Really, My Leftist Friends, You Can't Be That Stupid!

As an advocate of the free market and laissez faire, I am often lectured by leftists who rant that unregulated capitalism is a danger to good and honest people. "We need government," they tell me, "to force industrialists to be fair and to prevent big business and corporations from becoming monopolists and robber barons who exploit the common man and nefariously enrich themselves and their crony friends."

Well, leftists should be pleased. We live in a country which is now overrun by federal regulators and government bureaucrats who inspect, manage, audit and control virtually every aspect of our lives. Are we better off as a result? Quite the contrary. It is our government politicians and bureaucrats who have become the robber barons. For evidence, all we have to do is examine the news.

Take the case of Tony and Heather Podesta, a high-powered pair of rich, Washington lobbyists who are currently in divorce court. The Washington Free Beacon explains their lifestyles and their political connections in an article titled, Divorce Beltway Style.

The Podestas -- consummate Washington insiders -- reap a fortune suckling at the teat of the Washington cash cow. If their last name sounds familiar, it's because Tony Podesta's brother John has been a powerful, Washington insider since 1997, when he served as President Bill Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff. John Podesta went on to found the Center For American Progress, an influential, progressive think tank which -- you guessed it -- specializes in government policy creation. According to Wikipedia John Podesta is the current chair of that organization and also serves as Counselor to President Obama.

Because of their political and family connections Tony and Heather Podesta are able to profit by playing both ends against the middle. According to the Beacon article, here's how they do it:

As government expands, extending its reach to every aspect of business, every sector of the economy, private citizens and corporations require sherpas to lead them through the mountains of regulations and tax provisions, to discover exemptions and special favors and other forms of relief or favoritism to improve the bottom line. And who better to act as sherpas than the relatives of the Democrats who impose the regulations and tax provisions in the first place, who better than the lively proprietors of a family business operating in the luxurious and morally uncomplicated world of the caste of limousine liberals who dominate politics, culture, news, and finance.

And the profits the Podesta's glean from the federal cesspool are substantial indeed:

In 2009, with the inauguration of Obama and the dawn of unified Democratic control of Washington, business boomed. Revenues at Tony’s firm close to doubled, and revenues at Heather’s firm increased by 50 percent. The money has continued to roll in. The Podesta Group had some $13 million in lobbying income in 2013, sporting clients such as Lockheed Martin, Wells Fargo, U.S. Airways, Walmart, and the National Biodiesel Board. Heather Podesta + Partners made some $4 million, lobbying on behalf of health companies, the American Beverage Association, Brookfield Power, DeVry University, and others. A portion of that money was recycled, contributing to Democratic campaigns, opening up avenues of influence: Tony gave some $45,500 in 2013, all to Democrats; Heather some $95,798 to Democrats, Democratic committees, and liberal groups.

Nice work if you're connected enough to get it. Reportedly, the Podesta's own a multi-million dollar mansion in Washington, DC and have an apartment in Venice, Italy which they visit "up to a dozen times a year." They both run with the most powerful crowd in DC. The problem is you and I pick up the tab for their extravagances by paying higher prices for the products made by their crony capitalist clients and higher taxes for the huge bureaucratic establishment the Podesta's lobby and patronize.

Tony and Heather Podesta are merely a single example of the millions of lobbyists and federal bureaucrats and politicians who every day feed off of each other and the American consumer and taxpayer. Here's another example. The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) describes itself as "a small agency with a big mission: To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations."

Why then is the BLM currently attempting to force a Nevada rancher to stop grazing his cattle on federal land? According to the MailOnline, the rancher, Cliven Bundy, claims his family has been using the range land to graze cattle since the 1870's. The BLM claims it is trying to evict the rancher in order to protect the habitat of an endangered species of desert tortoise.

But knowledgeable locals tell a different story:

“It is not about turtles it is about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining weapons grade minerals for industry… they want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it’s close to I-15 and the Bundy’s have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for over 20 years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years. It is prime real estate not worthless desert. There is a natural gas pipeline going through there and lots of water under ground too. Somebody connected to a military corporation is using political power and the BLM to muscle those people out.”

Imagine that! Federal politicians and regulators using their monopoly on the use of force and coercion to manipulate the real estate market in favor of crony friends, family and political campaign donors! Apparently, such practices are business as usual for the federal government, especially in Nevada.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Nevada Senator Harry Reid has a long history of helping his pals in the real estate business at the expense of the American taxpayer and those on the other side of the political fence:

It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.

The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters -- all in Nevada.

As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.

What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.

Maybe it's merely a coincidence that Cliven Bundy lives in Clark County, Nevada, the place where Harry Reid cut his political teeth as a freshman in Congress many years ago. Maybe it's merely a coincidence that Reid was accused on more than one occasion of abusing his legislative power to benefit his family and friends. In fact, maybe it's merely a coincidence that, according to the Los Angeles Times, Reid and his family have their fingers in just about everything that goes on in Nevada:

So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.

Furthermore, the Los Angeles Times reports, Reid's power over land interests in Nevada is extraordinary:

As a senator, Reid exerts a degree of power over local affairs that is unknown in most states.

That is because the federal government owns 87% of Nevada's land; to a large extent, Washington decides whether cities and businesses can expand and where economic growth may occur. Even local zoning may become a federal matter.

Over the years, Reid has used legislation to move federal land into private hands and private land into the public realm. He says he has done so to preserve scenic and environmentally sensitive areas while freeing up more land for urban growth.

Such was the case with the Clark County legislation.

Does Reid have anything to do with the BLM trying to evict Cliven Bundy's cattle from grazing land in Clark County, Nevada? I don't know if he does or doesn't, but I do know that the current head of the Bureau of Land Management is Neil Kornze, a Nevada native who, MailOnline reports "served previously as a senior adviser to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid."

No, I wouldn't be surprised if Reid is involved. After all, it wouldn't be Reid's first rodeo. According to Wikipedia:

A series of investigative reports in the Los Angeles Times[43][44][45][46] suggested that Reid had introduced legislation and imposed pressure on regulatory agencies to advance the business interests of his close friend Harvey Whittemore, a Nevada attorney-lobbyist who contributed heavily to Reid's campaigns and leadership fund and who employed Reid's son Leif as his personal attorney. With Reid's help, Whittemore was able to proceed with construction of a $30 billion planned golf course development, Coyote Springs, a project heavily criticized by environmental groups for reasons including its projected effects on several endangered species.

Just imagine how exploited we'd all be if Senator Harry Reid and the BLM weren't around to protect us from potential robber barons like Cliven Bundy.

