Not Exactly, President.

Here's a snippet from Obama's speech about taking over GM (h/t: Drudge):

Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.

No, WE TAXPAYERS have NOT put up our hard-earned money.

You, working with a corrupt Congress, IGNORED OUR CALLS AND LETTERS OF PROTEST and put it up FOR US. And for our children. And for their children.

Against our wishes.

Quit making this sound like consensual nationalization, Mr. President. It isn't.

As He Signs, a Warning

Pres. Obama will sign that Omnibus spending bill.

Here's a very interesting set of sentences from that article:

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change."

In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.

"More far-reaching change?"

That's a pretty clear statement. I wonder how many will be able to hear it for its promise; if we've been paying attention, we should have a pretty good idea of what he's planning a more far-reaching "departure" from.

Good, Plain Talk

This video touches a lot of subjects; the part I find essential is the socialism part.

The more eyes we open to the evils of socialism, the better off we will be.

Where talking heads have stereotyped anyone with a conservative viewpoint (and Rush Limbaugh, specifically) as being "Hitler," they're becoming Hitler. This guy loses me around 6:45, but pointing out political, societal hypocrisy and misdirection as directly as he does is very gutsy. (huuuuuge h/t: Alfonzo Rachel at Big Hollywood)

Scary Point #2 from Obama's Address: People as a Commodity of the State

Problematic Part 1: How many times Obama said things like "I will not allow," "we will not allow," and "not an option."

Problematic Part 2: The Federal government taking responsibility for citizens' welfare and education "from birth..."

Problematic Part 3: "Put our people back to work" and "ways to keep our people healthy"

The phrase "our people" isn't inherently scary, but when it's used in a context of ownership and supervised or "allowed" activity, it is.

I am a person.

I am not a pet, to be "kept healthy."

I am not a commodity, to be "put to work" as another self-important mortal decides.

And MY CHILD is a person.

MY CHILD is neither the PET nor the PROPERTY of the Federal government.

The only interest they should have in my child "from birth" is that he is protected from those who seek to harm him. And that responsibility is first MINE. The only role the government has is as I grant them.

The President didn't exactly come right out and say it, but his perspective claiming direct governmental responsibility for managing its citizens' life paths recurred throughout his speech; and it was all too evident in his choice of words and his dictation of what he will and will not "allow" or allow to be "an option."

That perspective, particularly in a position of power, is a direct threat to my family and my freedom.

We are NOT pets.

Neither are we a commodity to be employed at the government's will or by its good grace.

The government has no authority to direct my life, or anyone else's, in the interest of "our common prosperity."

Scary Point #1 from Obama's Address: Education

"Encouraged" post-secondary education and "dropping out of high school is no longer an option."

This worries me on several fronts. First, "encouraged" from a socialist means "required." That's mandatory education - not just mandated by the States, but mandated at the Federal level.

That's bad, just on principle.

Additionally, that "no longer an option" point constitutes such an egregious violation of:

1. The idea that we are free to pursue our happiness, however counterproductive or irrational our thoughts may be, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights.
2. Parental rights. How far will this "not an option" extend? Will I - or any parent - retain the right to "drop my child out" of public education by educating them at home? Sure, Obama paid lip service to parental rights later, but he didn't reconcile that with his grand vision of mandatory education duration and content.

Just a few thoughts... I'm trying to break this down into a series so that I (and the discussion) can focus on specific topics.

Moveon.org: Tool of Oppression

Wow. Walt Minnick, "the other Representative" from Idaho (meaning: the Representative from not my district, but Idaho's other Congressional district; although I put it in quotes because he's also the only one of four Federal representatives who ran on a Democratic ticket, and I know some people get really bugged by that, LOL...), voted against Obama's fascist Stimulus bill.

Yes, he disagreed with the Democratic Party "leadership" on a bill. (He didn't even disagree with the basic - I believe, flawed - principle behind it, but rather its untargeted implementation.)

How DARE he, right?!?!

Walt Minnick is doing a great job upholding responsible principles in an oppressive, establishment-oriented environment. For two big votes now. That's hard. And it's even harder for someone who happens to have a "(D)" by his name because of the political machine in Washington.

But he doesn't toe The Party Line! Therefore, the hard left has targeted him. I'm not sure how far the machinery ties extend, (although I have a hypothesis), but moveon.org has gone after this good, decent, responsible man simply for not falling in line with the other party zombies.

Exhibit 1: This ad, which has been all over Facebook for DAYS now:

Exhibit 2: This Google sponsored ad in my Gmail account.

It might be hard to read, and I tried to make it a little bigger so you'd be able to read it, but it says the same thing: "Minnick voted no on jobs." But this time, it tells who sponsored it: moveon.org.

Oh, outrage! (I'd say "oh, joy," but I try to avoid sarcasm.) A dishonest, irrational organization is targeting "not-my" representative because he's voted his constituency and his conscience.

Fortunately, everyone I've talked to is thrilled with him. But we need to gear up to support him against the establishment machinery, because he's on moveon.org's radar now.

