Friday Funny – Seriously- Featuring Michael Moore

by Mr. Bob | 9:06 am, March 6, 2009

#tcot Steven Crowder’s weekly video, 2nd Amendment rant

Must have really hurt him…

by Rossputin | 4:03 am, March 6, 2009

It must have really bothered the Discovery Channel news reporter to write an article saying that (1) the planet’s lack of warming can’t be explained by the usual (alarmist) models, and (2) the planet’s current cooling trend could easily last for several more decades.

(see http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html)

The more new studies come out, the clearer it is that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is a hoax.

And for those who don’t read the science, at least you can see that most recent anti-AGW, anti-fossil-fuel protests have been disrupted by snow! Anecdotes are not data, but they can make an impact on the public, especially when they’re so visually appealing as a man wearing a ski jacket, hat, and gloves, standing in a near-blizzard, holding a sign urging us to just say “no more coal”, with a facial expression that my Australian wife might call:

An Algore cult-member “stunned mullet”

Ummm, excuse me, Miss, but what’s all that white stuff on the ground around you during your protest to prevent coal-caused global warming?

The question is will we let President Obama destroy our economy with a cap and trade policy aimed at curbing AGW. We might as well have a “no jumping” policy to try to slow down continental drift.

Actually, I think in a few years, they’ll be begging us to drive more, burn tires, and give our cows extremely flatulence-causing diets as we go through some years of global cooling.

More cap and trade destruction of our economy

by Rossputin | 2:44 am, March 6, 2009

Thanks to Greg Staff for this guest article describing how Obama’s energy policies, particularly cap and trade, will lead to further economic trouble for the nation.

Not only is cap and trade bad for the country, but Obama’s intention to change exploration and production tax laws will severely cripple the oil and gas (O&G) industry.

There is a misconception that the O&G sector is still puttering along quite nicely, despite the drop in oil during the past 8 months from a high of $147/bbl to around $40/bbl. Admittedly, $147/bbl was too high and was driven by over-zealous New York City-based speculation. In fact, many oil companies based their 2009 capital budget on oil in the $50/bbl range. Natural gas has seen a similar slide, and budgets for companies whose primary product is gas were set at equivalent levels ($5 – $6 per MCF). Those prices seemed conservative and in fact many analysts thought they were too low.

With the price of a barrel of oil now fluctuating wildly in the $30 – $45 range (and with some predicting $25), the O&G industry has essentially shut down nearly all speculative project work. Big ticket projects are on hold, and most discretionary spending has come to a screeching halt. Houston is about to enter its most difficult time since the early 80s, when oil had a similar percentage drop. Homebuilding is already at 50% of last year and dropping like a stone. Houston’s unemployment rate is likely to jump 25%, from 5.8% to 7.25% or higher, during 2009.

In the general populace, there is no sympathy out there for O&G (nor is there sympathy for Texas to be found in Colorado); the media and many politicians portray “oil people” as fat cats who take advantage of the “poor.” The O&G industry is an easy target – indeed, “get rid of tax breaks for major oil” has been a common rant of the democrats. However, there can be no doubt, what is bad for the energy industries is bad for America, whether you live in Texas, Colorado, or elsewhere.

Democrats have decided that the condition of the O&G industry isn’t bad enough, so Obama, through the budgeting process, intends to make sweeping changes to the tax code as it relates to O&G, including eliminating the deductibility of intangible drilling costs – IDCs.

To explain IDCs, I offer the following from the Heritage Foundation:

“Intangible Drilling Costs are outlays for non-salvageable capital expenditures associated with a mining operation. Because these items have no salvage value, mining operations (including oil and gas drilling) long have been allowed to treat them as expenses. As such, they could be taken in the year in which they occurred rather than spread out over the productive life of the property. Mining for any of the 105 minerals eligible for the depletion allowance is entitled to the deduction for IDCs. Examples of IDCs from the oil industry include the cost of building a road to the site of an exploratory well, of casings for the well shaft, and of pipelines to gather oil from the site which would be abandoned after the well is depleted.

IDCs are important to the oil industry because they are a principal means of attracting risk capital. Typically this has been done by investors forming a limited partnership with an oil driller. They could then use a portion of the IDC deduction to “shelter” other income. Given the extreme risks of investing in oil production, it is highly unlikely that adequate capital would be available without the existence of such tax incentives.”

