Atlas Shrugs said it first: We Are All Birthers Now

Your Papers, please, Mr. President

FEC Commission, Requesting Obama Birth Certificate Investigation UPDATE: SIGN THE PETITION:

A New Twist in Obama Birth Certificate Mystery

All you ever (or never) wanted to know about the "Birth Certificate" controversy:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/

The first three links are to three of 63 posts dating to before the presidential election on the website of "Atlas Shrugs." The last link is to the entire article where Atlas discusses the various posts and ties some of the issues together. This goes into scrubbing the internet and possibly altering official records by BHO operatives, and even to the murder of a witness. This is a whole lot more that a few second rate burglars breaking into the Watergate. The official reaction and the press reaction, that is the cover-up, is the story, not the birth certificate. It gets more bazaar and intresting all the time.

Conservatives Loaded for Bear

That is, they are well stocked with hi-caliber ammo and they are fighting back. Their arrow points are sharpened and their quivers are full. They are keeping their powder dry. Conservative storm troopers are hitting the ground running, only stopping to reload or fix bayonets. Yes, that describes the conservative backlash against the liberal accusations that they are inciting violence. The Conservatives are figuratively counterattacking in force, the real conservatives that is. Some Republicans in Congress are apparently already fearful of the leftist media onslaught of misrepresentations following the attempted assassination of an Arizona congresswoman.

The way that the conservative talk show host are fighting back is by presenting the truth and exposing the liberal so called journalists for the party propagandists that they have become. The conservatives are well armed with audio clips of the most vile remarks and reprehensible threats imaginable coming from the leftist radio and TV media figures, such as Keith Oberman, Bill Mar, Joy Bajar, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews. (Some of these may not be journalist; I realy don't know who they are but their language was certainly vile. They may be senators from Minnesota for all I know.) They also have clips of liberal politicians openly wishing violence to befall conservatives. Barack Obama is one of those politicians. (e.g. BHO's comment regarding a supporter who will "tear-up Sean Hanity." Metephorically, with argumentation he meant, just as other have spoken metephorically about politics for centuries.)

The liberals are making a big thing over some hunting and shooting metaphors of Sarah Palin with respect to Democrat candidates in the last election. Her metaphorical cross hairs were no more conducive to violence that the Democratic National Committees bulls-eyes on conservatives. On the other hand, liberals are also seen on video decapitating President Bush in effigy. On audio, they are wishing on him, vice president Cheney, and Secretary of Defense von Rumsfeld, all forms of unspeakable horrors.

The conservatives who are on the counterattack are Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Lew Dobbs, Lars Larson, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and many more who I haven't heard yet. Essentially, what is happening is the liberals in congress are being aided and abetted by these dishonest journalist in their attempt to sensor their opponents, that is us, the people. The conservative media, the target of this propaganda are quite effectively fighting back with no other weapon but the truth. Glenn Beck will be joining the fray as well as soon as he gets on the Full Armour of the Lord.


For the fine invective oratory of Mark Levin, go to audio rewind for 1/11/11:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

Regarding the proposition that conservative radio talk shows and Fox television said anything that led to the shooting by the deranged individual in Arizona, I have only the remark of Frederick Bastiat:

"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France [and in the modern USA]. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."

Name Calling: Liberal Forte

Yes race baiting is getting old. So is calling conservatives stupid or mentally ill. If the liberals have any logical arguments, they should make them. Instead they continue to call names. Someone on NBC just called the Republicans bastards. He said that Republicans want to control minorities. President Obama told Latin American supporters that Republicans were their enemy. Ed Schults, Howard Dean, Reverend Al, and even Barack Obama seem to always fall back on the race card and other forms of name calling.

This blog was started to give scientific arguments refuting the arguments of the Man-made Global Warming proponents. Unfortunately, it is hard to find their scientific arguments. They have explained how the greenhouse effect works. However that theory was originally advanced to explain the warming of the early earth, hundreds of millions of years ago when the atmosphere was chiefly CO2. Now the atmosphere is far less that 1% composed of CO2. They do not give their figures and their assumptions to prove their theory that minuscule amounts of extra CO2 will have drastic affects. They have not attempted to advance any explanations because they cannot do it. Instead they call anyone who doubts them idiots, fools, or crooks.

