The British Called--They Want Their Guns Back

...when you let the government have too much control...you begin to lose more rights than you bargained for. Since we use Great Britain as a model for other events (healthcare, etc.) why not use them as an example as what WILL happen if you give the politicians too much control.

An Inconvenient Truth

Recommended Reading, 1/31/09

Obama's Economic Tightrope--Governor Mark Sanford's (SC) take on Obama politics and state bailouts.

A Warning to the President--Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

George Obama Arrested--Just because this headline is interesting...

Peace Rules as Polls Close in Iraq--isn't the headline enough? Thank Goodness for Obama!

GOP Governors Support Bailout--I think my favorite quote is Jindal's..."I'd have voted against it if I were still in Congress...but..."

What a load of crap. Geez. I'd approve it if we took out all the pork and pets and just allocated the money to STIMULUS PLANS.

Thought for the Day

"The government consists of a gang of men [and women] exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."

-H.L. Mencken

Limbaugh on Limbaugh, The Coming Socialist Tsunami

Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud

In his eight full years as the recipient of endless vile, often-delusional slander, President George W. Bush rarely grumbled, much less counterattacked his tormentors. Yet before he completed his first week in office, President Barack Obama -- a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky, who is to left-wing radicalism and social agitation what Karl Marx is to communism -- declared war on Rush Limbaugh.

This was a calculated move by a man who professes to be open to all ideas but apparently brooks no dissent. He not only does not tolerate dissent well but also really doesn't even like to be questioned, as we saw during the campaign, when he accused the normally fawning press of grilling him for merely asking a follow-up question.

We caught another glimpse of this last week, when he showed irritation at the White House press corps for daring to ask him a policy question after he had decreed that the sole purpose of his visit was to press the flesh.

But Obama's effort to target Rush is not just his ego at work. He has begun a full-court press to advance his extreme left-wing agenda and was angling both to garner enough Republican support to insulate himself against future accountability for failure and to validate his self-styled image as a bipartisan uniter.

That's why he invited a group of Beltway conservatives for dinner, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" -- as if discerning observers believe that listening, as opposed to projecting an image of openness, was either Clinton's or Obama's purpose.

That's why he surrounded himself with big-business CEOs as he unveiled his misnamed "stimulus" package. That's why he often throws meaningless, abstract bones to conservatives in his speeches while having no intention of diluting his specific concrete liberal policies.

Obama is savvy enough to realize he can't eliminate all dissent. But he's enough of an Alinskyite to know that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies and increase his chances for success.

Perhaps Alinsky would couch Obama's strategy in different terms, but it is essentially a divide-and-conquer approach.

Make no mistake: The goal is to single Rush out and pick him off.So Obama is trying to parlay his extraordinarily high approval rating to lay a foundation for his shock troops in the press and the party apparatus to discredit and eventually compromise or silence Rush.

As if in conspiratorial lockstep, the media are dutifully responding with round-the-clock distortions and deceitful context manipulation of Rush's clearly articulated statement that he hopes Obama's socialist blueprint for America fails, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating a petition denouncing him.

These are part of their larger goal to emasculate Rush and other conservative radio hosts through the Unfairness Doctrine. Unhappily for them, their plan has backfired so far, as it obviously led to a counteraction, which, in turn, arguably contributed to the consolidation of Republicans in unanimous opposition to Obama's trillion-dollar mega-pork scheme.

But this is no time for Republican gloating -- obviously. Obama is far from dispirited or deterred. He has only just begun. His plan did, after all, pass the House with solely Democratic votes. It has a good chance to sail through the Senate, as well.

For those on the right who still cling to the fantasy that Obama is a bipartisan centrist, I refer you to his recent statement that FDR did not do enough by way of government spending to end the Depression, his decidedly pro-abortion executive order and pronouncement celebrating Roe v. Wade, his Web-documented commitment to the radical homosexual agenda, his announced closure of Gitmo and termination of enhanced interrogation techniques, his planned discontinuation of missile defense systems, his actions on carbon emissions and fuel efficiency in deference to the global warming hoax, his shameless apologies for America to the Muslim world, his arrogant carving out of exemptions for his own staff and appointees from ethical rules he is now otherwise imposing, his groundwork to shut down political criticism, and his government-expansion-on-steroids, non-stimulus pork bill.

The inevitable explosion of federal debt this legislation would cause is reason enough to oppose it, even if it were likely to stimulate the economy. But even some liberals are disputing its potential to stimulate. The hastily crafted bill, with its corrupt funding of ACORN and other favors, is a disgracefully irresponsible effort to expand the public sector, diminish the private sector, empower the autocrats, and further divest us of our individual liberties -- all at the expense of present and future generations.

Market vs. Bailout

**A note from The General's Libertarian Friend:

As you know from our (almost heated) exchanges at the time, I think this was a tremendous misjudgment on the part of Mr. Paulson, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Becker. The damage to our free enterprise system of saying it needs to be “bailed out” was obviously going to be – and has proven to be – enormous and long-lasting. Just accepting the premise that the government can do better than the market at allocating resources makes it all but impossible for principled pro-market arguments to prevail in the future.

Free market adherents simply cannot say, “I favor the market except when the experts tell me there’s a big problem requiring government assistance,” and expect to be taken seriously in the future when arguing that some other idiotic interference in the market is a bad idea. Once you open the door to saying that there is such a thing as a “market failure,” you have forfeited in the public mind the right to object to the government fixing every market “failure” that someone declares to exist.