He's not a Party Man.

He's not a communist.

He's not a group "conservative," either.

He's independently-minded.

He's exactly the type of representative we need in our Capitol.

And moveon.org is the enforcer of thoughtcrime, of party-man socialist conformance - 'free thought be banned.'

(No, I'm not a prude: I would say "damned" in this highly-appropriate instance, but I figured my play on it fits even better.)

Bailouts Past and Present

Here's a funny article by BBC News regarding whether government bailouts have worked.

And I do mean "funny" - it reads like a stand-up routine. [Any emphases here are mine.]

It lists the US airline industry as a "successful example" of a bailout:

The government received shares in the airlines in return for guaranteeing loans to them and also charged fees for participating in the scheme.

Hmm. "Scheme," indeed! All but a few airlines are still running in the red, if I'm not mistaken... although I see that taxpayers made some interest off the loan. Again, hmm. Should we really feel good about siphoning money out of the private sector?

It only gets better from there!

The UK nationalized Rolls Royce in 1971; a professor comments, "The idea was that the government could later withdraw, but it never did as planned."

Are you laughing out loud yet? Because here's what that segment concludes with: "There is strong evidence that nationalisation leads to lower efficiency," says Professor Pandit.

Then there are statements like this regarding the S&L crisis in the US, by Professor Vaughan Williams: "To get back 80% on what were bankrupt assets could be called a success."

Okay, end of comedy.

Lest you get the impression that bailouts are a 20th century invention, the article ends with what happened during the formative years of our country, in 1792: "With the value of bonds collapsing, the first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton told banks [, which were collapsing after one banker's corrupt scheme had gone awry,] to accept bonds as collateral for loans, which were then underwritten by the government."

Hamilton was a cad and a scheming, power-mongering High Federalist.

He played on honest people's lack of suspicion.

And it's still happening today. Please watch these Secretaries who are being installed. Keep open communication with your representatives and let them know how you feel. It's only through speaking more effectively than lobbyists' money and acting more effectively by voting honest people into office that we will regain control of our government.

Just Keep Spending, Just Keep Spending...

The Senate voted not to withhold the remaining TARP funds yesterday.

At least that's what I *think* the vote meant.

It's a very negative double-negative if ever there were one... especially since Emperor Paulson has been changing his mind about where the first half of the $700B is actually going. But let's nevermind that; if we keep spending, we're sure to hit a good investment sometime, right? Just like digging? Unless we hit, you know, MAGMA instead...

But the likelihood of bursting into flame is only part of our problem. The deeper issue is that it's more of the same fascist, socialist determination from the individuals that we, as a society, have granted (temporary) authority over us... far be it from us to call them on it.

(That's sarcasm - please let your representatives know how you feel and what you'd like them to do in the future!)

Free Speech in Russia

After violently suppressing freedom of the press, Putin is looking to silence ALL freedom of speech in Russia.

Any criticism of Russia's government would be treason, according to a bill he's sponsoring in the Russian Parliament.

Why?

Alexeyeva said the government was pushing the law quickly to head off possible protests resulting from the global financial crisis, which has hit Russia hard.

"The people ruling the government are afraid of the reaction of its citizens to their inability to cope with the crisis," she said.

This is a very, VERY bad thing. Fear on not only the citizens' part, but also the government's, is a powerfully dangerous ingredient to add to an easily-combustible situation.

Let's make sure that we stand up lest the same thing happen here; and pray for our brothers and sisters in Russia.

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Go Around 'Em **Updated**

Here's a story problem for the day:

An automaker - after decades of inefficient operations and government oppression - can no longer keep up with its obligations. Rather than allow them to declare bankruptcy, which works for the airlines every couple of years, government leaders - with the approval of Union bosses - want to give them tax dollars. (Note: Because of the way the government pays for things, those are really future tax dollars.) ...The people object, despite the best efforts of the Legislative branch of government to do it while attaching "strings," so the Executive branch decides to just git 'er done and prepares to give them the money, anyway.

Flat-out-stupid economic policy aside, I'm looking for one good reason why this isn't fascist. Anyone?

(To put this in context, the "Bailout" - which is finally being examined more critically by Congress - was also forced on financial institutions... this isn't the first time government has said, 'we're your new bosses, and we dare you to object.')


***UPDATE #1***
So now the Senators are "un-American" for voting against it, according to Michigan's governor. Hmm. Really? Does that mean it's more "American" to run an industry into the ground? Or is it the regulation that's "American?" Or perhaps the "I'll sit on my duff and produce nothing but continue to be paid during 'retirement'" Union obligations are "American?" Hmm. Maybe he just means "punishing the entire country additionally for three companies' bad business policy under suffocating regulation" is "American," instead.

***UPDATE #2***
And ooh! Here's a good sign: the Fed won't disclose the recipients of the funds from the "first" Bailout. Hmm. Simultaneously, there are massive fraud discoveries. Hmm. I mean, honestly - who would've seen this stuff coming? ;-)