IDCs are targeted to be eliminated only for the O&G industry – not for other mining endeavors.

Also, please take a minute to read the below-linked article from the Oil & Gas Journal, to gain a better understanding of how this change and other tax changes will increase our dependence on foreign oil and gasoline supplies. The article explains how the O&G industry is being singled out from the rest of industrial America for additional tax burdens.

http://www.ogj.com/display_article/354687/7/ONART/none/GenIn/1/Divisions-form-over-oil,-gas-provisions-in-Obama-budget/

Full disclosure: I do not work for an oil or gas company. I work for a small engineering firm that designs and constructs pipelines and related facilities. Our company has not been awarded a new significant project in six months, and three large projects by major operators have been canceled. All my company has to sell are man-hours. Once our few remaining in-house projects are completed, layoffs are inevitable. Similar outcomes are already occurring for pipe suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and all the myriad businesses that offer services to the energy industries.

The O&G industries face extreme challenges over the next several years, and additional taxes can only hurt. Obama’s requested energy tax burdens, coupled with cap and trade, will spell doom for much of the domestic industry – especially smaller firms that now do not have sources of capital to fund exploration.

Worse still, because these taxes (and cap and trade) have been submitted as a part of Obama’s budgeting process, it appears the provisions are filibuster-proof. After House passage, only 50 votes in the Senate are needed to pass a budget. This is an “end-around” method to avoid proper vetting of the consequences of these tax increases.

Domestic energy supplies equal security for America. Additional tax burdens on domestic energy sources can only diminish our security and our independence from global supply disruptions.

The “change” we will see from this is even higher prices and even more imports in the future.

Gawd, Heather, Free speech is like, so 1987

by Joss Armstrong | 11:06 pm, March 5, 2009

I mean, seriously, why would we want our constitutional rights when we can do what all the COOL Kids in Europe are doing.  Maybe if we start dressing like them and talking like them and trashing our civil liberties like them . . maybe they’ll let us sit with them at lunch. When I was [...]

How Does a Federal Agency Lose So Many Computers, Cameras, & Forklifts?

by Ben DeGrow | 10:54 pm, March 5, 2009

You hear a lot of talk about waste in government, especially in the bureaucracies at the federal level. But then you see an investigation by my Independence Institute colleague Todd Shepherd (also the founder of Complete Colorado), and that waste sort of comes to life. It becomes a little less abstract.
If the headline doesn’t draw [...]

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory . . . .

by Joss Armstrong | 8:55 pm, March 5, 2009

Busted! And pulled from Playboy’s site, as noted here earlier this week . . . on the 2nd, to be precise. Course, that didn’t stop the folks over at the ever dignified New York Times from running the story anyway.

Study: Union Card-Check Could Cost Thousands of American Jobs

by Ben DeGrow | 6:10 pm, March 5, 2009

A new study released gives you one more reason to write your Congressman and Senators to tell them to vote No on the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
Economist Anne Layne-Farrar’s quantitative analysis finds that “for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration, the following year’s unemployment rate [...]

Bill Ritter Explains Taxes and Fees

by zombiehunter | 5:06 pm, March 5, 2009

Bill Ritter was on Mike Rosen’s show on 850 KOA discussing his recent tax “fee” increase for vehicle registrations.  An older gentleman called in and said the across-the-board “fee” increase is not fair to senior citizens who drive less frequently than other age groups in the population.  He then asks the Governor why not collect [...]

Cold Case – Chappaquiddick?

by Ikonoclast | 3:39 pm, March 5, 2009

Opening up the paper this morning (sad to say, there’s no longer any question WHICH paper), and what greeted my bleary eyes but a photo of Senator Edward Kennedy beneath this quote: “He will be a fugitive, a man on a wanted poster.” In large (20 point?) font, no less, grey-bordered, offset, and prominent, top-middle page [...]

At Least Agnes Sobczyk Didn’t Come Out for a Republican Candidate

by Ben DeGrow | 2:16 pm, March 5, 2009

“And people wonder why union card-check legislation is such a problem for workers” Exhibit # 2863. From the Chicago Sun-Times (via The Union Label):

[United Food and Commercial Workers staff employee Agnes Sobczyk] said she passed a letter to a co-worker detailing her concerns about State Rep. John Fritchey, the candidate the union has endorsed to [...]

