The Half Term President

When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save jobs -- the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers and nurses and police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said no. (Applause.) And the Republican who thinks he’s going to take over as Speaker -- (boos) -- I’m just saying that’s his opinion -- (laughter) -- he’s entitled to his opinion. But when he was asked about this, he dismissed those jobs as “government jobs” that weren’t worth saving. (Boos.) That’s what he said, I’m quoting -- “government jobs.”  Barry H. Obama

"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" Barry H. Obama




Hey, give me some of that "R" there, Mr. President.  I always have to chuckle when Obama and his crowd say that two years is not enough time to turn an economy around. It's not that I don't agree with that. It arguably could take over 2 years. However, when you are driving south, the chances of ending up north are not that good no matter how long and how far you drive.  
The thing I have trouble resolving is the notion that we've only been heading in this direction for two years. There are two ways to look at it, as far as I can see:  Either you collect the last ten years, and put them in the Bush-Obama recession bucket, or you go back to 2006 when the current House and Senate leadership was put in place, i.e., when the Bush-Obama recession was put on an unrestrained rocket sled.
 
Many pundits want to say if you push the clock back two years, you get the republicans all over again. Actually, what you get is Nancy and Harry all over again. I agree with Barry, we certainly don't want that. I don't think any of us are too keen on going back to W and his boys, or to Hillary and hers, either. If we're going back to anything, my vote is Coolidge.

This media push of Barry only being at it for 2 years is a little weak. Nancy was pulling thousands of pages together, long, LONG before that, and for any old president to sign. Barry won the honor of signing her slush party invitation list. Not saying George wouldn't have, mind you. He was gullible enough. I mean, he bought into big government in the '80's (yes, I know, everything is bigger in Texas)

If we are sufficiently lucky in November, Congress has a more rational charter going forward, and Obama's agenda is merely stitched into the carpet. Queen Nancy's 4 year term will expire, and Barry brushes up on his stand-up routine. Ironically congress, this time, gets the four year term limit, and BHO effectively becomes the nation's first half-term president.

Government 2.0

What Washington needs is adult supervision.
--Barry H. Obama

We can't change the way Washington works unless we first change how Congress works.
--Barry H. Obama

Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives – professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.
--Barry H. Obama

For a guy who railed against Washington through the whole campaign, Barry O sure fits in well with that bunch, doesn't he? One of the most remarkable things about him is not that he's usually wrong. It's that he is wrong on every issue. Every One. He's against freedom, property rights, family values, the economy. Pick any topic, and he's sure to be on the wrong side of it. Try it. What's his position? It's likely as not a bizarre freedom-sapping notion about what the government "must do", instead of recognition of it's restrictions.

You'd think a president who was merely incompetent would get it right half the time. George Bush got it right half the time. Why can't Obama?

One theory is that he gets it wrong because he simply does not believe in America. He has little regard or concern about true human nature, and flails around with non-natural policies. It is remarkable that a majority of congress follows him down this path. A second theory has it that Obama has a Cloward and Piven death wish for this society. Either way, we all lose.

Only when we get someone who gets it right every time can we hope to preserve our freedoms. Those presidents are harder to find than the ones who get it wrong every time. Over the last 20 years we are surely batting less than 50%. If we give up half our freedoms every 4 or 8 years, it won't be long before we have no freedoms left that are worth caring about.

I have concluded that the system does not and can not protect us from the dangers of these periodic forced reductions of life, liberty, and property. It is time to go for government 2.0.

Government 2.0 has two immediate goals. One is to have the states ratify a change to the constitution that requires that all federal money comes from the states. Federal taxes would be eliminated in favor of a tax on the states in proportion to their population. Instead of the federal government spending money regardless of income, the states could decide jointly to rein it in. This will force the federal government back to the proper size, with the real power allocated to the states and to the people. Wayne Root's book "The Conscience of a Libertarian" makes the case for this.

The second thing will be to repeal the commerce clause. The commerce clause is badly abused on a daily basis, is regularly cited as the constitutional basis for everything from health care to high finance; and is the cause of gross misappropriation of government resources. If we repeal the commerce claus, it won't be misconstrued any more.

Yes, Government 2.0. It is time to install the upgrade.