Oh, by the way, according to the Gateway Pundit various private militia groups from around the nation are assembling in Nevada in support of the rebellious rancher.

Which reminds me of another story in the news this week. Reportedly, Attorney General Eric Holder disclosed the fact that his Department of Justice is looking into ways to make guns "safer." His department has requested "$382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for 'gun safety.'”

Meanwhile, "President Barack Obama’s budget proposal also calls for $1.1 billion to “protect Americans from gun violence—including $182 million to support the president’s ‘Now is the Time’ gun safety initiative.”

Holder said he wants to force gun owners to wear a "gun control bracelet" on their shooting wrist so that he can make sure that only "lawful" gun owners are able to make their guns shoot. Holder expects both sides of the gun control debate to support his gun control bracelet idea.

I am amazed that Holder is so out of touch with both the American public and the US Constitution that he would go public with such a boneheaded idea. Surely he knows that any gun control bracelet smart enough to make a gun shoot is also smart enough to prevent that gun from shooting.

Law enforcement is already able to shut down your automobile in an emergency by remote control. A bill has already been introduced in the US Congress giving the federal government the authority to shut down the internet in a time of national emergency. Is it beyond the pale to imagine that the federal government might use a gun control bracelet to effectively disarm dissidents in a national crisis, perhaps a crisis like the one developing in Clark County, Nevada? (I am assuming of course that the government would require private citizens to wear the gun control bracelet and not members of the government's myriad swat teams.) 

Surely my leftist friends are smart enough to see through Holder's tomfoolery.

On the other hand, if leftists are foolish enough to believe that Harry Reid and his bureaucratic pals are protecting Americans from robber barons rather than acting like robber barons themselves, maybe they are stupid enough to believe just about anything.

Genesis: The Story Of Job Creation

IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth and made himself Maximum Leader of both, and called Himself "Obama."

When Obama began creating the heavens and the earth, America was a shapeless, chaotic mess, with the evil Spirit of Bush brooding over the darkness.

Then Obama said: "Let there be light." And Solyndra appeared. And Obama was pleased with it, and divided Americans into Greens and Skeptics. He made the Greens "winners," and the Skeptics "losers." Together with the Greens, Obama forged the first day of fundamental change.


And on the second day, Obama rested.

Then Obama said: "Let the dark vapors of America separate to form "rich" and "poor." And let the poor be above and the rich below. And let there be class warfare between the two. This all happened on the third day.



And on the fourth day, Obama rested.

Then Obama said: "Let the safety net beneath the poor be expanded by $-Trillions so that unprecedented deficits will emerge." And so it was. And Obama named the $-Trillions "stimulus," and the safety net "student loans" and "food stamps" and "unemployment compensation" and "American Opportunity Tax Credit" and "Race to the Top" and "Pell
Grants" and "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act."  And Obama was pleased. And he said, "Let the stimulus burst forth and produce every variety of lobbyist bearing seed money for My re-election, and let this seed money produce handsome fund raisers in my image like George Clooney." And Obama called the fund raisers "bundlers." And so it was, and Obama was pleased. This all happened the morning of the fifth day.

That afternoon Obama rested again.

Then Obama said: "Let the too-big-to-fail bankers rise from the slime of the earth and join the poor in the heavens." He ordered the US Treasury to rain money upon them. Obama said: "Let them now make loans to small businesses and write mortgages to individuals in need." But the loathsome bankers tossed meaty bonuses to themselves and told Obama to pound sand. Obama was not pleased. So He smote the bankers, seized General Motors, fired its CEO and gave the car company to Richard Trumka who built the Chevy Volt, the most expensive Fire Hazard in the short history of creation.

And Mrs. Obama rested.

Then Obama gazed upon 20-million illegal aliens and called them "undocumented immigrants." And so these migrants could vote for Him, He called voter ID laws "racism." And so these new constituents could be fruitful and multiply, He performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes and created a cap on their health insurance costs but no cap on their medical benefits. He called this miracle "ObamaCare" after himself. And then He created money out of nothing and called it "debt," and piled this debt in mountains up to the sky. And then Obama created patsies to pay off that debt and called these patsies "children."

And Mrs. Obama was pleased, so she rested again.

But He was not yet finished. Obama said: "Let there be a Surge in Afghanistan!" And the Taliban quaked in fear. Then He created radar and worked under it to nullify the 2nd Amendment, sending thousands of machine guns to Mexico. This pleased Obama...until Solyndra went bankrupt and "Fast and Furious" made the New York Times. Obama was unhappy.


So he rested again.

Then Obama said: "Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal." And Navy Seals appeared. And Obama used them to smote Bin Laden dead in a gutsy move. And Obama was pleased again and, feeling his oats, He promised Putin better things to come. He basked in the warmth of the Arab Spring and created the Buffett Rule. And Obama was pleased with what he had done.


So Obama rested again.

And finally Obama said: "Let there be men and women made in the image and likeness of their Maker." He called the first man "Trayvon" and the first woman "Julia." And then He said: "Let there be hope and change in My new world, and an end to white racism." And he called this new way of thinking and acting "fairness."


And to celebrate this new world of fairness, Obama rested again.

But the new men and women He had created in his image quickly grew restless. They Occupied Wall Street, set fire to businesses and broke bank windows.







So Obama gathered his thoughts as he rested once more.

Then, at the eleventh hour on the seventh day, in order to occupy the Occupiers and to help himself get re-elected, Obama fiddled with Labor Department statistics and created...JOBS!

[Apologies to the Author of The Book and to those who took the photos that I found in Google Images.]

Dreams From My Founding Fathers: Plugging Loopholes In The Constitution

In his new book, which I highly recommend, Principled Action: Lessons from the Origins of the American Republic, James D. Best writes that the "Founders wanted to bequeath to posterity a straightforward government that inhibited the abuse of power." This seems a simple and easy observation.

The authors of our Constitution, men like Gouverneur Morris and James Madison, were by and large truly noble and honest individuals, grounded in the principles of property, freedom and peace. They suffered the consequences of the grave abuse of power first hand. They were well acquainted with the problem of regal tyranny. They had found in the philosophy of the Enlightenment their answer to it. Clearly, their purpose was to fashion a written Constitution designed to safeguard the rights of individuals and to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, the centralized American authority from being corrupted by tyrannical power.

Unfortunately, there were other Founders, men like Alexander Hamilton, who were less concerned about the dangers of centralized power. Like many today who strive to create the strongest federal government possible, Hamilton came from New York, a large, populous, northern, coastal state. As is the case today, the debate between those who advocated and those who disavowed a strong federal authority was furious, lengthy and bitter. 