The tea party and other conservatives give economic arguments to advance the proposition that a free market, without government involvement, is the only economic systems that improves the human condition and allows everyone to improve their lot. Instead of answering with arguments in favor of government control, socialism, or other economic system, they call the tea party racist.

The same thing happens with anyone who expresses opposition to governmentalized healthcare. Supposedly intelligent, educated people in the news media are the worse. Insults and verbal abuse of conservatives is considered to be a fine and appropriate response. After the last election, 'stupid' was the most common term in the liberal editorial pages describing the voters who put the Republicans in office. It goes on and on.

Some years ago, many newspapers ran headlines stating that polls show that most Americans support the war in Iraq. The journalists who wrote the stories found it hard to believe that people could be so dumb. After all, the journalists had been writing against the war steadily for a year or so. Why wasn't the public falling for their propaganda? So the journalists turned up the volume. A lot of their new propaganda centered around overblown accusations of corruption and atrocities. They never grew tired of calling George Bush and his supporters liars. They eventually got their own way and the country turned 180 degrees against George Bush and 'his' war. Since then the liberals, the left, and the progressives have focused on ungrounded accusations and name calling because it seems to work. The biggest name caller of all, Al Franken, was elected as their Senator by Minnesotans.

To liberals, the conservative view does not qualify as an 'alternative opinion" worthy of debate. And the Tea Party, they talk about silly, irrelevant things like founding fathers and the constitution. They are really stupid. Google "conservatives are stupid," "conservatives are Nazis," or "Tea Party shit." There will be plenty to read but little or nothing offered in the way of discussion of issues. Try it.

Two Person Poll

I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.

Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.

Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.

An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.

See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)

More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"

This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)

As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.

Elizabeth Warren: No Advise and Consent of Senate

No doubt, she appeals to the small ruling elite, but apparently not the Senate. BHO put her in charge of the so-called reform of Wall Street. She is not going before the Senate, as high level appointees should. Where is the indignation of the press? (Yes, this is the begining of the Wall Street take-over as predicted here.) I do not know her background, but can guess. We will be hearing more about her, no doubt.

Internet Unprotected from Spies: We Need Obama Ware Now

Regarding the arrests recently announced of individuals in a Russian spy ring, I was surprised to hear so many average Americans question why Russia needs to spy on the USA. Aside from being a naïve question in a world that has lately become so unstable, Russia (at least the Soviet Union) has never needed much of a reason. They have inquiring minds. Being nearly obsessed with current domestic political activities, my first response was that the Russians had forgotten how to do Communism so they were here to learn how to reinstate it back home.

To answer a few of the basic factual questions, consult the NY Times article from June 30, 2010, at:

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/russian_spy_ring_2010/index.html


This article states among other things:


"June 27, 2010, 10 people in Yonkers, Boston and northern Virginia were arrested and accused of being part of a Russian espionage ring, living under false names and deep cover ... scheme to penetrate ... American "policy making circles."
… identity borrowed from a dead Canadian, forged passports, messages sent by shortwave burst transmission or in invisible ink. A money cache
… cutting-edge gadgetry, deep knowledge of American culture and meticulously constructed cover stories.
…collect routine political gossip and policy talk...
… The court documents detailed what the authorities called the "Illegals Program," … to plant Russian spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents.
… used cyber-age technology, according to the charges ... embedded coded texts in ordinary-looking images posted on the Internet, and they communicated by having two agents pass casually with laptops containing special software flashed messages between them.
…They were directed to gather information on nuclear weapons, American policy toward Iran, C.I.A. leadership, Congressional politics and many other topics, according to prosecutors...
… agents often spend years just developing a fake life story, known in Russian as a "legend," ... the K.G.B. would often keep an agent in place abroad for years or even decades before he or she was able to gather useful information."


This should pretty much explain things, at least as well as we will ever know.