More from the Democrats

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 12:35 pm, March 5, 2009

I got another email from the Democrats. This one is from Jen O’Malley Dillon, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee.

Nuclear weapons lab loses 67 computers

by Mr. Bob | 12:01 pm, March 5, 2009

SB 228 a Sure Way to Lower Colorado’s High Economic Freedom Ranking

by Ben DeGrow | 9:50 am, March 5, 2009

Sean Paige (the American Contrarian) points readers to a recent study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University that shows Colorado ranks 3rd among the states in economic freedom.
Apparently, statehouse Democrats, along with the occasional useful Republican, strongly feel Colorado ranks too high. How else do you explain Senate Bill 228?
One of the [...]

Honk!

by Rossputin | 8:45 am, March 5, 2009

The Tennessee Republican Party gets the award for the best bumper sticker of the year.

(Here’s the LINK for the mail-in order form, or you can order online HERE.)

(Note: I had to narrow the image to get it to fit on my web page, but if you click HERE or on the image, you can see it in full size.)

Michael Bennet Can’t Be Counted On to Challenge Obama’s Wasteful Spending

by Ben DeGrow | 11:35 pm, March 4, 2009

Colorado’s newly selected U.S. Senator Michael Bennet is seeing his chances to stand up as an independent-minded, moderate Democrat slipping away. Even a group of 14 Senate Democrats (including Indiana’s Evan Bayh) now have emerged to say “enough is enough” with Barack Obama’s destructive massive intervention in the U.S. economy – his pork-laden, wild spending [...]

Update on HB 1238 – Civil Forfeiture

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:13 pm, March 4, 2009

Since my original post earlier today on this bill, the hearing date has since been changed.

An update from our friends at CCJRC follows. The hearing has been delayed, in no small part because people have expressed their displeasure with this horrible piece of statist legislation.

Several people have asked who is responsible for the bill. The sponsor is Rep. Joe Rice, D-Glendale, and the co-sponsor is Rep. Brandon Shaffer, D-Boulder,

I sent each member of the Judicial Committee an individual email that read:

Dear Representative [insert name]:

It seems to me that the rights and liberties of law abiding, private citizens erode away further every day. From the “Patriot Act” to the erosion of our Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure, the power of the government over our individual lives grows and grows.

HB 09-1238 would further erode the rights and liberties of citizens in favor of the government.

I know you are aware of both sides of the argument. I merely write as a citizen
urging you to come down on the side of the individual, and not on the side of an
ever expanding government.

Thank you.

David K. Williams, Jr.

========= Update from the CCJRC follows =====

HEARING DATE FOR FORFEITURE BILL HAS BEEN CHANGED!

NOTE NEW DATE:  March 16, 2009 at 1:30pm in House Judiciary Committee

We wanted to let you know that HB 1238, the asset forfeiture bill that CCJRC is opposing, is NOT going to be heard in House Judiciary Committee tomorrow, March 5th.

The bill sponsor, Rep. Rice, has requested a later hearing date because he is working on a substantial amendment to the bill as introduced.   As soon as we have more details about the specific changes he is making, we will let you know.

It is possible to kill this bill.  Your calls and emails are making a difference.  If you haven’t had a chance to call legislators, please do so before March 16^th.

So far we have heard from the following members of the House Judiciary Committee that they OPPOSE HB 1238.  If you contact them, please thank them for their opposition and their commitment to preserving due process and property rights.

Rep. Claire Levy (D-Boulder), chairman – 303-866-2578, claire.levy.house@state.co.us

Rep. Dennis Apuan (D-El Paso), 303-866-3069, repdennisapuan@gmail.com

Rep. Bob Gardner (R-El Paso), 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us

Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-Denver), 303-866-2910, joe@joemiklosi.com

Rep. Sal Pace (D-Pueblo), 303-866-2968, sal_pace@hotmail.com  

Rep. Mark Waller (R-El Paso), 303-866-5525, mark.waller.house@state.co.us

 

We do not yet know the positions of the following members of the House Judiciary Committee.  If you contact them, please urge them to OPPOSE HB 1238.