Now, as to this “crisis,” yes, there was a problem, or actually a bunch of government-created problems consisting of interference with the credit and housing markets – compounded enormously by the panic that was caused by Bush, Paulson, McCain, Obama, Frank, Becker, and a bunch of others saying, “There’s a great big problem here and it’s so bad we can’t even tell you what it is because it would scare you to death and set off a panic.” Duh, that was reassuring.

Now, you had a problem with (1) artificially inflated housing prices that needed to come down, (2) excessively risky loan portfolios had dropped down below their “true value,” (3) a government system concentrating the risk in just two major players (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) in the mortgage market, (4) a Federal Reserve (working in conjunction with the Treasury) terminally addicted to trying to micromanage the economy through interest rates and the money supply, and (5) lenders were excessively afraid to lend.

Now, here are some solutions to these five problems: (1) The market, (2) the market, (3) the market, (4) the market, (5) the market. You tell me why – certainly no one else has ever tried and I predict you won’t either -- there is ANY government solution that is better than the market for these five problems.

(1) Housing prices are “too high.” Well, the market can decide what the right price of a house is far better than any bureaucrat I’ve ever met.

(2) Risky mortgage bundles were priced “too low.” How the hell did anyone know this? “Too low” is a market judgment and the market was saying, “these things are toxic.” So the prices needed to go down. And the reason for stopping the market from doing its pricing job was -- some of the fools who bought these things might go bankrupt? So what? That is not a rhetorical question. So what? That’s what bankruptcy is for – the loan bundles could have been sold off in bankruptcy at a fair market price. (I actually know the bureaucrat who was assigned responsibility within GAO of monitoring the pricing of the TARP portfolios – back when they expected to have portfolios – and he was very open in saying that he couldn’t imagine how the government was going to be able to do that)

(3) Concentration of mortgage market risk in the Macs. Solution – stop doing that, abolish Freddie and Fannie, and let the market spread the risk among many players, any one of which could go bankrupt without a problem.

(4) The Federal Reserve trying to maintain a steady state economy by manipulating interest and currency – Solution, a steady medium of exchange (probably a money supply tied to GDP) so that the market can efficiently price goods, without trying to ensure there are no “losers.”

(5) Lenders were “too afraid” to make loans that made “good business sense.” Oh sure. And the government knows better than the people who have the money to lend what makes good business sense. Don’t tell me that the market couldn’t have solved this one in short order. Banks would have been happy to lend, at a fair price. But the Fed had convinced the businesses of America (and the world) that they had a God-given right to cheap credit forever, so the prices that the banks would have charged would have led to the bankruptcy of businesses who had bet their existence on interest rates never going up in risky times. That mind-set that cheap credit will always be available (caused by problem #4) obviously has to be corrected – even Obama and the liberals agree to that – and the market is the best corrective I know. What the Fed has been doing under Greenspan was every bit as arrogant Big Government (and every bit as damaging) as Keynes at his worst.

Now, knowing to an absolute CERTAINTY that junking the free market system in September 2008 would damage arguments in its favor for generations to come – damage that will literally cause the deaths of millions of children in sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, and other economies on the survival margin – means to me you’d better be absolutely damn certain that what you’re doing is better than the solution the market would produce to the short-term problem in September 2008.

But not one economist or politician or analyst that I heard talking about the September 2008 bailout ever discussed the damage the so-called solution would have. All they would do is look at the mess the government had created by interfering with the market and say “well, that’s unacceptable, we’d better ‘do something.’”

This failure to make any effort to tell the public the costs and benefits of the government “solution” and the market solution (no quotes needed) was immoral. A corrective had to happen but the politicians were unwilling to tell the public that. So instead, they made the problem worse by many orders of magnitude than just letting the market work.

It was a level of irresponsibility that infuriates me to this very day and probably will for the rest of my life. To have had Republicans destroy the free market system … I just find it hard not to get angry about that.

And I’m sure not sympathetic to arguments that what Obama and his crew are doing is somehow worse than having our free market party wave the white flag of surrender.

Proudly Introducing...

Bless Our Heart's newest contributor...The General.

The General is no stranger to Bless Our Hearts, as he has been mentioned in quite a few of my previous posts. I'm thrilled to write that he has agreed to help take ownership of Bless Our Hearts.

I'm quite proud of the General and would like to share some of his accomplishments with you, Bless Our Heart's readers.

The General is currently serving as a labor relations professional for a company with multiple contracts and international unions. In this role, he links business strategy from Senior Management to the Labor and HR strategy, including benefits, wages, operating flexibility, etc. In prior assignment, headed labor and employment law department, assigned and monitored or handled all employment and labor matters for company, advising senior management on strategy and policy. He has advised senior management on antitrust compliance and merger-related trade law issues. He has also given assistance and advice to clients on labor, trade and finance matters. In this role, he has practiced extensively in labor and employment litigation.

In a former life, the General owned and operated a marketing company and a separate company that advised international clients on trade and finance.

The General is also a principal in an oil and gas development company that has extensive holdings in the Western United States.

The General is a member of various Bar Associations, a former President of the Labor and Employment Law Section of his state bar association and is a founding member of its Hospital Law Committee. He has served as chairman of numerous civic and non-profit boards at state and national level.

Prior to internal counsel position, The General was a partner and attorney within a large law firm, where he represented several corporate clients and maintained an active federal and state trial practice with an exceptional success rate.

He graduated with a B.A. in English, and has extensive post-graduate work. He received his commission through ROTC and entered active duty. After leaving active duty, he attended law school, where he graduated magna cum laude with a J.D. degree. Retired as a Major General in the Army National Guard, with extensive command experience at battalion, brigade and higher levels.

Please join me in welcoming The General to Bless Our Hearts. I know you will enjoy what he has to say as much as I do.