Russia has long been known for setting up “illegal," i.e. without diplomatic cover, spies and networks around the world, even in friendly countries, for future contingencies. A “legend” is like a cover story but more in-depth and for long term purposes. It is a complete false identity. A cover story is more of a task or mission oriented fake motive for being somewhere or doing something. These illegals may have no definite purpose. They might be placed where they would have access to financial executives, scientists, or military officers. Sometimes they might recruit agents with special access to confidential information. Sometimes they only keep taps on things. Setting up secret contacts and communications within the network are important steps because in emergencies or hostilities they need to be ready. There also are “agents of influence” who have media, industry, government, or other influential positions where they can promote US domestic policies helpful to their foreign masters. (Of course the British, French, US, Chinese, and everyone else does this to a certain extent.) Source of my information: the novels of John Le Carré (See his personal web cite for his readings and spy info.)

Returning to current domestic political shenanigans, my question is why has the government taken action now? Why have they “rolled up” this network, which the NY Times says has been in place for over ten years? References to the internet and “laptops with special software,” make me wonder if this is not part of the push for government control of the internet. It's such a threat, you know what they will be saying: "Look, This is unacceptable ... unsustainable .. a security crisis... With these simple security precautions in place, I will make you safe...blah, blah, blah."

We’ll just wait and see.

Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate

I sent Art Bell the following:

"As soon as I have the time, I will put a new post on my blog: Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate. My website is called chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com. Pardon the name. I started it chiefly because of the direction things were going. However, it is not an angry website. If anyone is angry about your program tonight, it is because the alternative global warming view is entirely ignored, or mischaracterized. Long ago, we were promised a scientific debate but the proponents debated themselves then declared that the debate was over and we lost.

I realize that Coast to Coast has been great in presenting both sides. I have listened ever since some guy called in about bats i his bedroom about 15 years ago. George Noory especially does a better job than anyone on the air with presenting both sides of all disputed issues. (By the way, man-made global warming is disputed.) So I would ask you to have a rebuttal program yourself. Hearing both sides is only fair."

Art was filling in on Coast to Coast AM for George Norry. I used to agree with most of his views, but tonight, he is off his rocker! The guest, the head of the National Wildlife Foundation was a real global warmy. He said the same old things that we have been hearing for years, as if no arguments to the contrary had ever been advanced. Of course, tonight he talks a lot about the Gulf Oil Spill. Likewise, he does not address the claims that regulations that stopped drilling in safer places helped to cause the spill. He mentions that Republicans and older people are just unable to understand the obvious and are obstructing progress, by which he means cap-and-trade legislation. He does not mention the accusations that PB is a very Democrat leaning company that favored cap-and-trade and donated a million to BHO's campaign.

They do not address the cost of cap-and-trade. They do not mention any alternative defense against global warming, if there is any, man-made or otherwise. They certainly do not mention the massive graft, greed, and conflicts of interest of the cap-and-trade proponents. They question, without phrasing it as such, the value of our constitutional form of government. They do not question the cost to liberty. Art goes along with it all, hook, line, and sinker! He wants "this" done now, by whatever means it takes. I couldn't believe it, he was totally off the deep end.

They ignore the arguments against cap-and-trade. That's nothing new; they only get away with it because of their virtual control of the press. So much can be said about the attitude of the guest (is he a god of the copybook heading?) but I have already said it. I guess it must be repeated. ... to be continued.

On Starting to Read Overton Window

I have only read about 25 pages. My first four impressions of Glenn Beck's new book are:

1) The writing technique is top notch. Character development and the early introduction of plot elements is excellent. I do not know how much Glenn actually wrote but the book's beginning is a polished example of the political and financial thriller. The seemingly overworked premises comes across as very original due to it's grand scale if nothing else. The character who is apparently going to be the villain puts Goldfinger or Captain Nemo to shame with his global vision of destruction and vast cynicism. Also, by the first few pages, a hero and heroine, (who will soon be in love), emerge to save the world from its dire danger.

2) Public relations is part of the plot. Not the way that an advertising company is part of the setting as in Dorothy Sayers, Murder Must Advertise, but almost precisely as Hollywood was an important part of the plot of Wag the Dog. The PR firm is hired by the government to advance its plans (and cover its ass). It is in fact the top PR executive who tells the 'progressive' government bureaucrats how nefarious their plans actually are. Nevertheless, he's up for the job. The PR angle fits well with Glenn's nonfiction radio and TV narrative, which contains a strong element of condemnation of the press for their willingness to be blatant propagandists.

