Endorse McCain, You’re Off the Plane

by T.L. James | 9:33 am, October 31, 2008

Gosh, and I thought only the hated Georged W. Bush treated antagonistic press this way:
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS [...]

Well-Heeled Union Lobbyists Flout Law to Oppose Ethical Standards

by Ben DeGrow | 8:57 am, October 31, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News reports on a complaint filed yesterday by Amendment 49 supporters:

Backers of Amendment 49, which would prohibit union dues from being deducted from public payrolls, have filed a complaint with the Colorado secretary of state alleging that an opposing group failed to disclose its intention to campaign against them.
Instead, Coloradans For Middle [...]

Godzilla Loves Amendment 54 and 49

by zombiehunter | 7:45 am, October 31, 2008

Apparently the misleading, contentless mailers with the Firefighter Union Boss, Police Officer Union Thug, and Teachers and Nurses Union BAs  just aren’t enough for Protect Colorado’s Culture of Corruption Future.  Now they’re telling us that if we don’t vote against these amendments, Denver will be destroyed by… GODZILLA!!!! Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page [...]

Boudreaux on Obama’s “Socialism-lite”

by Rossputin | 2:49 am, October 31, 2008

I was tempted to put this in the other “Barack the Redistributor” posting, but it’s such an important article I decided to post a separate link to it.

This article is by Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, one of the best economics departments in the nation, complete with Walter Williams, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan. Don is a non-partisan loather of politicians and does not write this article because he’s promoting John McCain.

One of the main objections I get from liberals when I call Obama a socialist is that his explicit desire for redistribution doesn’t fit precisely in the dictionary definition of the word which revolves more around ownership of enterprises. I have argued that redistribution is such a fundamental aspect of socialism that the liberals’ argument is a distinction without a difference.

My reading of Boudreaux’s article is that he agrees with me.

I’d also like to emphasize a paragraph in the article:

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas’s words.

See “Is Barack Obama really a socialist?”, Don Boudreaux, Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

By the way, Don writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper almost daily and distributes them to an e-mail list. They’re short, to the point, and generally brilliant. If you’re interested in being added to the e-mail list, please let me know by e-mail at rossputin@rossputin.com or by message or comment from this page.

Boudreaux on Obama’s “Socialism-lite”

by Rossputin | 2:49 am, October 31, 2008

I was tempted to put this in the other “Barack the Redistributor” posting, but it’s such an important article I decided to post a separate link to it.

This article is by Don Boudreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, one of the best economics departments in the nation, complete with Walter Williams, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, and Nobel Laureate James Buchanan. Don is a non-partisan loather of politicians and does not write this article because he’s promoting John McCain.

One of the main objections I get from liberals when I call Obama a socialist is that his explicit desire for redistribution doesn’t fit precisely in the dictionary definition of the word which revolves more around ownership of enterprises. I have argued that redistribution is such a fundamental aspect of socialism that the liberals’ argument is a distinction without a difference.

My reading of Boudreaux’s article is that he agrees with me.

I’d also like to emphasize a paragraph in the article:

Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas’s words.

See “Is Barack Obama really a socialist?”, Don Boudreaux, Christian Science Monitor, 10/30/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

By the way, Don writes a letter to the editor of a newspaper almost daily and distributes them to an e-mail list. They’re short, to the point, and generally brilliant. If you’re interested in being added to the e-mail list, please let me know by e-mail at rossputin@rossputin.com or by message or comment from this page.

“Barack the Redistributor”

by Rossputin | 1:41 am, October 31, 2008

On the increasingly prominent subject of Barack Obama’s overt support for income redistribution (i.e. socialism), allow me to suggest the following three columns:

First, an excellent short piece by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Salena Zito:

see “‘Barack the Redistributor‘”, Salena Zito, 10/27/08
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/blogs/fortyfourthestate/show_comments.php?entry_id=3442

Second, from the Wall Street Journal, a broader take on the risk that an Obama presidency poses to our nation’s judicial system and to the fundamental character of our Republic:

see “Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution“, by Steven Calabresi, 10/28/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html?

Last, but not least, this editorial from Investors Business Daily:
see “The Real Obama“, IBD Editorial, 10/27/08
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309999370915090

Gordon Gekko and Barack Obama

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:20 pm, October 30, 2008

Gordon Gekko, Oliver Stone’s evil corporate raider in the 1987 movie Wall Street, said “Greed is good.”

Stone, with his usual subtleness, let us know that, in fact, greed is not good. And Stone is correct.

Greed is bad.

However, somehow the condemnation of greed has morphed into a hatred of profit.

It is as if the upcoming New Great Society promulgated by our next president is an all out attack on profit.

The “windfall” profit made by greedy oil companies must be taxed so that the wealth can be “spread around a little.”

The existence of profit does not equate with the existence of greed. Greed is evil.

But profits keep children fed. Profits pay wages. Profits buy medicine. Profits create jobs.

The government, contrary to the overwhelming belief of our next president and his army of well-intentioned supporters, does not do any of these things.

Government, by itself, does not feed children. It does not pay wages. It does not buy medicine. It does not create jobs.

People confuse the government confiscation of someone else’s profit with government money. The government does not earn its money. The government confiscates money earned by people and uses it to political ends. In some instances, like funding police and national defense, this confiscation is necessary. In most, it is not.

It is easy for the government to dole out largesse when it is doling out money it did not earn.

A faith in the inherent benevolence in the government is as misplaced as Gordon Gekko’s belief in greed.

No, greed is not good. But neither is government largesse.

Any belief otherwise is misplaced.

And we are looking straight ahead at four years of government benevolence. When Obama’s term is up, we will not be nearly as worried about “windfall” profits. There will not be any.

And we will learn, yet again, what happens when there is no profit for the government to confiscate.

Quote of the Day – Hewitt

by Mr. Bob | 12:20 pm, October 30, 2008

This is an astonishing moment in the history of journalism. In the last presidential campaign, an arm of MSM attempted to influence the race by inventing a major story. This time, a different arm is influencing the race by censoring the news.” Hugh Hewitt speaking of the LA Times suppression of news about Obama

Some are saying that 2008 will be known forever as the year the media died.

Believe “Nonsense” Against Colorado Amendment 49? “Don’t Be Stupid”

by Ben DeGrow | 11:30 am, October 30, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News today provides the most systematic deconstruction of the grossly misleading, multi-million dollar Protect Colorado’s Future campaign against 49:

There’s no obligation for political campaigns to be fair, let alone balanced, but there are times when messages go beyond the pale.
Case in point: the advertising, largely bankrolled by labor unions, to defeat Amendment [...]

Republicans For Obama – Whatever

by Mr. Bob | 11:25 am, October 30, 2008

Must see to appreciate.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• JPMorgan Chase’s $2 Billion Trading Loss Results in Calls for More Regulation

  You could see this coming from a mile away: big trading loss = call for more regulation.

• Eric Fehrnstrom is Behind Romney Campaign’s Tactics
• Additional Child Tax Credit Scam Costs Taxpayers Billions
• The DoJ Wants to Track Your Smartphone Without a Warrant
• Romney Expands Staff to Include More Establishment Elites
• Senate Votes to Pump More Money into the Post Office
• French Elections: Austerity, No! More Spending, Yes!