The Federalists believed in supplanting the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution that created a strong, central government with many checks and balances. The Anti-Federalists argued against the adoption of this new Constitution. They feared that the strong central authority created by the new Constitution would soon begin to abuse its powers. They advocated for continued and vigorous states' rights.

One of my favorite Anti-Federalist writers was "Brutus," the pen name used, presumably, by Robert Yates, a politician and judge who, ironically, also hailed from New York. Brutus argued that the new Constitution's language would in time lose its original force and intent, and open the door to unlimited, federal power and authority. He saw the Constitution as an enabler of tyranny in the future. Indeed, he pointed out that, while certain of his fellow Founders did not advocate tyranny, they openly argued for the kind of unlimited federal power and authority that was certain to be abused. 

In Anti-Federalist Number 33 Brutus takes a rhetorical shot at Hamilton:

This same writer [Hamilton] insinuates, that the opponents to the plan promulgated by the convention, manifests a want of candor, in objecting to the extent of the powers proposed to be vested in this government; because he asserts, with an air of confidence, that the powers ought to be unlimited as to the object to which they extend; and that this position, if not self-evident, is at least clearly demonstrated by the foregoing mode of reasoning. But with submission to this author's better judgment, I humbly conceive his reasoning will appear, upon examination, more specious than solid. The means, says the gentleman, ought to be proportioned to the end. Admit the proposition to be true, it is then necessary to inquire, what is the end of the government of the United States, in order to draw any just conclusions from it. Is this end simply to preserve the general government, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the union only? Certainly not. For beside this, the state governments are to be supported, and provision made for the managing such of their internal concerns as are allotted to them. It is admitted "that the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government," that the objects of each ought to be pointed out, and that each ought to possess ample authority to execute the powers committed to them. [emphasis mine]

Brutus is not inferring or exaggerating Hamilton's position. In Federalist Number 23 Hamilton writes:

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the NATIONAL FORCES.  [bold type mine]

Ostensibly, Hamilton is arguing that in matters of the military defense of the nation the powers of the federal government should be unlimited. However, Brutus worried that such unlimited powers created a slippery slope, and unchecked power would soon flow into other areas of the federal authority. Brutus argued that the slippery slope was created by three particularly vague clauses in the proposed Constitution. James D. Best writes about these very same clauses from the perspective of the 21st century:

Their [the Founders] written words remain clear. Certain politicians and judges have skewed their meaning to  do what they want, but most of the harm can be attributed to three clauses:

1. The necessary and proper clause,
2  The commerce clause,
3. And the general welfare clause.

It is nonsensical to assert that the Founders meant for any of these clauses to license general national authority.

No one can dispute that Brutus' fears have materialized in modern America. The clauses in question have been used by the central, federal government to expand its power, a power that it now inserts into virtually every corner of the lives of individual Americans. Brutus feared that the federal government would expand and keep its near absolute power over the people by abusing its authority to tax. These fears too are today realized.

In Anti-federalist Number 32 Brutus excoriates the open-ended "power to lay and collect taxes" given to the federal government by the proposed Constitution:

To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a newspaper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property. It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books. It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cider, beer, etc., and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life, whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of these general terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States, Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise collectors to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the community, [and] eat up their substance. . . . [emphasis mine]

According to one historian, the "Federalist writers never responded" to Brutus. How could they? His logic was impeccable; his prescience, undeniable.

The question now is: What can be done today, if anything, to plug these loopholes in our most important, founding document, the fundamental law of the land?

Like Brutus, I believe the crux of the problem in our Constitutional republic today is the federal government's abusive "power to lay and collect taxes" in order to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." A tyrannical central authority in Washington is further enabled by the odious "necessary and proper" clause in Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Therefore, an amendment might be drafted which modifies the language of the Constitution to eliminate the phrases "general Welfare" and "necessary and proper." But such an effort would fail miserably and I do not recommend it.

The edifice of modern Progressivism, which is simply a pseudonym for tyranny because it makes a shambles of the principles of private property and individual liberty, is built upon the foundation of the vague clauses in question. Progressives would undoubtedly resist any effort to eliminate them from the Constitution with all their collective fervor and might, not to mention mendacity. Who today can craft a persuasive argument that the Congress of the United States should not be able to make all laws "necessary and proper" in order to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States? In the context of the progressive and collectivist social philosophy which has overwhelmed today's American population, such an argument would bepolitically dead on arrival. The debate for such an amendment would be short-lived and almost immediately laughed off.

I propose a new Amendment to the Constitution that would not modify the ends of our Constitution, but would amend the allowable means by which the ends can be attained. I will not attempt to frame my proposed Amendment in the proper legal language. The legal eagles can take care of that chore. However, the simple gist of my Amendment is as follows.

Currently, by my best estimate, about half of all federal spending is in transfer payments. Essentially, this is federally facilitated redistribution of income, i.e., the government takes via taxes from some individuals and gives via stipends, subsidies and other payments to other individuals, businesses and the like. In short, some Americans send the checks to the US Treasury and other Americans, in turn, get checks from the US Treasury. My Amendment proposes to eliminate the middleman, i.e., the US Treasury.

The way it would work according to my Amendment is that every individual American who is authorized by Congress to receive a transfer payment check would be given the name, address and phone number of a specific individual American taxpayer or taxpayers. It would then be the responsibility of the transfer payment recipient to personally collect their payment directly from their designated tax provider.

The beauty of this system is that it undercuts any progressive argument against it. My amendment doesn't prohibit the central federal authority from providing for the "general welfare." It merely specifies the means by which such "general welfare" must be provided. What argument, then, can the progressives make against it?

Will they argue that it is immoral to take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need? This is exactly what they advocate now and what is happening now in this nation.

Will they argue that the means my Amendment specifies are too harsh, too in-your-face for polite society? Will they argue my Amendment is sure to create social unrest and conflict? But why would this be the case if the people genuinely approve of and believe in the principle of income redistribution?

I don't expect my Amendment to be officially proposed or ratified. However, I do expect the debate over my amendment to be very, very enlightening for a lot of Americans.

I Wasn't Too Far Off...

...When I wrote a couple of hours ago:

As you will recall Maximum Leader Bush wore a flight suit and gloated in front of a bill board-sized "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier. I wonder if tonight on TV Maximum Leader Obama will don camo fatigues and face paint with his halo superimposed on a blimp flashing the message: "Huh rah!"

What a pathetic, pandering, posturing, parasitic, psychotic, walking Narcissistic Personality Disorder!!

Venting Some Pent Up Frustrations!!!!!!