3) This book is extremely scary. The scenario is too near reality. Glenn pulls no punches regarding his opinion of the extreme crisis situation that the world in the book, and in reality, finds itself in.

4) Lastly, the book is funny. Within the first dozen pages there were five or six subtly comical lines. The humor of the interplay of the male and female protagonist, lightens the tone somewhat.

If the book does not bog down or become overly preachy, it should be a big hit. In any case it will open some eyes and maybe even some minds.

Gods of the Copybook Headings

Glenn Beck's book joins the growing genre of anti-totalitarian fiction books. Actually, the borders of the genre merges with the 'non-fictional' accounts such as, Darkness at Noon, Out of the Night, I Chose Freedom, and Witness. The Overton Window, by Glenn Beck is also advertised as a thriller. This blog would feature a book report if the blogger were not too tired (or lazy) to read the book anytime soon. (He will try.)

($14.99 at Costco)

The connection with Rudyard Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Heading is intriguing. There are interesting explanations of that poem at Literature Network Forums:


http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14755&highlight=gods+copybook

Puorto Rico State Number 51

Did you hear that congress is voting for Puorto Rican statehood? Neither had I untill Glenn Beck this morning. See:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2502196/posts

I emailed my representative in congress:

At a time when federal spending levels threaten the stability and future of our economy, it does not make sense to push a bill that favors admitting a 51st state that is so poor that taxpayer-funded welfare benefit spending would be guaranteed.

Also the stealth methods of this bill that are designed to deceive both the US and Porto Rican voters are repugnant to democracy and my idea of a deliberative representative legislature.

Will Democrat Norm Dicks care? I doubt it.

Senate Banking Committee Republicans Stink

The Senate Banking committee voted to bring the financial regulation bill to the floor for debate. This was a necessary step toward becoming law. They held out for a lousy three days. Now the president says that he wants the bill passed as soon as possible, just as he has wanted every other major restructuring of our country done. Conservatives do not want it done at all, if we can stop it. If we can't stop it, then why not delay as much as possible?

"It is time for this debate to begin," said Democrat chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Chris J. Dodd of Connecticut. “And it must be a serious, vigorous debate."

“Now that those bipartisan negotiations have ended, it is my hope that the majority’s avowed interest in improving this legislation on the Senate floor is genuine and the partisan gamesmanship is over," said Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.

And if it is't over, just exactly what will you do about it, Senator McConnell? So we will have a debate like we had for global warming that was over before it began. The Democrats and the media will call the Republicans a few names and make some threats. They will find a few Republicans to cave in and end debate. They will insert pay-offs to reluctant Democrats and deem it finished. If need be, they will find a procedural means of passing the bill over a threatened filibuster. The bottom line is that BHO and the Democrats have managed to have their way with everything so far, by hook or by crook. The Republicans may demand a few meaningless minor amendments and probably not even get those. They will cave as usual. They won't even save face. They are chickenshits.

With the possible exception of Cap-and-Trade, as has been said here before, this proposed bill purporting to be "common sense" rules of fair play, is the most destructive of our freedom of any of their schemes so far.

Will the bill have 4,000 pages or 10,000? Whether it is called a consumer protection law or a preventive measure to avoid bailouts, what it will be is a take-over of financial institutions by the federal government. Yes, this is fascism by definition. Yes it is corruption. Bureaucrats answering to the president will be able to control and channel money for their progressive and political ends. Some will also go to building their dachas of course.

Neutrality, Thy Name is Government?

One of the biggest area newspaper, The Seattle Times, calls for Government control over internet providers to provide neutrality. We are not stupid. If an internet provider’s service is lacking, there are dozens more we can change to. One result of government regulation is barriers to entry. When government imposes complicated regulations, such as 3,000 page laws, only the largest firms can comply. Government complications impose costs and eventually require court interpretations, law suits, and hundreds and hundreds of attorneys. Furthermore, if government enforcement of regulation would be so neutral, why did the Democrats always block President Bush’s nominees for federal judges? Why did the Democrats raise holy hell when president Bush fired a few federal attorney’s who were part of his own executive branch? Why are the Democrats constantly attacking (and implicitly call for regulation of) news media that are antagonistic to their aims? Why did the Democrats have a cow over Patriot Act provisions to wire tap calls from Islamic countries but now use the Patriot Act provisions to monitor domestic dissenters to their policies? Why should we trust government regarding regulation of the internet?