Conspiracies and Complicities

The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another -- and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men -- three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless. -- Aristotle


For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. -- Benjamin Disraeli

I have been bothered recently by the treatment of persons identified as "wacko conspiracy theorists" for wanting to learn the truth. High profile persons mock and deride honest people like Alan Keyes who would simply like to see a birth certificate.

Recently, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have taken up against the inquiry. O'Reilly misses and dismisses a lot in his efforts to be perceived as fair and balanced. Glenn "hold to the truth" Beck should know better than to dismiss a constitutional truth. A certificate of live birth, which simply proves that someone was born somewhere is not the same as a birth certificate, and shouldn't be accepted as such, without other proof. Now, do I think it makes a difference? Yes, for future reference. If in fact it turns out Obama was born out of the US, it will be but one in a long list of serious mistakes leading to the election.

I believe in Occam's razor. Occam's razor teaches that the simplest explanation is almost always true. The simplest explanation to me is that this child's mother wanted US citizenship for her son, and learned of a way to accomplish that in August 1961. Not the first time, nor the last. This is done many times a day in the US even now.

I don't normally subscribe to conspiracy theories. For example, the torturous logic behind those who believe in US government complicity in 9/11 leaves me unconvinced. Too complicated. Too hard to cover up that many loose strings. Sure, a lot of folks are suspicious, and not all things can be explained.

But to dismiss those who seek the truth is to promote untruth. No matter the results of the find.

Many conspiracies turn out to be true. Here's one.

A hospital record of birth would be helpful here. No, it's not a "right wing conspiracy". It is an issue of constitutional importance.

Asking the Right Questions, Part V

Finishing up our series of media questions from the Obama press conference, we once again reprint the questions Obama was asked at his March 24 press conference. We have paraphrased Obamas remarks, because he sure has a tough time speaking his intentions concisely; and just for contrast, we add what a hypothetical good president would have answered to each of the questions.

Okay. Ed Henry. Where’s Ed? There he is.
QUESTION: (...) -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, ”When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.” You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

Barry: Well that's what sharing is all about. You spread the wealth, you spread the lack of it just as broadly. It's of no concern to me that the stakeholders have not yet been born.
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, the national debt is public enemy number one, and those who seek to grow it are the accomplices in cross generation thievery.

QUESTION: So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? ... It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?

Barry: I'm only as outraged as 50.1% of the public, so until the outrage reaches critical mass, it's safer for me to wait on the sidelines.
Hypothetical Good President: There's a lot of outrage to go around, but why waste it on AIG? AIG does what they do. It makes little sense to expect them to do anything else just because we put a big bag of money on their conference table. Talk about mixed messages! Giving them money in the first place signals that the government likes what they do, and wants them to continue doing it. And wants it so much, they subsidize it! Stop giving AIG money and they'll develop their own new discipline, or go out of business. Problem solved. No sir, my outrage is at the people giving them taxpayer money in the first place. And they know who they are.

Major?
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.
I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?

Barry: Well, when it comes to socialism, they are all pikers compared to this administration. It will be much easier to redistribute wealth here by printing money. Therefore the dollar is only as good as we decide it will be. What it's worth to the rest of the world doesn't matter to me.
Hypothetical Good President: This is the world's biggest economy, and the dollar will continue to be the world standard for a whole host of reasons, among them is that it represents the value produced by the world's most productive and free people. Other countries will ignore the dollar at their own peril.

QUESTION: Is there a need for a global currency?

Barry: As an advocate of one world government, and as a shepherd of the downfall of the dollar, I foresee the need for a good currency after our dollar goes the way of the peso. Further, having a common currency is only one small step to having a single world government. Bush had "exporting democracy". I favor "exporting fascism".
Hypothetical Good President: No, there is no scenario in which we can and should support any other currency. There's no reason to find a substitute for the dollar when the dollar is about to be rehabilitated by my administration.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- (takes mic) -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest-rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

Barry: As you know, the voracious appetite of this government knows no bounds. Mortgage and charitable deductions looks like easy money, because only rich people pay taxes and donate money in the first place. It's likeWillie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks. It's because that's where the money is.
Hypothetical Good President: The law of unintended consequences really does apply here. If the government's goal is to reduce home ownership and reduce charitable deductions, then that is what will happen, and this is the way to do it. I will not support the elimination of these deductions. It's very simple. When you increase a tax on anything, you get less of it. I'm in favor of any mechanism that reduces the tax burden on our people. Since there are those in government who feel they must pick winners and losers, it strikes me as unconscionable that they would choose home owners and charities to be losers.