REGARDING HIS TWO-TERM PRESIDENCY, Bill Clinton tells David Feherty: "I loved it. I loved every day of it. It’s a good thing we had a two-term limit — I’d have made them vote me out or take me out in a pine box." This is the difference between a modern progressive and a patriot and founding father of yesteryear. George Washington did have the opportunity to serve as President for life, but he intentionally stepped down after two terms. Washington wanted to drive home the point that ours is not a regal Presidency. Washington was a farmer and businessman. In short, he had a life!! He understood the importance of keeping his day job. He knew professional politicians would become arrogant and full of themselves. Bill Clinton, FDR and Maximum Leader Obama are everything George Washington was not. They think they know what's best for individual Americans. Washington knew this country was founded so individual Americans could decide for themselves what's in their own best interests. (via Weasel Zippers)


MAXIMUM LEADER OBAMA LIES ONCE AGAIN when he tells America at a news conference:

I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and take out bin Laden. I assume that people meant what they said when they said it — that’s been at least my practice.

That's rich, Maxie. You want us to believe that you meant everything you said when you were running for President in 2008? That your Presidency won't be business as usual? That the health care debate will be on C-Span? That you'll keep lobbyists out of your administration? That you'll balance the budget by 2012? That kind of stuff? What a batch of vainglorious BS! God, I sure to hope Mitt Romney's ad people are paying attention. (via Weasel Zippers) 


SPEAKING OF LIARS, NANCY PELOSI WAS CAUGHT RED-TONGUED by "former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose Rodriguez." Pelosi vehemently insisted a while ago that she was never briefed by the Bush administration about its policy of waterboarding inmates at Gitmo. Then, later, she doubled down saying that she was told waterboarding was not being used. The Washington Post reports that Rodriguez proves Pelosi is a bald-faced liar in his new book, "Hard Measures:"

...Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”

“We explained that as a result of the techniques, Abu Zubaydah was compliant and providing good intelligence. We made crystal clear that authorized techniques, including waterboarding, had by then been used on Zubaydah.” Rodriguez writes that he told Pelosi everything, adding, “We held back nothing.”

I heard Rodriguez interviewed on the radio today by Sean Hannity and Rodriguez repeated his allegations about Pelosi, adding that he has written records to prove he is telling the truth. (via Weasel Zippers)


LOOK SHARP! MAXIMUM LEADER IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE NATION TONIGHT and, apparently, tell us again just how wonderfully decisive and gutsy he was in ordering the Navy Seals to off Bin Laden and bury him at sea! If you want the real story about how Bin Laden went down, read "Manhunt," by Peter Bergen. He appeared on Laura Ingraham's radio show today and basically said Obama's role was small. The operation was conducted by a couple of generals, one in the situation room and another in Southwest Asia. As you will recall Maximum Leader Bush wore a flight suit and gloated in front of a bill board-sized "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier. I wonder if tonight on TV Maximum Leader Obama will don camo fatigues and face paint with his halo superimposed on a blimp flashing the message: "Huh rah!" (via Weasel Zippers)

SPEAKING OF MAXIMUM LEADERS OBAMA AND BUSH, they seem to have a mighty close relationship since Obama is constantly giving Bush credit for everything that's gone wrong during the Barack Obama four-year tour in parasite D.C. Any bets Obama doesn't give Bush any credit tonight on TV for all the information gathered and all the counter-terrorism military mechanisms set up by the Bush administration? Hell, he probably won't even mention the Navy Seals. The Seals have been on his case lately, saying that the President's decision to nail Osama was a "no brainer." Obama certainly won't give any credit to Jose Rodriguez who told Hannity Monday that Obama wouldn't have been able to pull off the Osama killing if it weren't for waterboarding that Obama disapproves of.

I WATCHED A PROGRAM LAST NIGHT ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL that described the July 20, 1944 attempt by German officers to assassinate Adolph Hitler. Code named "Valkyrie," the plot failed. The program outlined the bloodbath that followed, as Hitler massacred hundreds of plotters. What I found more relevant to our day and age was the Nazi treatment of the Jews. For several years the Nazi propaganda machine slammed the Jews day and night, alleging that they were the reason for Germany's hard times. As we all known, making the Jews the scapegoat for all of Germany's economic and foreign policy problems worked too well. The propaganda was orchestrated by the top German Maximum Leader and his trusted Mini-Leaders, like Goebbels. The propaganda and scapegoating reminded me of what the left and Maximum Leader Obama are doing to America's most successful citizens, the 1%. I'm just saying...

LASTLY, TO ALL THE MAY 1ST OCCUPY WALL STREETERS who are clogging up America's streets, creating mayhem, setting fires, breaking store windows and calling for revolution. All I can say is: "Bring it on, morons!"

No Laughing Matter

The other night Maximum Leader played stand-up comedian at the White House Correspondents' dinner. All good fun, right?

Wrong!

Actually this kind of thing turns my stomach. These black tie affairs in which celebrities mingle with the parasite-in-chief always remind me of the gap between the American royalty in Washington and everyday Americans slaving away in flyover country.

At the dinner Maxie said:

Anyway, it’s great to be here this evening in the vast, magnificent Hilton ballroom — or what Mitt Romney would call a little fixer-upper. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, look at this party. We’ve got men in tuxes, women in gowns, fine wine, first-class entertainment. I was just relieved to learn this was not a GSA conference. (Laughter.) Unbelievable. Not even the mind reader knew what they were thinking. (Laughter.) [emphasis mine]

For the uninformed, the infamous "GSA conference" took place in Las Vegas in 2010. Fox Business describes it as follows:

The government agency, which oversees federal real estate, is now under fire for wasting more than $822,000 in taxpayer money on a lavish conference in 2010 at a luxury resort in Las Vegas for 300 federal workers that included penthouse suites, a mind reader, a clown, a bicycle training exercise, and expensive catering -- spending that was mocked by the GSA’s own workers in videos.

I don't mind the President of the United States making a fool out of himself in front of a bunch of star-struck correspondents. I DO mind Maximum Leader making a fool out of me and all the rest of us American taxpayers.

I took that joke personally, Mr. Maxie!

What the GSA did in Las Vegas was a travesty, a slap in the face to every taxpaying American. The Washington parasites keep sucking the life out of hardworking Americans by demanding more and more tribute. They say they need the extra tax money for urgent and important needs to serve the common good. They say there is no room for responsible spending cuts. And then the employees they are charged to supervise party away the money they are charged to protect and care for...And Maximum Leader thinks the whole thing is funny enough to mock with a bad joke!

My mother used to tell me that some things are no laughing matter. Well, the joke's on you, Mr. Maximum Leader. As I pull the lever in November for your opponent I will think about your line at the correspondents' dinner and I'll enjoy the last laugh!