Obama vs. the Constitution

There is a recent book titled, "FDR vs. The Constitution." It is the political history of FDR's "Court Packing" plan. He intended to undermined the separation of powers in the constitution by appointing hand-picked justices to the supreme court. In 1933 and 1934, five of the nine justices generally blocked his New Deal legislation. Because they were appointed for life, he couldn't remove them but he planned to appoint up to six more justices who would vote his way. With an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, FDR planned to get his court plan enacted by congress. Only principled Democrats, led by Senator Burton Wheeler, of Montana, defeated his plan.

Are there similarly principled Democrats in Congress now? That remains to be seen. Obama's legislative plans involve getting the health care bill adopted by unconstitutional means. This may be necessary for him and his central committee because the House does not have a majority that supports the Senate bill. The Senate cannot pass a bill acceptable to the House because the recent election of a Republican to replace the late Teddy Kennedy gives the Republicans enough votes to use the filibusterer to stop any bill. Therefore, Obama, Ried, and Palosi have to adjust the procedural rules. They may do this by "passing" the bill in the house without actually voting on it but with a rule change. This violates the US Constitution which states that a bill, "which shall have been passed," by both houses is presented to the president for his signature to become law.

This actually should not work if the members of the House of Representatives who object to the bill realize that by voting for a rule change, they would really be voting for the bill. I guess they could kid themselves, but not their constituents. This is reminiscent of the situation a few months ago when Olympia Snow and the other Maine Republican voted for the Senate bill because they said they really were not voting for the bill but for "discussion of the health care issue." This blog and others stated at the time that they were opening the door to this sort of procedure to make a health care bill law.

The senate created the filibusterer rule to avoid passing significant legislation without substantial support in congress, and, as in this case, without popular support of the people of the country. Reagan realized that his plan for a line item veto did not meet this test of substantial congressional support and that his plans to override the regular procedure was unconstitutional. He dropped his plan. His legal advisers and others made the constitutional case against it. Reagan saw that the constitution was more important that his plans, so did Senator Wheeler. Not so FDR or BHO.

(Mark Levin has been and will be discussing the constitutional issues extensively.)

Free Free Market vs. The Party

The recent health care summit tells the whole story of what this administration is all about: a quest for authoritarian, dictatorial power. The president pressured Republican congressional leaders to attend a meeting with him and Democrats. The Republicans were reminded that they must address BHO as President Obama or Mr. President. Yet he addressed them by first name. What ever happened the the co-equal branches of government? After months of stating that the Republicans had proposed no health care ideas of their own, he summarily dismissed their proposals as unacceptable. He then lectured the Republicans for using "talking points" and for "campaigning." In point of fact, his and the Democrat's only arguments against the Republican proposals were that they could not be passed by Congress. In other words, they would vote against them. That is precisely why the republicans don't have bills being considered in congress. Since they are a minority and the Democrats are not in a bipartisan mood, any Republican bill is dead on arrival. BHO and the Democrats have constantly claimed that the Republicans have no ideas. One Democrat, who was quoted for a week in the press, stated that Republicans' only health care plan was that if you are sick, you should die. These types of statements by BHO and the Democrats are in fact only propaganda, campaigning talking points. Just because the press didn't point it out, does not mean it isn't so.

The Republican ideas include removing state regulations so individuals can shop for any type of health insurance policy that they want. Income tax deductible of individual health care and insurance should remove the bias in favor of employer provided coverage and promote portability. Insures would be required to participate in high risk pools to take pre-existing conditions and other high risks at a predetermined rate. For those who cannot afford available coverage, the state would subsidise care on a sliding scale. Private charities could also play a roll. Private insurance companies and all types of providers would be in constant competition to provide the best and lowest cost care. Some providers would of course contract with insurance companies to provide specialised care for certain expensive cases. The roll of the state could be minimal. Consumer protection agencies could closely police any violations of the contractual responsibilities of the parties involved. This would augment normal legal remedies. Tort lawyers would play the roll that they currently do of obtaining compensation for those who are seriously injured by negligently shoddy care or by breaches of contract. As far as tort reform, some sort of limits on judgements could be set. Judges and juries do a fair job of doing this already. The benefit of this type of tort reform would be to keep down the number of expensive tests. This would happen by reducing defensive medicine and by reducing expensive procedures preformed under the pretense of defensive medicine.