 

Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver), vice-chairman – 303-866-2959, ehmccann@comcast.net

Rep. Lois Court (D-Denver), 303-866-2967, loiscourt@msn.com

Rep. Steve King (R-Delta), 303-866-3068, steve.king.house@state.co.us

Rep. Ellen Roberts (R-Archuleta), 303-866-2914, ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us

Rep. Su Ryden (D-Arapahoe), 303-866-2942, su@suryden.com

We have also added three more supporting organizations to the opposition:  Progress Now, 9 to 5, and The Road Called Strate have all signed on as well.  There are now over 30 organizations that oppose HB 1238 

Also, in the last alert the phone numbers for Rep. Beth McCann and Rep. Sal Pace were incorrect.  Sorry about that.  The correct phone numbers are (above). 

========

Ok, so maybe Fascist is Too Strong a Word . . .

by Joss Armstrong | 6:48 pm, March 4, 2009

After all, fascist Nazis were all about hate and intolerance.  Never has there been a more tolerant,  equal-opportunity loving party then the Democrats, right? Wrong. Read it.  Read all of it.    My mom grew up in Miami during the Civil Rights movement. Race riots broke out a few blocks from our house as late [...]

It’s not about the “left” versus the “right.”

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 5:32 pm, March 4, 2009

That linear paradigm does not withstand scrutiny.

It’s really about “the state versus you.”

The nominal “left” and the nominal “right” both will use the state to force citizens to behave in ways they happen to favor.

Force is wrong. Therefore, statism is wrong. And it doesn’t matter which direction it comes from.

This test illustrates the point: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Let freedom ring.

Protect your rights. Fight HB 09-1238.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 3:53 pm, March 4, 2009

From my friends at the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition:
====================


Action Alert – Oppose HB 1238 (civil forfeiture)

Scheduled for hearing before House Judiciary Committee – Thurs 3/5pm at 1:30pm

Please forward this action alert to any of your friends and family that value due process and property rights. The Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial in opposition to HB 1238. To read it, click here:
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/bill_49055___article.html/colorado_house.html

HB 1238 is opposed by a diverse, bi-partisan coalition including:

Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, Independence Institute, ACLU,
Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Association, Colorado
Progressive Coalition, Pikes Peak Justice & Peace Commission, The Center for
Justice, Peace & Environment, SAFER Colorado, Pendulum Foundation, Rocky
Mountain Peace & Justice Center, Metro Community Church of the Rockies, Drug
Policy Alliance, Colorado Libertarian Party, Empowerment Program, Alexandria
Temple, National Lawyer’s Guild-Colorado, Law Offices of Phil Cherner, Sensible
Colorado, Colorado CURE, Cynergetics Institute, Kilmer, Lane and Newman, Youth Transformation, Charities House Ministries, Montview Presbyterian-Peace & Justice Taskforce, New Foundations Nonviolence Center, Left Hand Book Collective, Turnabout, Surrounded by Recovery

What is “civil forfeiture?”

Civil forfeiture is used by law enforcement to seize personal property (real estate, cash, jewelry, etc.) they believe was used during the commission of a criminal offense or is proceeds from criminal activity. When property is seized, prosecutors then file a civil forfeiture action against the property and, if the prosecution prevails, the property owner loses all right, title and interest in the property.

Current forfeiture law requires that:

In most cases, a person must be convicted of a criminal offense before their property (cash, real estate, cars, etc.) can be forfeited for being involved in or proceeds of criminal activity.
Law enforcement is required to submit an annual forfeiture report to Dept of Local Affairs.
These changes came about pursuant to the passage of HB 02-1404 in the 2002 legislative session. HB 02-1404 was sponsored by (then) Representative Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) and (then) Senator Bill Thiebaut (D-Pueblo). HB 1404 was a bi-partisan effort that passed in the House on a 51-11 vote and passed the Senate on a 23-10 vote. HB 1404 also received editorial board support from the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Grand Junction Sentinel, Colorado Springs Gazette, and Durango Herald.

WHAT HB 09-1238 WOULD DO:

Erodes reasonable protections for property owners by repealing the requirement that someone be convicted of a criminal offense before their property can be forfeited. (In a civil forfeiture action, a property owner does not have 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination nor the right to counsel).

Alowing for forfeiture even if the owner didn’t know that the property was used in violation of the law under the theory that he/she “reasonably should have known.”

Repealing the requirement that the plaintiff prove that the property being forfeited was instrumental in the commission of an offense.