I hope a huge majority of American voters do the same!

Atrocities Prevention Board Should Investigate Obama

In August of last year, Samantha Power, "Obama's anti-genocide advisor," unveiled the newly created "Atrocities Prevention Board." On Monday of this week Maximum Leader Obama praised the new Board as he "pledged endless support for Israel" in a speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. He also announced that the individual who will chair this Board is none other than Samantha Power.


How nice. How convenient. Atrocities the world over will now be managed and controlled by the world's foremost expert on atrocities from a brand, spanking new building in Washington, D.C. that cost US taxpayers at least $15-million. How much Ms. Power will earn as the atrocity-eliminator-in-chief is unknown. But you can bet you'll be paying her salary.

As near as I can tell, the new Atrocities Prevention Board will be funded as part of the "United States Institute of Peace (USIP). According to Wikipedia, "President Ronald Reagan signed the United States Institute of Peace Act that established the Institute in 1984." According to a Wall Street Journal article published Feb. 16, 2011 Congress has invested $720-million in the USIP over the past 25 years. The article says: "According to its own estimate, the institute expected about $54 million from taxpayers in 2011." Yet, peace eludes the world in 2012!


Don't expect better results from the new Atrocities Prevention Board. In a blurb on its website that describes the new Board, the USIP makes the following candid and breathtakingly arrogant pronouncement:

The creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board will not result in the immediate cessation of ongoing atrocities.

You know what? I don't think the Board's creation will result in a delayed cessation of ongoing atrocities. In fact, I don't believe the Board's creation will result in slowing down the creation of new atrocities. Call me cynical, but all I think this new Board will do is provide Samantha Power with a new soapbox and an evermore extravagant lifestyle...plus she and her husband, animal rights activist and walking turd, Cass Sunstein, will have more to crow about on the Washington cocktail circuit.


In Maximum Leader's speech plugging the creation of the Board and Power's appointment as Mini-Leader of it, he said that "national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people [emphasis mine]." This is true, of course, as far as it goes. However, Maximum Leader seems to think that a sovereign country slaughtering its people grants the United States a license to violate that country's sovereignty when Maximum Leader wants to. He said as much in his speech:

That does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there’s an injustice in the world.  We cannot and should not. 

Good self-control there, Maximum Leader. Only invade if it makes political sense to you. Moreover, you wouldn't want to overextend our military.


Mini-Leader Samantha Power has no problem violating national sovereignty when the urge strikes her. Here she is below advocating an "external intervention" into Israel with a "a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."

Whoa. She sounds like George Orwell, peace through war, and all that rot.


In his speech, Maximum Leader reminded us of something he has already said and done on the subject:

Last year, in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge, I made it clear that "preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America."

Do the American people really believe that policing the world's atrocities is a "core national security interest" and a "core moral responsibility" of the United States of America?


Do they really believe supporting the USIP to the tune of $54-million a year is constitutional, not to mention a wise use of their tax dollars? And this cost doesn't even include the cost of the military interventions themselves.


Are you willing to send your children to the heart of the African continent to be blown apart by Islamic nutjobs bent on slaughtering their people?


But perhaps your children won't have to occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles away. Maybe Power will want to send them to occupy a nation closer to home...like America itself.


Why not?


According to the Christian Science Monitor, Maximum Leader's new Atrocities Prevention Board will "help generate action against human-rights calamities." Those calamities entail using "new technologies – such as cellphone-tracking software and Internet monitoring – to commit human-rights abuses."


Whoa, again! Cellphone tracking and internet monitoring? That's what the federal parasites in Washington are doing to us! According to an April 9, 2012 article at Infowars.com by Bill Quigley:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times recently reported that cellphones of private individuals in the US are being tracked without warrants by state and local law enforcement all across the country.  With more than 300 million cellphones in the US connected to more than 200,000 cell phone towers, cellphone tracking software can pinpoint the location of a phone and document the places the cellphone user visits over the course of a day, week, month or longer. (Source)

In the same article, Quigley states:

The National Security Agency (NSA) collects hundreds of millions of emails, texts and phone calls every day and has the ability to collect and sift through billions more.  WIRED just reported NSA is building an immense new data center which will intercept, analyze and store even more electronic communications from satellites and cables across the nation and the world.  Though NSA is not supposed to focus on US citizens, it does. (Source)

Moreover, tomorrow the US House of Representatives votes on the sweeping CISPA bill that threatens internet freedom by allowing our federal parasites to gather your private information off the internet without obtaining a search warrant. 


And we all know about the infamous internet kill switch, that would allow the Maximum Leader of the United States to shut down the internet in times of national emergency (whatever that means).    


So by all that's right in the world Samantha Power and her Atrocities Prevention Board should advocate a UN invasion of the United States to prevent a continuance of such "human right abuses."


But don't bet on it. Just as it's impossible for a black to be racist, it's impossible for the Maximum Leader of the United States to be a human rights abuser. 


The truth is the Atrocities Prevention Board is merely another conceit of the federal parasites who occupy Washington, DC. It and it's parent organization, the absurd USIP should be defunded immediately.


If Maximum Leader, Samantha Power and company want to salve their do-gooder egos by playing world peacemakers, let them do it on their own dime, not mine.

Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon..."

No he wouldn't, Maximum Leader. If you had a son, he'd look like this:

 h/t to American Phoenix

Read this great article, written presciently May 28, 2008: Our First Marxist President?

The Wages Of Sin

Over at Political Realities LD Jackson has posted an excellent essay: "Barack Obama – Dishonesty In Cushing."

Jackson describes Maximum Leader Obama's recent campaign stop in Cushing, Oklahoma:

I'm not sure if I have ever seen such a blatant and dishonest attempt by any politician to spin the facts and weave a web of lies around the truth."

LD is too much the gentleman to say it plainly. I've never been accused of being a gentleman, so I'll say it: Barack Obama is a bald-faced liar.

This is not news, of course. Anyone who follows the Drudge Report or Weasel Zippers or Fox News is exposed to a daily barrage of lies dripping from the flapping lips of Maximum Leader and his cronies. Naturally, leftists will say these news sources are tainted with the bias of conservative hatred and dissembling, which is itself a lie.

The point is lying has become the modus operandi of Maximum Leader and his administration. Why? It's due to a variety of moral hazard perpetrated by the mainstream media. If those charged with reporting the news fail to report lies, it becomes that much easier for liars to tell lies. They are enabled to lie with impunity.

The Bible tells us that "the wages of sin is death..." In this case it is not the officious liar who will suffer death, i.e., the loss of eternal life, but our society.