There are many market refinements possible that would need only minimal and probably no new types of government involvement. What is needed is less regulation to let the efficiencies of the market do the job, not the bureaucrats. This is what Republicans, at least the conservatives, want. This is what Democrats, at least the Progressives, Communists, and Socialists do not want. With little or no government involvement, we would not need them.

Full Court Press against Wall Street

I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Seattle Times today. Of course they won't publish it or any in a similar vein, even if more eloquently stated. They want government to have more say in where the funds of investors go (maybe to them).

"Today's editorial regarding Madoff and Wall Street reform avoids the question of what form regulation should take. Based on the track record of the current administration, it appears that the Madoff Affair is the cause celebre that is being used to usher in regulation that will give government control over important business decisions of financial companies. This is de facto socialism and is the goal of the executive branch and many in the legislative branch. Allocation of capital for its best use is the primary function of financial markets and only further disasters could come from government trying to play that role. Conflicts of interest, government corruption of business and visa versa, and outright fraud are enforcement problems that deserve more attention. We cannot allow these problems to be used as excuses for a power grab by the political operatives and technocrats who allowed and created those problems in the first place."

I think there is a real danger that the BHO gangsters are attempting to control finance so that they can better direct the flow of capital to their political allies and to themselves. Doing it through congress has its limitations. There seems to be a heightened attack right now against banks and investment companies. This also enhances the suffering public image of the Democrats and the BHO White House. Bankers are an easy target and we are seeing and hearing the most blatant populist styled propaganda being directed against them. Little matter that it is nonspecific in its calls for reform. The important thing to the left right now is to bloody the noses of bankers and Wall Street.

The current edition of Mother Jones is a prime example. The cover story: "Too Big to Jail" shows a monopoly style cartoon banker using his get out of jail free card. Two of the Mother Jones writers appeared on Bill Moyers tonight to deliver orchestrated one-two punches against capitalism. "Oh no, not against capitalism. We're for capitalism, we want to fix it. We're against them, the big bankers, who do those things..." they would claim while they employ every Marxist trick in Rules for Radicals. What bothers me is that they were so slick that 99% of the audience will be taken in. Of course, I am taking into account that since they're watching public TV, most of the audience is taken in to begin with.

This is very worrisome because finance and economics seems to be the biggest weak spot in the American public's collective understanding. The 'public' will go along with a bad idea wrapped in a populous cloak every time. With this administration, we can expect maximum exploitation of this weakness. With our defenses spread thin by global warming and health care, they will make enormous gains against liberty and democracy. With control of finances, they will be difficult to dislodge.

The American Banking Association chairman, Art Johnson, apparently was mildly successfully in holding back the congressional hoards while compromising on some regulatory changes. He was attacked on Bill Moyers. The bankers and Wall Street should make some sensible proposals for oversight aimed at preventing fraud and sharp practices. More importantly, they need to go on the offensive with public promotion of their ideas. American financial markets have worked because American securities are more secure. The industry needs a public image make over that will show that they are not avoiding regulations that will actually further that goal.

See my regulatory ideas in following posts.

Obama Wall Street Prescription: Virtual Ownership

The current economic recession/depression was clearly the result of multifaceted government intervention in and regulation of business. However, BHO is blaming Wall Street, which is always an acceptable scapegoat. Hitler used it, only he called them the Jew bankers. Wall Street of course doesn't seem to have a clue either that they are in a public relations propaganda fight. The bottom line is that BHO will use the concept of 'Wall Street' as an excuse for his next big government coup. Any proposal from the current administration and congress will not be 'consumer protection' as they claim. It will be government control of what is currently private finance. But the country and congress is dumb and numb. We have lost or are on the verge of losing the auto industry, healthcare, mortgage lending, energy, and pretty much all unionized trades (which were mostly gone already) to the control of the all-powerful state. The rest should be easy for the totalitarians.

