fund a new university that teaches people to write and comprehend political satire. They hope that within a few years political satire and political reality will be analytically distinguishable.

6/2/2009: Michael Savage Sues Over UK Ban; Brits Say Bring It On

By: Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times

[I don't particularly like Michael Savage but if Great Britain wants to keep him out of the country, then I thinbk it's only fair that all Americans stay out of Great Britain and not buy anything made in or marketed by British companies. It is clear that the only people left in Great Britain are those who, like British Home Secretary Ms. Jacqui Smith, we too lazy and or too stupid to come to the United States.]

It's the clash of the titans, pitting talk-radio god against fierce national gatekeeper.

Michael Savage made good on his threat to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for libel, with the official notification letter arriving at her office Monday.

Mr. Savage, heard by 10 million listeners a week, wants an apology, a retraction and cash from Ms. Smith - director of Britain's lead government agency controlling immigration, passports, counterterrorism and police.

Her response Monday: Bring it on. She declared herself ready for a fight to defend her official "unacceptable behaviour policy" that can bar any foreigners from Britain should they foment terrorism, hatred or criminal activity in written, broadcast or online forms, or through public speaking.

On May 5, Ms. Smith placed Mr. Savage on a list of 16 undesirables "banned from the UK for stirring-up hatred and promoting their extreme views," according to the office. The list included Islamic terrorists, neo-Nazis and Russian gang members.

In a description published at its Web site, the agency cited the radio host using both his real and on-air names, saying he was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence."

"Did I actually say this in England? No, my show is not broadcast over there. It's Jacqui Smith who's actually provoking hatred and inter-community violence by taking out-of-context statements and broadcasting them fresh, as if I intended to say it over and over again in England," Mr. Savage told The Washington Times.

"This is an orchestrated campaign by this socialist, fascist government of hers, trying to turn me into something I am not," he added. "I spent my entire life building my reputation, and I will not have this government drag my name through the mud. I want my name cleared."

The letter - sent on Mr. Savage's behalf by the London-based business law firm Olswang LLP - countered that the Home Office's descriptions of the radio host are "false and defamatory." The letter demanded a retraction, a personal apology from Ms. Smith and a written guarantee that she will not repeat the accusations.

Mr. Savage also wants 100,000 British pounds - about $162,000 - in damages, and the cost of his legal fees reimbursed.

"The Web site says that I 'have' provoked violence. It's an absolute lie. My words have never provoked violence. I don't suggest violence, and I never have. The libel lawsuit is going ahead," Mr. Savage said, noting that he had not even planned to visit Britain and now had to employ security guards to protect himself.

The Home Office is not backing down from an already aggressive stance. Since 2005, it has already excluded more than 100 "individuals," among them "animal rights extremists, right-to-life extremists, homophobe extremists, far-right extremists, as well as advocates of hatred and violence in support of their religious beliefs," according to the office's records.

"Any legal proceedings would be robustly defended; we stand by our decision to exclude this individual. Coming to the UK is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," the office said.

The events have made great theater in the British news media, prompting potshots at the U.S. and talk that Britain was becoming a "nanny state" in reader messages to the Daily Mail and the British Broadcasting Corp., among other news organizations.

Some say that a great deal could be at stake.

"Michael Savage's situation has to do with free speech in the Western world, in the entire free world. We live in a global marketplace now, and when our greatest ally - Britain - looks to somehow silence an American radio personality, intentionally or otherwise, it could have tremendous impact," said Michael Harrison, founder and editor of Talkers Magazine, which tracks the U.S. talk-radio industry.

"The British call Michael Savage a 'shock jock.' Now the Home Office accuses and condemns him of hate mongering. The First Amendment is not always tidy. It can be messy, even. When they equate a provocative political commentator with murderers and criminals - well, this is a dangerous mistake," Mr. Harrison said.

"The alliances between our countries are built, in part, on the First Amendment. This may prove a very slippery slope we're on," he added.

Mr. Savage's show is produced and distributed by Talk Radio Network, which recently announced a deal to produce and distribute a new radio show by The Washington Times.