Here's a case in point, reported again by the nefarious evil-doers at Weasel Zippers and CNS News, "Pelosi: Obamacare Allows You to Quit Your Job and Become 'Whatever:'"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,”  a “writer,” a “musician”--or “whatever.”

Of course, Pelosi's statement is a blatant lie. Don't get me wrong. Obamacare does allow Americans to "quit" their job, do "whatever" and still get health insurance and health care, at the expense of the rest of us slobs who remain working and paying taxes. Pelosi's lie is that this type of welfare statism is what the "Founders had in mind."

If pressed by the media, Pelosi couldn't produce a single word from a single Founder who endorsed this type of "liberation." But Pelosi's lie will never be challenged by a member of the mainstream press. However, that same press will see to it that Pelosi's lie is broadcast to every nook and cranny of the country multiple times.

At her press conference Pelosi added that under ObamaCare: "You won’t have to be job locked." Again, this is not a lie per se. It seems the goal of every piece of legislation that issues forth from Obama and Pelosi is meant to free Americans from the hell of being "job locked," meant to allow them the freedom to do "whatever" and still eat well and live well...at the expense of others. This last part is the part the media and Pelosi and Maximum Leader never emphasize. It is their lie of omission.

To be fair, Maximum Leader and company have been truthful about their intention to soak the 1% of super-rich Americans with new taxes to pay for their job unlocking schemes. The lie is that the numbers don't add up. Confiscate all the wealth of the evil one or two or three percent and you come up short a few trillion dollars!

No matter. What's the harm of another unreported and unexposed lie here and there? The wages of this sin is hardly the death of society.

Wait. The death comes later, when those who believe the lies cast their votes for Maximum Leader and company, when those eager constituents demand that this newly elected, wondrous group of liars actually reproduce the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

Nancy Pelosi articulated the lie better than anyone. She said that ObamaCare incorporates...

"a cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit."

Don't laugh, you Doubting Thomases. It's essentially what Christ said at the sermon on the mount, isn't it? A cap on your tithes, but no cap on the free fish and bakery?

We all know the Founders said basically the same thing at Independence Hall a couple of hundred years ago when they were founding this great nation: A cap on your job-locked, pioneering misery, but no cap on the neat stuff your new government can extort from your rich bastard neighbors.   

What a great country! What could possibly go wrong?

More Hints Of Obama's Economic Illiteracy And Propensity To Demagogue

(All links via Weasel Zippers)

Obama: “Do Not Tell Me That We’re Not Drilling, We’re Drilling All Over This Country”

The money quote: "There are a few spots we’re not drilling. We’re not drilling in the national mall. We’re not drilling at your house." By "we're not drilling" Maximum Leader Obama means, of course, that private oil companies are not drilling. The US government doesn't drill for a drop of oil. The implication is that private oil companies are exploiting every known oil reserve in this country, which is a lie. Obama might also have said that that "we're not drilling" on public lands in Alaska or in areas of the Gulf of Mexico wherein significant oil reserves are known but where drilling is prohibited by the US government.

Not News: Obama Rips Republican Predecessor – News: 19th President Rutherford B. Hayes…

Maximum Leader criticizes Hayes for not seeing the potential of Alexander Graham Bell's newly invented telephone. Politico explains: "Obama was speaking about the need to be forward-thinking in developing new sources of American energy — and how "unnamed" Republicans running for a "certain office" had positioned themselves against alternative energy." Maximum Leader apparently can't distinguish between innovation demanded and supported by the free market and innovation subsidized by a dictatorial government with dollars coercively hijacked from the free market. Coincidentally, Rutherford B. Hayes presided over this nation when government was a small fraction of the size it is now, when the private market was vastly freer and when the nation experienced the greatest advancement in prosperity of individuals in its history. No, Mr. Maximum Leader, this was not mere coincidence.

New CBO Report: Obamacare May Cause 20 Million To Lose Coverage…

Am I wrong? Didn't Maximum Leader tell us during the ObamaCare debate that no one would lose coverage?

No, I guess I'm not mistaken. I'm mindful also of what another, political demagog said during the ObamaCare debate, Ms. Nancy Pelosi: Obama care means...

"a cap on your costs, but no cap on your benefit."

Sheer economic brilliance!

Obama Mocks Republicans As “Flat Earth Society” For Not Buying Into His Failed Green Energy Strategy…

Maximum Leader knows so much better than the rest of us freely acting by expressing our wishes by means of our dollars spent in the private market. The implication is not only are Republicans ignorant Luddites and troglodytes, but so is the American consumer, in short, you and I.  

Obama’s Solution To Soaring Gas Prices: “Set Up A Task Force To Look Into Speculation”…

Ah, that old chestnut! First it was disreputable and untrustworthy doctors who'd amputate a patient's foot rather than treat his diabetes because Medicare pays more for amputation than preventative care. Then it was the evil insurance companies who had to be kept honest by the creation of a "public health insurance option" in ObamaCare. Now it's the robber baron oil companies and commodity speculators that must be held in check by our oh so virtuous and honest Maximum Leader and company. How did we ever survive without his help?  

CBO: Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers $1.76 Trillion Over 10 Years…

Oops. This is, as Zip tells us, "only $820 billion or 87% more than we were told when the law passed." Chalk it up to the price of economic ignorance and demagoguery.

Obamanomics: Government On Pace For First $1 Trillion Yearly Deficit…

Oops again. Well, it costs scads and scads of borrowed money to "fix" the mess created by that pesky law of supply and demand working in the free market. I'm sure things will work out better for our children now that Maximum Leader has bitten the bullet and saved us from our own free market foolishness.

Renaissance Man About To Fix Stupid!

What is it Ron White says? Here's a reminder...

Au contraire, Mr. White! Yes you can! You can fix stupid, and here's "Renaissance Man" who is about to prove it...

You see, the White House (no pun intended!) just announced a billion dollar government program guaranteed to "improve the nation’s manufacturing industry" which, apparently, is too stupid to improve itself on its own.

How is our modern day Leonardo da Vinci going to fix stupid in US manufacturing?

He's going to build a national "network of up to fifteen Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation around the country, serving as regional hubs of manufacturing excellence that will help to make our manufacturers more competitive and encourage investment in the United States."

Wow! I have to say that's super impressive. Remember, this is the same Renaissance Man who fixed stupid in our American energy industry earlier this year for a measly $14-million. Remember? In Florida? Earlier this year? Maximum Leader said: "You’ve got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing all right."

Our course we'll be all right. He's our Renaissance Man. If he can't do it, no one can!

Well, now it's on to bigger and better things than the energy crisis. The Renaissance Man's new plan will "encourage insourcing, support investment in our manufacturing sector, and create good jobs here in the United States." We'll be all right. He's got it figured!

(More good jobs created as an added bonus! I like that too.)

Renaissance Man could hardly contain his excitement yesterday as he explained his $1-billion plan by exclaiming: “These are going to be institutes of manufacturing excellence where some of our most advanced engineering schools and our most innovative manufacturers collaborate on new ideas, new technologies, new methods, new processes..."

KISS, right? Keep it simple, stupid! Collaboration!?! (Frankly, the plan is so simple I'm kind of surprised American manufacturers didn't think of collaborating with our most advanced engineering schools all by themselves. That's why the federal government needs to tax these bozos through the nose. Smart guys in Washington can make better use of private industry's capital every day of the week and twice on Sunday.)

Anyway, Renaissance Man and company aren't dilly-dallying around waiting for Congress to fund the plan. "We’re not going to wait," he said confidently. "We’re going to go ahead on our own later this year." Apparently, the White House found $45-million gathering dust in the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation. They're using it to set up a pilot program.

Why a pilot program, you ask? Don't they know what they're doing?

Hey, don't fret. Renaissance Man's brilliant ideas don't come to him fully fleshed out! However, his plan for fleshing out his plan is even more brilliant: competition. You know, like "American Idol" for inventors! “We’re going to choose the winner of a competition for a pilot institute for manufacturing innovation," Renaissance Man explained excitedly, "help them get started. With that pilot in place, we’ll keep on pushing Congress to do the right thing because this is the kind of approach that can succeed. We’ve got to have this all across the country.”

Duh! It never occurred to the stupid manufacturing bigwigs themselves that competition just might bring out the best in them?

Renaissance Man says his new proposal is sure to bring about a new golden age of American innovation, a "new renaissance of American inventiveness," as he put it.

No doubt! Remember, this is the same genius who in January of last year appointed a bunch of high powered, big business executives to "to counsel him on job creation." That little group has been up and running for over a year now. It's called the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

And we all know how that's working out.

Events May Determine Obama's Fate

There are eight full months between now and the November, 2012 elections.  A lot can happen between now and then, some good, some bad, when considered from the prospective of the President's reelection. The crazy thing is that these events take on a life of their own. The consequences could be devastating one way or the other. In many respects, it doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate. This is why I find it difficult to take politics too seriously at the moment.

EVENTS THAT COULD ASSURE OBAMA OF A SECOND TERM

1. A Well-Timed QE3  Nothing is more important in a Presidential election year than the state of the economy. And nothing has more influence on the economy than the actions of the Federal Reserve. FED Chairman Ben Bernanke released a trial balloon this weak hinting that the FED may have to engage in another round of pump priming. A well-timed, massive injection of new money into the financial system could give the economy a boost that would resemble a substantial and permanent recovery. Stocks would take off significantly. Employers would be quoted as thinking about hiring again, or delaying layoffs, especially in the financial industry and among government contractors.

The intervention would have to be massive. A corresponding jump in price inflation would be the natural consequence. However, if the Fed intervened in June, the consumer wouldn't feel the pinch in prices until after the election. It wouldn't be the first time a well-timed Fed intervention affected the outcome of a Presidential election. Whether there is collusion between the Fed and the White House is another question altogether.

2. A Well-Timed National Emergency  What kind of emergency? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe a war with Iran that is precipitated by Israel. The President could say he did all he could to prevent such a war, but Israel's action left the US no choice but to become involved.

Another possibility is a terrorist attack on the US, or Chinese adventurism in the Far East. Who knows. The possibilities are endless. Fear and patriotism have swayed elections in the past.

Summary  Both of these events carry with them an "I got Bin Laden!" opportunity for the President. Mr. Obama is not shy about claiming credit where credit is not due. A faux-economic recovery or a swift and decisive intervention by the American military or first responders would be easy pickings for the President and the mainstream media who are essentially shills for the incumbent.

EVENTS THAT COULD SWING THE TIDE AGAINST OBAMA

1. New Taxes Sink The Economy To A New Low   In 30 days the US will Have The World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate. Moreover, at the end of December, 2012 the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire. Too late to affect the economy before the election? Hardly. Ending or extending the Bush Tax Cuts are likely to be a huge election issue. The Democrats will demagog while the market places its bets. The end result will be an anchor on the economy. In the meantime, key new Obamacare taxes are set to kick in at about the same time. Business owners will continue to sit on their hands and the medical industry will anticipate them. This all adds up to another economic anchor weighing down Mr. Obama.

2. The Birth Certificate Controversy May Explode  This week Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County released a report that "concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery." Arpaio's efforts will continue. Moreover, there are a handful of "birthers" around the country who won't let this issue go unchallenged in the courts. Who knows? Arpaio or an obscure federal judge somewhere might just spell Obama's Waterloo. Stranger things have happened.

3. Obama's Elusive Paper Trail May Catch Up With Him  Reportedly, the late Andrew Breitbart "was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign." Breitbart's compatriots have promised the videos will be released shortly. If the videos show conclusively that Mr. Obama was well-acquainted with terrorist radicals William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and not merely "neighbors" who barely knew each other (as the President has said), the President and his cronies will have to do some fast talking. The damage is sure to be palpable.

Moreover, these things have a tendency to snowball. Perhaps someone somewhere has access to the President's college writings or knowledge of some damning associations or activities in Obama's hidden past. Who knows what information may come back to bite the President.

4. The Truth About Bin Laden's Death May Surface  Unlike the issues above, about which I continue to remain skeptical, I'm convinced there is something very fishy about Bin Laden's assassination and burial at sea. So far the media has bought the official administration story hook, line and sinker. However, the facts suggest questions that have never been asked, much less answered. No administration in history would have been given such a huge benefit of the doubt.

Think about it. The purported mastermind of the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil, the alleged head man of Al Qaeda, America's enemy number one in the ten year old "War on Terror," one of the reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the sole reason Americans have been dying in Afghanistan for ten years -- this diabolical enemy is killed by an elite Navy Seal team, his body is hurriedly evacuated, and is immediately buried at sea in order to comply with the rites of Islam.

No pictures. No autopsy. No nothing. Some on the left believe the Bush administration masterminded the attack on the World Trade Center and then covered it up. If it is possible for a Presidential administration to do that, it is possible for a Presidential administration to fake Bin Laden's demise for political benefit.

Andrew Breitbart won't break this story. There is no "Woodward and Bernstein" in today's media. But somewhere someone just might come clean and sink Mr. Obama's bid for a second term.

5. "Fast and Furious" and Solyndra: Obama's Watergate?  Time is getting short, but these are two more events that may blow up in the President's face. They fail the smell test. All that is required is someone somewhere to turn over the right rock and expose the roaches. Unlikely, but still possible. And potentially fatal.

Summary  Are all of the above mere pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theories? Do any of these events have a snowball's chance in hell of ever materializing in the real world?

Mr. Obama has the media in his pocket. He gets away with blatant hypocrisy and absurdity. He blamed Bush for rising gas prices but denies blame for skyrocketing gas prices during his watch. With a straight face, he proposed "algae" has his solution to the nation's energy problems. His Press Secretary, Jay Carney, lies with impunity. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, numerous Democrats in the Senate and the House, not to mention leftist talk radio hosts, make absolutely partisan, absurd and foolish pronouncements with nary a peep reported in the mainstream media. Joe Biden said the Taliban is not our enemy, for god sakes! Carney defended him. And still nothing in the press.

All this doesn't bode well for the game-changing events happening as I've speculated. Still, I wouldn't bet against them. Not in this day and age.

Progressivism = Totalitarian Socialism

Progressives will chastise me for making such a politically incorrect statement. "You're name-calling," they'll say. "You're inflaming passions. You're lying! Absurd! Nothing could be further from the truth!"

Really?

Many advocates of interventionism are bewildered when one tells them that in recommending interventionism they themselves are fostering anti-democratic and dictatorial tendencies and the establishment of totalitarian socialism. They protest that they are sincere believers and opposed to tyranny and socialism. What they aim at is only the improvement of the conditions of the poor. They say that they are driven by considerations of social justice, and favour a fairer distribution of income precisely because they are intent upon preserving capitalism and its political corollary or superstructure, viz., democratic government.

What these people fail to realize is that the various measures they suggest are not capable of bringing about the beneficial results aimed at. On the contrary they produce a state of affairs which from the point of view of their advocates is worse than the previous state which they were designed to alter. If the government, faced with this failure of its first intervention, is not prepared to undo its interference with the market and to return to a free economy, it must add to its first measure more and more regulations and restrictions. Proceeding step by step on this way it finally reaches a point in which all economic freedom of individuals has disappeared. Then socialism of the German pattern, the Zwangswirtschaft of the Nazis, emerges.

Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, 1947

Let's review this week in the news and see what our little, progressive tyrants were working on:

Obama announces new housing refinance plan
Our Maximum Leader was hard at work devising a plan which forces us to pay for our neighbor's mortgage. I can see that. Why can't you?

Obama To Homeowners: "Programs We Put Forward Haven't Worked At The Scale We Hoped"
By the way, this week's plan wasn't Maximum Leader's first attempt and it won't be his last. As Mises writes: "If the government, faced with this failure of its first intervention, is not prepared to undo its interference with the market and to return to a free economy, it must add to its first measure more and more regulations and restrictions."

Obama: I Want An Economy "Where We're Making Stuff And Selling Stuff And Moving It Around"
Notice the operative words in this tyrannical headline are: "I want." Totalitarian socialists know what is best for you and, by God, Maximum Leader is going to see you get it! Good thing totalitarian socialists are benevolent and wise!

Treasury ups auto bailout loss estimate
Oops. Maybe not that wise, just benevolent. We must give credit where credit is due. Maximum Leader did save some jobs which we all realize is Job Number One of Maximum Leaders. It's just a coincidence that the jobs saved were those of UAW union thugs who make a hundred grand a year and regularly vote for Maximum Leader.  

Ener1, Parent of Obama-Backed Green Company, Files for Bankruptcy
Double oops! What happens when one of Maximum Leader's favorite crony businesses stops "making stuff and selling stuff and moving it around?" You the taxpayer are strong-armed into picking up the tab, that's what!

Drip, Drip, Drip: Yet Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids (the third this week!)
Triple oops! If this keeps up the stupid among us may finally realize that this totalitarian socialist is neither benevolent nor wise... ...Naw. Maximum Leader has a blank check from the stupid to fight man-made global warming because it's surely going to be our Waterloo, right?

Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling
Wrong. What's a Maximum Leader to do in the face of such earthly confusion?

ObamaCare’s latest assault on freedom
Go on to bigger and better things. Like forcing Catholics to do his bidding (offering contraceptive and abortion services) regardless of their personal and individual beliefs. Or how about changing the subject...

Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say
How long before Mrs. Maximum Leader is raiding your pantry? Can't happen, you say!

Sugar Tariffs Cost Americans $3.86 Billion in 2011
You're probably right. Banning sugar while at the same time subsidizing its domestic production would even be too nutso for the little sub-Maximum Leaders in Congress, right? There IS one thing consistent in all this craziness: You, the American taxpayer, are being forced to foot the bill!

Bernanke urges caution in overly rapid deficit cutting
Even though Maximum Leader is omniscient and omnipotent, he can't be expected to rule all by himself. He has little mini-totalitarian socialist bureaucrats to help him out. Bernanke is the dictatorial elf in charge of our money. His chief responsibility is making sure that it doesn't lose its value. How much has the price of bread and milk gone up the last few years? ...Really? Gee, maybe that's because for the last few years we've engaged in "overly rapid deficit cutting." Come on, folks. Use your head!

The Great Divorce
We have smart intellectuals in this country to help us do just that: use our head! In this inspired piece of work, David Brooks, the guru savant at the NY Times, gushes about a new book by Charles Murray: "Coming Apart." You remember Charles Murray? The author of "The Bell Curve?" The guy who thinks Jews are more prosperous than blacks because they're naturally smarter?


Brooks says he'll be "shocked if there’s another book that so compellingly describes the most important trends in American society... ...Murray’s basic argument is not new, that America is dividing into a two-caste society."

Brilliant! No wonder Maximum Leader relies on the likes of David Brooks to educate us stupid masses. In classic, totalitarian socialist fashion Brooks puts his finger on what Maximum Leader needs to do next in our best interests: "force" the two castes to be friends:

[W]e need a National Service Program," Brooks writes. "We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a better elite and a better mass.

You see, you stupid numbskulls in flyover country, what this country needs more than anything else is "better" tribes. The way to accomplish this is at gunpoint. Maximum Leader should force all us tribal natives -- those from Yale as well as those from the ghetto -- to spend a few years making nice together on the same playground. Brooks probably wouldn't go so far as to call these playgrounds re-education camps, but what the hell? If it works, who cares what they're called?

So what do you think, boys and girls? Is equating Progressivism with Totalitarian Socialism really jumping the shark or what?