We are witnessing the fall of capitalism. From there, our rights as a free people will dissolve with hardly a murmur from the serfs. After the first death, there is no other.

Tonight on Tabath Smiley

The thesis of the guest is that the evangelical movement (christian radical right) tried to take over the federal government but could only manage to take over the Republican Party. What they want is a theocracy to replace the constitution. Every non-believer would be relegated to second class status, if not executed. Tabatha mainly goes along with it all. They have no capacity for self-reflection and so they rally around Sarah Palin. This of course is very bad for the Republican Party so they should choose leaders more like John McCain and not like Sara Palin. Their Nazis plans are based upon the ideas of Lyndon LaRoush and Adolf Hitler. Tabatha only asks for a few more details. Conclusion: the public should see how radical the Republicans really are, they aren't dead they are the Undead Zombies (where have I heard that?) attacking President Obama's great ideas like government healthcare with their defunct ideology. This is a moment for the Progressives to seize! -- Max Blumenthal, "The American Gomorrah"

I see two things going on here:

1) Liberals getting books published to counter the 20 or 30 recent best seller conservative books. Don't buy the liberal books yet. You can get them at the Dollar Store in a month or so.

2) As their usual prelude to another attack on our liberties, one of the first steps is to accuse the right of exactly what the left has been doing and is going to try to do some more.

Tabatha Smiley says, "Remember, keep the faith."

see more about Tabatha at pbs.org

Why can't I see more about Ludvig von Mises at pbs.org or
Walter Williams or Alan Keyes?

Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)

Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.


1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

BHO Underground Organizations Revealed

Glenn Beck appeared on major network TV interviewed by Katie Couric. Ms. Couric made her name when she interviewed Sarah Palin before the election. Sarah Palin didn't come across too well, especially according to her opponents. On Couric's TV show Glenn Beck made the statement that John McCain would have been worse for the country that Barack Obama. Was he suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?

Glenn has long claimed to be independent from any political party. He has stated many times that both the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the problem. That's why Mark Levin seldom has much good to say about him. Mr. Levin is definitely of the opinion that the only chance of salvation from BHO is the Republican Party. There is no time for a third party or any similar movement. Mr. Levin does aspire to a 'new' Republican Party, in exactly the same context that Ronald Reagan called for just that.

I hope that Glenn's remarks to Katie Couric will have the affect of attracting attention to his radio and TV program. There are some horrific aspects of the BHO administration that Glenn is bringing to light. His explanations may lack completeness but he is in the process of figuring it out himself. Who really can sort out the ACORN, Apollo Alliance, TIDE, HUD, SEIU, etc. connections when those connections were intentionally hidden. There apparently are dozens of semi-secret, underground organizations that have seemingly legitimate front groups. The front groups receive government funds and non-profit status while furthering the aims of their underground controllers. George Soros, according to Glenn (and a lot of others) is behind most of it. The aims of these underground orginizations is unadultarated communism.

By the way, we do not want communism and all that it implies. If you do not know what it implies, there is much written on the subject. You should find out before we give it a try. It took the USSR 70 years to unwind so far and they still have a ways to go. (It took tens of millions dead too in case you hadn't heard.)

I certainly don't get it but I know I don't like it. I hope people with the time and resources will dig deep in this manure pile. People who understand the politics, history, and methods of communism could have fun with this. Mostly, they need to keep talking. The BHO organization will of course not sit still but will counter attack. The alternative press is bound to be the next target number one.

See the following:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

New Target for Hate and Takeover: Wall Street

A method of the revolutionary left seems to be to accuse conservatives and Republicans of some imaginary wrong, then some time later, they actually do what they had accused the conservatives of doing. Then when they are confronted, their defence essentially is: Bush did it first. Aside from being intellectually repugnant on several levels, this is generally a lie. Is it that we are so jaded by hearing the fraudulent complaints of the left, that like Pontus Pilot, we ask, "what is Truth?"

We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.

BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.

There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.