Removes any transparency and accountability by repealing all forfeiture reporting requirements and repeals the prohibition on transfer of forfeiture cases out of state court when local or state law enforcement were the seizing agency, with limited exceptions.

CONCLUSION:

Current law ensures that forfeiture actions are fair and that property owners have due process without undermining law enforcement’s ability to use forfeiture as a legitimate tool. Current law also brings the revenue generated from asset forfeiture into an appropriate budget process and provides accountability while removing any appearance of impropriety. HB 09-1238 repeals these fundamental principals of fairness and due process. It also creates an unacceptable profit motive for law enforcement.

Please contact the following House Judiciary Committee members and urge them to vote NO on HB 1238. Please contact them before the hearing on Thursday 3/5.

House Judiciary Committee Members:
Rep. Claire Levy (D-Boulder), chairman – 303-866-2578, claire.levy.house@state.co.us
Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver), vice-chairman – 303-966-2959, ehmccann@comcast.net
Rep. Dennis Apuan (D-El Paso), 303-866-3069, repdennisapuan@gmail.com
Rep. Lois Court (D-Denver), 303-866-2967, loiscourt@msn.com
Rep. Bob Gardner (R-El Paso), 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Steve King (R-Delta), 303-866-3068, steve.king.house@state.co.us
Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-Denver), 303-866-2910, joe@joemiklosi.com
Rep. Sal Pace (D-Pueblo), 303-966-2968, sal_pace@hotmail.com
Rep. Ellen Roberts (R-Archuleta), 303-866-2914, ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us
Rep. Su Ryden (D-Arapahoe), 303-866-2942, su@suryden.com
Rep. Mark Waller (R-El Paso), 303-866-5525, mark.waller.house@state.co.us

====================

I wrote a simple request and sent it by email to each of the Representatives listed. It says

Dear Representative [insert name]:

It seems to me that the rights and liberties of law abiding, private citizens erode away further every day. From the “Patriot Act” to the erosion of our Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure, the power of the government over our individual lives grows and grows.

HB 09-1238 would further erode the rights and liberties of citizens in favor of the government.

I know you are aware of both sides of the argument. I merely write as a citizen
urging you to come down on the side of the individual, and not on the side of an
ever expanding government.

Thank you.

David K. Williams, Jr.
xxxx S. Beeler Street
Denver, CO 80231

303-xxx-xxxx

Bill Menezes Has a Man-Crush on Me

by Jon Caldara | 1:45 pm, March 4, 2009

As I have mentioned before, Tim Gill’s plaything Bill Menezes, of the paid-to-be-hyper-sensitive Media Matters, sends me the oddest little nasty personal emails.  I can only come to one conclusion – he’s got a man-crush on me.  I’m flattered and suppose I understand a bit.  I had the same feelings once for John Entwhistle, bass player [...]

A quick note to Governor Ritter

by Rossputin | 12:43 pm, March 4, 2009

Dear Governor Ritter,

I strongly urge you to veto the unconstitutional, budget-busting Senate Bill 228.

Democrats may enjoy increasing spending when the rest of us are cutting back, but you have a duty to protect and defend the state constitution.

I realize you have abandoned that oath on prior occasions, but I hope that you will have some sort of epiphany, either that you have a specific responsibility to defend TABOR, whether you like it or not, or a political realization that if you continue to allow government to grow like this, you will be a one-term governor.

—————

For more info about SB228, see this Denver Post article:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11822643?

And for the text of the bill, see:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/17876F425F145B90872575540059F38C?Open&file=228_eng.pdf

I URGE ALL COLORADO FISCAL CONSERVATIVES TO DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO PREVENT THE RE-ELECTION OF DON MAROSTICA IN 2010. MAROSTICA REPRESENTS EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH REPUBLICANS THESE DAYS, AND IS A POSTER CHILD FOR WHY THE GOP HAS EARNED SUCH A SOUND BEATING AT THE POLLS IN THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS.

Democrat Evan Bayh takes Democrats to task on spending

by Mr. Bob | 9:30 am, March 4, 2009

from the Wall Street Journal , Congressman Bayh defects from the party line. Will he be the first of many? #tcot #stimulus

This week, the United States Senate will vote on a spending package to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 is a sprawling, $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largess.