QUESTION: It’s not the well-to-do people; it’s the charities. Given what you’ve just said --
QUESTION: -- are you confident that charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

Barry: It is my goal to have the government take over more of the economy, and that includes the charity business. With government controlling all charity, not just welfare based charity, and not just FEMA type charities, our goal of socialism is much more completely met.
Hypothetical Good President: If we can get the government out of the charity business entirely, it would be a good thing. If people wanting a handout were required to get it from the local churches, secular charities, and independent aid organizations, they would be much better cared for, and all the sooner back into productive society. A tax deduction to support local charities would be worth preserving, and doesn't even amount to a subsidy, because in this case, the return would be greater than the "investment".

Kevin Chappell. Hi, Kevin.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that as a result of the economic downturn, one in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country. In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way, but what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?

Barry: George Bush. Bush. George did it. My predescessor put in programs to hurt people. Look over there. George? You still there? Oh, he left?. Okay. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: Look Kevin, this is America. Anyone sleeping under a bridge is doing that because they have chosen to do so. Anyone willing to join productive society has ample opportunity to do just that. Anyone who wants to live off the land, in tents and bridges is also free to do that. If you bring me anyone living under a bridge who wants to be somewhere else, I'll tell them exactly how to accomplish their goal. Further, by letting the local governments keep more of the tax money that would otherwise be diverted to national boondoggles, problems like this would be handled at the local level, where they can be more effectively dealt with.

Ann Compton. Hey, Ann.

QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color- blind time?

Barry: I owe a lot to racists of all colors who elected me. I hope to keep that advantage through the next election. So, color-blind is not in my best interest.
Hypothetical Good President: Historic? Because of my skin color? Gee, Ann, what color is it that you think that I am, and why should it matter? I would hate to think that this election is historic based on a physical attribute (handsome though I may be). I would much rather be known as the president who restored our freedoms, our pride, and our heritage as a nation.

Okay. Jon Ward, Washington Times. Where’s Jon?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?

Barry: My goal is federal funding of everything, but I particularly like the idea of funding embryonic stuff because it makes people of faith extra angry.
Hypothetical Good President: I'm against federal funding of most things, but especially this, because it creates an unnecessary new market for dead babies. Why should the government subsidize this, when adult stem cells show much more promise, and it appears that no federal funding is even necessary to see the fruits of this effort. By getting out of the way of the medical industry, the effort will pay off by itself.

QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Barry: A consensus of liberal quasi-scientists is what I'm focused on. Hopefully we can discredit enough of the real scientists by lies and distortions to get this done. Like we almost did with global warming.
Hypothetical Good President: The consensus is that adult stem cells show promise. I think federal funding of any medical processes is not warranted. Let the private market figure a way to finance and monetize it.

Okay. Stephen Collinson, AFP.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?

Barry: I plan on being as effective as all the previous presidents at brokering peace in the Middle East. I plan on continuing to fund the conflict both directly and indirectly so that we play one side against the other. That way, when we can choose either side whenever we wish for whatever purpose.
Hypothetical Good President: Stephen, look. These people have been killing each other for tens of centuries. Peace is not in the cards simply because we want it to be. It has to happen because it is what they want. I can't bring a Hamas guy, and an Israeli here to Camp David, have the two of them sign a silly document, and presto everybody over there likes each other. Both sides play us for everything they can get, and still go on killing each other. My plan is to stay out of it. If they want to use their meager wealth to attack each other, then nobody wins, and they will -- I repeat -- They will find a better way on their own.


So there we have it. Some actual good questions finally being posed to this president, as they should be. The answers were so dense that none of them made news, however it appears that the questions are getting better.

Asking the Right Questions, Part IV

Barry is starting to get some good questions. His answers (if you can fight through the pauses and bends of purpose that are scattered throughout) betray his purpose pretty completely. He doesn't want to lie, and doesn't want to tell the truth, so the line he walks is tortuous but revealing. In this series, I have taken the questions from his last press conference, and condensed his answers to the most concise meaning; and I have also added the answer a hypothetical good president would give.

Chip Reid. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ”I didn’t run for president to pass on roblems to the next generation.” But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history. Isn’t that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

Barry: I prefer to call them investments. Kind of like a 30 year mortgage with a balloon payment. You see, I don't have the faintest idea what a trillion is. Is that someone from Trillia?
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, I do see the lunacy in the CBO numbers, and that's why we will totally revamp spending programs to make the numbers work, just like every family has to do with their budgets. Believe me, this will be a lot easier than some people will have you believe. If you stop paying someone to watch the watchers, you have an immediate positive impact. That's better than an investment. We can drop 80-90% of all government programs. It's the responsible thing to do, and we will do it.

QUESTION: But even under your budget -- as you said, over the next four or five
years, you’re going to cut the deficit in half. Then, after that, six years in a row it goes up, up, up.
If you’re making all these long-term structural cuts --
QUESTION: -- why does it continue to go up in the out years?

Barry: Because we don't have to deal with the deficit. We can sweep it under the rug. It's what our constituents expect of us.
Hypothetical Good President: When you talk about cutting the deficit in half, it's like overdrawing your checking account by a massive amount, and then offering to pay back the bank half of what you owe. Why on Earth would anyone brag on that? You still have a massive deficit, and it will hurt you. We need to eliminate the deficit, and begin to retire the debt.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Today your administration presented a plan
to help curb the violence in Mexico and also to control any or prevent any
spillover of the violence into the United States. Do you consider the situationnow a national security threat?
And do you believe that it could require sending national troops to the border?
Governor Perry of Texas has said that you still need more troops and more
agents. How do you respond to that?

Barry: I'm concerned about violence on border. Yes, very concerned. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: In my first 60 days I intend to finish the border fence, if I have to go out there and build it myself. Then, Mexico will be forced to deal with their problem, as we are forced to deal with ours. In time, law and order will prevail, because the law enforcement community will be right-sized to deal with a known population. Then we won't have this situational population ebb and flow that can't really be managed.

Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes. Is Kevin here? There you go.
QUESTION: Mr. President, where do you plan to find savings in the Defense and
Veterans Administration’s budgets when so many items that seem destined for the
chopping block are politically untenable, perhaps?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, so many?
QUESTION: When so many items that may be destined for the chopping block seem
politically untenable, from major weapons systems -- as you mentioned,
procurement -- to wounded warrior care costs, or increased operations on
Afghanistan, or the size of the military itself.

Barry: I'm going to make the military's job as difficult as possible, with poor objectives, poor funding, ;lack of commitment, and meaningless missions. That way, I hope all the volunteers leave the Army before they get hurt. Then we won't need as many VA hospitals. Meanwhile, I am going to choke off the VA funding by making it as much like Hillarycare as i can, and no one will want to work there. How's that for proactive?
Hypothetical Good President: We need to pick our fights much more effectively. I prefer the way Reagan won his wars. He would build a strong enough defense that it was never necessary to use it.

Asking the Right Questions, Part III

Yesterday (in our last episode) I started a press conference of my own, introducing to you a Hypothetical Good President. I thought it might be instructive for us to hear how the Hypothetical Good President would answer the important questions of the day.

Continuing in that vein,

Jake?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats
are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements,
they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus.
They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade
that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures.
I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of
these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a
middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade?

Barry: I gotta level with you. I was never serious about a tax cut. In fact, if you replay all the speeches, I was really referring to tax credits, where all you had to do was fill out a tax form to get 400 bucks of free money. It was probably worth it to get everybody's address for my Big Brother file. As for cap and trade, well, we haven't figured out how to monetize that in my Swiss account, so it will have to wait.
Hypothetical Good President. I do not believe in tax policy based on "class". There is no middle class. There is no lower class. There is no upper class. There are only Americans. Tax cuts mean letting people keep their own money. So when we lower the cost of government, the revenues from taxes will reduce debt, which will make more capital available for Americans; which will in turn improve everybody's productivity and income, and that, my friends, is better than a tax cut, and certainly better than the empty promise of one. As to the notion of cap and trade, I will eliminate any attempt to manipulate the energy and industrial markets, and there will be no cap and trade, and no more talk of it in my administration.

QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t
have those two provisions?

Barry: It should be clear by now, that I have left the budget entirely up to Nancy, and I'll sign whatever makes it to my desk.
Hypothetical Good President: The budget I will send to congress will have only essential services in it, and therefore be approximately 30 pages long. I trust all the congressmen will have time to read that one.

To be continued.

Asking the Right Questions, Part II

I started a blog post about Barry's press conference from last month, and didn't get around to finishing it. Sometimes, this is for a good reason. You can of course already predict what the president is going to say. Most of it has been refuted already here and in dozens of other blog outlets. Yes, he's very careful with his words. He wants to spread the wealth, and has to be more careful about who he tells that to. He's certainly not going to say that to a room full of reporters.

So, I thought I'd take a good look at the questions that followed the press conference speech, because I found most of them very good questions, deserving of a good answer. So I want to report to you two answers to each of the questions: One as Barry would give it, if he could be as brief as the Wizer. The other answer is what it would sound like if given by a good president. It should be easy to spot the differences:

All right. With that, let me take some questions. And I’ve got a list here;
let’s start off with Jennifer Loven, AP.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill
today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex
financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout
program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending
the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public
should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take
over companies, essentially?

Barry: Because we're the government, and we know better.
Hypothetical Good President: Good Question, Jennifer. I believe the government created this problem by guaranteeing idiotic loans through Fannie Mae and encouraging AIG to hold all the insurance paper for the scam. The least we can do as a government is clean up the mess and eliminate the people and processes in government that created it. I'm asking for the resignations of Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd. I will take measures to ensure that all financial institutions are reprivatized, and will give the order for a thorough investigation.

QUESTION: But why should the public trust the government to handle that
authority well?

Barry: Because we are trained as government officials to establish new expensive programs that have dubious value if accomplished, and fortunately we usually don't accomplish them.
Hypothetical Good President: Jennifer, you should never trust us. All I can do as an individual is promise I will do all I can to make this happen. If I can't do it, you should replace me. You should do the same with all those who stand in the way of achieving these goals.

Okay. Chuck Todd.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to
a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of
sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have
actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this --
during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were
talking about.
Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t
you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to
participate in this economic recovery?

Barry: To answer that question with any specificity is above my pay grade.
Hypothetical Good President: Chuck, let me tell you, I do feel bad about that. When George and Henry wrote that check to the banks and the financial areas, they thought it would fix things, and if it worked, it might have even been a fair price to pay. However, history shows that any such intervention will always have unintended consequences that impact more people adversely than are helped. Now the government felt some responsibility because they created the problem with that Fannie Mae malfeasance. Writing the check provided cover for everybody involved. It's not right, but it's an explanation. Of course it also did not work. So, now I'm here, and the bucks have to stop. Everybody has to straighten their own ship. As a government, our only legal goal is to create an environment where we can at least grow out of the hole they've dug for us.

QUESTION: But you don’t think there should be a specific call to action that you
want the American -- I mean, this is -- you’ve described this as an economic
crisis like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression.

Barry: Yes, I believe everybody must sacrifice for the greater good. Let government take over the auto industry, the banks, the financial firms, the insurance companies, and your thermostat. Then we'll see what happens.
Hypothetical Good President: My call to action is to have the country prepare for a new awakening. Another morning in America, so to speak. There will be far fewer government programs to get in the way of progress. There will be fewer government employees and others living on the backs of the taxpayers. There will be more taxes collected because of the higher productivity of the peoples of this nation, and that additional money will be used to retire the debt and strengthen our dollar. It simply means everybody goes to work, and we create the environment where that is facilitated.

To be continued

Vote for Kaczinski

Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter -- Isaiah 5:20

I'm not sure how much it matters that Obama is one step away from Ted Kaczinski. The majority of people who would vote for Obama with full knowledge of the facts, would vote for him anyway. They fully believe that the end justifies the means. If blowing up a few public buildings advances their cause no matter what, they'll do it.

It also clearly means these people identify more with our enemies than with us, because our enemies have no problem blowing up a train or a building to amplify their message, either.

Add to this small number, the number of people who are blind to the facts who will vote for Obama. It's testimony to the art of lying and deception that together they can even come close to being a combined majority.

In my youth, I was a tolerant person allowing all other ideas to coexist, even the big lie that is socialism, trusting that the truth will always carry the day. It was only when the lies got noisier and more obnoxious that it became obvious that you really can fool most of the people most of the time.

All I can do is point out these things in my little corner of the internet. Maybe enough people will get wise to this. At some point, a number of people who are reasonably well-informed have tuned out of the election because the choices are between two shades of bad. It's becoming increasingly clear that one of those options is shaded significantly darker, and must be avoided. Then we can start working for a better day.

Update: Chicago Election Goes West