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.
The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year’s levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither. READ THE REST

Major Hat tip to my favorite blog, the HolyCoast.

“Union in Practice” vs. “Union in Theory” Highlights Card Check Danger

by Ben DeGrow | 7:53 am, March 4, 2009

Update: Face The State has more, including Colorado WINS’ rude treatment of state representative Amy Stephens.
As teased last night to our handful of Blog Talk Radio listeners…
If I try to come up with something witty, you can leave it to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency to come up with something even wittier.
A few [...]

Economic fascism defined…or at least discussed

by Rossputin | 3:16 am, March 4, 2009

Over at the Gang of Four blog, I’ve had a reader tell me that I should not have used the word fascism because fascists have killed a lot of people. I had another say I didn’t explain myself well enough in response to him.

So, not just for the edification of those commenters but also because this will become an increasingly important issue going forward, I’d like to offer a definition/description of economic fascism, to represent what I mean when I use the term.

When I speak of fascism in an economic context, I am not speaking of swastikas and jackboots. I am referring to the basic fascist principle of the subjugation of private enterprise to the service of the state.

Two paragraphs from the Wikipedia entry on “Economics of fascism”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Fascists considered the economy to be of little importance, and did not have clear economic views. One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening. Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported. Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals. Long-lasting fascist regimes (such as that of Benito Mussolini in Italy) made drastic changes to their economic policy from time to time. Stanley Payne argues that common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Most of those paragraphs strike me as an accurate depiction of Obama’s economic policy agenda so far. Again, I am NOT claiming that Obama is completely fascist. I don’t think he’s particularly racist, for example. And I don’t think he’s really a nationalist; indeed, I think there’s part of him that agrees with his wife in not being proud of this country. In mindset, he is clearly more of a socialist than a fascist. But in practice, his proposals for health care and energy are substantially fascist, with some elements of socialist wealth distribution thrown in.

What I mean is that he is not proposing to have outright elimination of private ownership of hospitals or power plants, but that he is proposing to give government effective control of them to make sure they do what he thinks they should. It is “private” property in name only; property ownership without property rights.

Private property rights include several specific rights regarding one’s property: The control of how it is used (or not used), the profits or other benefits that come from the property (net of its operating expenses), the right to dispose of (sell, gift, etc) the property, and the right to keep others from occupying or using it.

Obama is clearly attacking at least one of these rights in both health care and energy with his proposals, as the operators in these industries will lose substantial control over how their businesses are operated and how the profits are distributed.

Here’s one more interesting article on the subject:

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html

And while I’ve linked to these before, they’re worth another look:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/12/we-are-all-illiterates-now/

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/14/were-all-fascists-now-ii-american-tyranny/

I don’t expect to convince liberal readers, but I hope that some of this reading will at least make my viewpoint clearer to those who don’t think I’ve explained it well enough, and to make clear that I won’t be deterred by straw man arguments or implications that I’m comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin.

Will Colorado Democrats Really Line Up and Bow to Big Labor on Card-Check?

by Ben DeGrow | 11:49 pm, March 3, 2009

Is Colorado’s Democratic Congressional delegation really going to play Pavlov’s dog to Big Labor officials?
News came out earlier today that Colorado Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey has agreed to co-sponsor – just as U.S. Senator and former Congressman Mark Udall did in the recent past – the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — aka card-check. [...]

Playboy Exposes Koch Libertarian Right Wing Conspiracy

by T.L. James | 11:30 pm, March 3, 2009

The now memory-holed article at Playboy making the rounds would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic. Did you know that Republicans are masters at astroturfing (creating fake “grassroots” organizations), distributing their message via numerous interlocked new-media organizations, and turning out crowds on command to protest the latest target of their hate? Did you know that [...]

The Dems need your money.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 6:41 pm, March 3, 2009

	David – [BlueCarp note: Nice touch with the personalization.] Given what we’ve accomplished together this past month, the difference between our party and Republicans leaders couldn’t be any clearer. [BlueCarp note: Translation - "We implement Statism with a smile, they do it with a smirk."] As President Obama noted yesterday, we’ve done more to advance health care coverage in this last month than we have in the last decade. [And it's all FREE]. As a result of expanding SCHIP, 11 million children are now guaranteed health care. [And did we mention this is all FREE?! No one has to pay actually pay for it!] Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we’ve made unprecedented investments in health care, education, renewable energy, and transportation. [And by "investing," we mean spending your money on industries you are smart enough to avoid. You can say "good-bye" to that investment faster than Bernie Madoff's "investors" lost their money.] That Recovery plan will also create or save 3.5 million jobs and jump-start our economy through projects that will repair America’s crumbling infrastructure. [Because digging ditches and filling in them in is productive.] Make a donation of $5 or more now and keep our party strong as we continue to show America what real leadership can accomplish. That’s a far cry from what Republicans leaders have been up to. [Really can't argue with that. It took eight years for the Republicans to run up a deficit Obama doubled in 60 days] Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against the Recovery plan. Instead, they’re following Rush Limbaugh, who last week reiterated his hope that President Obama fails. [If the Republicans can't disassociate themselves from Rush, they deserve whatever they get.] And yesterday, after doing the right thing and denouncing Limbaugh’s comments, the chairman of the Republican National Committee called Limbaugh to apologize. Following Rush Limbaugh and the failed attack politics of the past — as Republicans are doing — is not the kind of leadership that’s going to get America back on a path to strength and prosperity. [It's going to take a centrally planned economy. It has always worked so well in the past. Right?]So it’s going to be up to us to lead the way. Make a donation now [Not really necessary, just let your kids and grandkids do it. That's our real plan!]so that we can continue showing what real leadership [Like Che Guevara. And Sean Penn.] can do for America: http://www.democrats.org/leadingtheway Thanks, Gov. Tim Kaine
	Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003 Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.

Limbaugh Addresses Nation

by Mr. Bob | 5:38 pm, March 3, 2009

Limbaugh’s speech to CPAC. I am sure you’ve heard about it but may not have had time to watch it, it is worth it.
11 parts, here is part one, click on the video twice to go to YouTube and see the rest.

Ritter Raises Taxes…again

by Mr. Bob | 5:01 pm, March 3, 2009

Tuesday market thoughts

by Rossputin | 3:18 pm, March 3, 2009

On Tuesday, the stock markets put in another dismal performance, with all major indices closing down on the day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 6726, down 37 points, about 20 points above its low and 125 points below its mid-day high. And immediately after the bell, futures are trading substantially lower, as if the Dow were down another 25 points or so. The market closed at levels last seen in October, 1996.

Technology stocks were slightly stronger, with the Nasdaq down only two points, but also much closer to its daily low than high.

One thing to keep in mind is that financial stocks are mostly so inexpensive now that changes in their prices have less impact on the averages (other than the equally-weighted DJIA) than they used to. In other words, the recent destruction in the market represents a lot more than just sell-offs in banks, investment banks, etc.

And now Barack Obama, who has essentially never been an investor, is putting in his two cents.

It’s stunning to hear Obama talk about the market’s “fits and starts”, and its “bobbing up and down”, given that it’s basically been a one-way market for all of 2009, with far more and far larger down days than up days.

Obama is just proving that he doesn’t have the slightest clue about how finance really works, nor interest in learning…which explains a lot about his ability to so casually support policies which are frontal assaults on already weak markets and a reeling economy.

Here’s Don Boudreaux’s reaction:

Editor, Foxnews.com

Dear Editor:

President Obama today offered investment advice, declaring that “What you’re now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it” (“Obama: It’s a Good Time to Buy Stocks,” March 3).

Having no expertise at investing, Mr. Obama’s must believe that living in the White House imbues him with magical powers of insight. Persons much more experienced at investing than Mr. Obama are mostly selling rather than buying – a fact that suggests that Mr. Obama’s arrogance overwhelms his abilities. What’s next? Will he offer chef Mario Batali tips on making soufflés? Instruct Bruce Springsteen on writing music? Advise Joe Torre on the intricacies of baseball?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

As I write this, futures have dropped further from the above paragraph. If the market were still open, it would now be at its low for the day.

Have Obama and Geither not noticed that every time they put forward a policy or explain one (as Geither tried to do today with the budget), Americans lose billions of dollars?

Have liberals not noticed that it’s not just evil capitalists who are seeing their life savings, their hopes and dreams for retirement, their rainy-day nest eggs, wiped out?

At what point will the liberal media stop covering for the man behind the curtain, the man who so many think has magical powers but who in reality is a charlatan. At least the Wizard was basically harmless…

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers