Saturday, April 04, 2009


By: Devvy
March 23, 2009
© 2008 -

Today I am on my way to Washington, DC, so I won't have another column for a couple of weeks. As we continue to wade through the continuing nightmare coming from the crooks and incompetent serving in Congress, let's start with some good news.

Kentucky, March 19, 2009

"Five Clay County officials, including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers were arrested Thursday after they were indicted on federal charges accusing them of using corrupt tactics to obtain political power and personal gain.

"The 10-count indictment, unsealed Thursday, accused the defendants of a conspiracy from March 2002 until November 2006 that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO is a federal statute that prosecutors use to combat organized crime. The defendants were also indicted for extortion, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to injure voters' rights and conspiracy to commit voter fraud.

"According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. Clay County Clerk, Freddy Thompson, 45, allegedly provided money to election officers to be distributed by the officers to buy votes and he also instructed officers how to change votes at the voting machine."

These fine upstanding citizens have been indicted for what I have personally waged war against since 1993: vote fraud and how easy it is to manipulate voting machines and scanners. Election officer William E. Stivers: among other charges against him: changed votes at the voting machine. Paul E. Bishop, is also accused of instructing the officers how to change votes at the voting machine. This is what blind loyalty to a political party does to people. When "my party" becomes more important than integrity, decency and honesty, America loses.

Hear! Hear!

This from Tommy Cryer, Founder of Truth, dedicated to exposing the fraud being conducted against domestic Americans regarding misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code (federal income tax):

Florida Judge Rules Attorney Refusing to File Since 1999 Committed No crime

March 20, 2009. "After a trial of a hearing on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles “Chuck” Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act by refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999 Judge Tyree Boyer ruled that Behm committed no criminal act.

"The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close the DOJ’s fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ’s latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like “tax protesters”, “tax defiers” and, now “Constitutionalists”!! (Behm’s defense attorney, TA’s Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.)

"In his cross examination of the Bar's “expert witness”, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of “frivolous arguments”. The witness also admitted on cross that he did not really have a clear definition of “income”, that he knew of no lawful authority for the IRS’s “zero basis” policy applied only to working Americans’ gross receipts and that the zero basis for “zero basis” is not on the IRS’s list of “frivolous arguments.”

"Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns; that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment and that he is engaging in no activity that is within the federal government's power to tax. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.

"In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.

"Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling and in that process the Court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes."

These are America's warriors. They are on the front lines fighting for not only their freedom, but yours and mine. For those unfamiliar with this issue, I respectfully urge you to find out the truth and I direct you here:

Why An Income Tax Is Not Necessary to Fund the Federal Government, Free on audio or text
Beware alternative taxing schemes: they're just another trap

My friend, Anthony LoBaido, has come up with the perfect slogan for Congress: "I don't read the bills, but I do weight them." While funny, it's also a crime against we the people for any elected public servant to vote on any legislation they haven't read that affects our lives. In the House, you can lay most of the blame at the feet of a dangerous lunatic, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. You know that name, don't you? She's the mega millionaire who called enforcing immigration laws anti-American; click here. Since Pelosi is openly giving her approval to violate federal immigration laws and encourage illegal aliens to remain in this country, I think Pelosi should be arrested and tossed in jail.

The usurper in the Red House, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka and so forth, is equally brain addled or he's still doing the nose candy (cocaine): March 20, 2009 headline: Obama wants citizenship for 'law-abiding illegals' -- Huh? How can an illegal alien, you know, the criminal who smuggles his/her body across our borders like a thief in the night be a "law abiding" anything? While these two craven politicians were busy protecting criminals, two more Americans were murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico; click here.

Communist propaganda wrapped in the American flag

A thousand people send me an enthusiastic, "Watch this!" link to a video titled, Born Again American. You can watch it here. Unfortunately, when you actually read the fine print, they are an initiative of 'Declare Yourself.' When you go there and hit on issues, my, my. You go straight to promoting:

Stop global warming
Homosexual "rights"
Animal Rights
Universal Health Care
Global Health

And lots more goodies. This is how the communitarian doctrine (communist morality) snags the uninformed. Always look behind the curtain. This promotion of communist goals is led by leftist icon, Norman Lear. If you would like some factual history on this issue, read, Funny How Things Jog Your Memory. I know this country is drowning in 'March Madness' and other distractions, but only by becoming educated with the facts can we repel those pushing their toxic agenda.

You're not alone

The cry for freedom and liberty is spreading across this great land. Let us hope that the 'tea parties' going on will become much more than just a one time "protest." Eternal vigilance as we know is the only thing that will beat back tyranny. I know many Americans feel isolated. They don't know who is a patriot in their area; they don't know how to get involved. Well, a couple of enterprising Americans have come up with a way to make your statement: Liberty Bands. Wear one and you'll see how quickly you find other like minded people in your area. I know, someone is going to say, "Well, if you wear this fashionable accessory, the govmint is gonna know who you are." Gee whiz, golly. Since when should we the people be ashamed to be a patriot? Since when should we the people be ashamed to let our fellow Americans know we stand for the U.S. Constitution and everything that made this country great? Not me. Look into the Liberty Bands. You just might like one.

Orly goes to Washington

Dr. Orly Taitz, the lioness who won't be stopped in her efforts regarding the legitimacy of Obama aka Soetoro aka and so forth, is in Washington, DC, today with Joseph Farah, Founder of Orly is there in her on-going effort to get a full scale FBI investigation into the shenanigans at the U.S. Supreme Court and pursuing a Quo Warranto. The situation is very fluid, so you might want to check her web site daily.

The state owning your children

Obama announces his newest communist "reconstruction of man" obamaination: Ownership of YOUR child from infant to age five wrapped up in "mother government cares." March 17, 2009. "Zero to Five Plan doesn't add up." Another "voluntary" program just like voluntary social security and the voluntary National ID.

AIG bonuses - between idiocy and the U.S. Constitution

Everyone is outraged over the AIG "bail out" mess. $45 BILLION of the loot has gone to banks overseas. Grand larceny of the people's empty purse. In order to deflect their own culpability in this monstrous mess, high profile members of Congress are attempting to distract you with bills over the bonuses that will ultimately result in nothing but endless lawsuits. First, these bonuses are employment contracts, some entered into years ago. The House has passed legislation in an attempt to get back these bonuses. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution. These buffoons are also trying to pass a bill that would tax those bonuses at a 90% rate. Take that! This is what is called a Bill of Attainder and it is also prohibited by the Constitution. However, law experts are already saying the Supreme Court will uphold such a tax! Another mess created by Congress and the usurper in the Red House because he signed those bills.

Economic outlook: 'We're in a car heading for a cliff and the Fed has just stepped on the gas.' — Peter Schiff, economist

It's not bleak, it's toast. There is no way to sugar coat what has been happening and what will continue for sometime. I could put a thousand links to columns on this issue, but have selected this one by Peter Schiff. Like Congressman Ron Paul, this man has made the predictions that are now coming true. Hyper inflation is going to hit this country. I'm not a gold dealer; I don't sell gold, but as Schiff says at the end of this column, Got Gold? This is a tragedy unfolding and the dollar may not survive this time. Get gold. It is the only true money.

As I won't have a new column until the second week of April, I hope the links below will prove helpful as we continue to beat back tyranny and face the real consequences of the reckless spending of Congresses for the past half century as well as other issues.

Call Congress today and everyday until we defeat these two bills: (House) (Senate)

H.R. 875
H.R. 1388
Big recipient of "stimulus" money. This is "human reconstruction"; see page two of this document.

Devvy: On live radio: Solutions Not Politics
6:00 pm PST, 8:00 pm CST and 9:00 pm EST
Listen live:


1 - Short video: Orly speaks with Chief Justice John G. Roberts
2 - New video: Oath Keepers -- Guardians of the Republic
3 - Your sheriff needs this book
4 - You MUST read this book (free on line)

States must get their sound money bills passed

Montana Sound Money Bill HB 639, Hearing on March 12, 2009:
1 - Opening Statement (Rep. Bob Wagner) Expert Testimony:
2 - Dr. Edwin Vieira
3 - James Turk
4 - Dr. Lawrence Parks
5 - Closing remarks, Rep. Wagner

States of the Union

1 - September 22, 2008. Battle Plan for the States
2 - March 20, 2009. States, Not Washington, D.C., Need Our Attention

Into the Abyss

1 - Former IRS Commissioner wanted Income Tax Abolished
2 - Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete
3 - Why does the U.S. need Constitutional Money? by Dr. Edwin Vieira (1933)
4 - The Forgotten Role of the Constitution in Monetary Law by Dr. Edwin Vieira
5 - Sept. 28, 2004. Ignoring the danger signs
6 - April 17, 2006. The Continued Sacking of the People's Purse
7 - Sept. 25, 2008. Bailouts: The Wound That Will Keep on Hemorrhaging
8 - The Fed Did Indeed Cause the Housing Bubble

Thermonuclear Bomb:

1 - AIG world of $1.6 trillion derivatives trouble
2 - The danger of derivatives (2003)

More banks failed last week:

U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, Lenexa, Kan
Western Corporate Federal Credit Union, San Dimas, Calif.
FirstCity Bank, Stockbridge, Ga.
Colorado National Bank, Colorado Springs, CO

By Chuck Baldwin
March 31, 2009

The prolific pollster George Barna just released another startling survey: among America's professing "born-again" Christians, only 19% possess a Biblical worldview. That's right. Some 80% of professing Christians do not possess a Biblical worldview.

And it's not as if Barna's survey questions were all that difficult. Barna's criteria for determining a person's Biblical worldview were the following:

* Believing that absolute moral truth exists;
* Believing that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches;
* Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic;
* Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works;
* Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a Biblical worldview. And again, even among professing "born-again" Christians, only 19% were shown to have a Biblical worldview.

See Barna's research here.

This survey helps explain a bunch!

How in the name of common sense can Christians expect to be the "salt" and "light" to a lost and dying world when the vast majority of believers do not even possess a basic Biblical foundation?

Of course, many mainline Protestant denominations lost their allegiance to Biblical truth decades ago. And now it seems that a majority of evangelical churches are consumed with the politically correct doctrines of Prosperity Theology and Entertainment Evangelism. Old-fashioned Bible Christianity has been replaced with avant-garde movements such as the Emerging Church, Purpose Driven Church, Seeker-Sensitive Church, User-Friendly Church, Meta-Church, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The result of this departure from Biblical Christianity is that some 80% of professing Christians today do not hold a Biblical worldview and are, therefore, impotent at being the "salt" and "light" that our Lord requires.

Let's face it: without a Biblical worldview, these modern "born-again" evangelicals are walking around with pagan, Christless worldviews. Instead of the Bible, socialist talking heads, globalist media moguls, hedonistic entertainers, political hacks, and humanistic academicians are the ones to most influence their opinions, philosophies, and mindsets.

And just whose fault is it that our churches have become so riddled with infidelity and apostasy? The preachers, obviously.

Instead of standing up on their own hind legs and proclaiming, "Thus saith the Lord," without fear or favor, they are falling all over themselves trying to emulate Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Bill Hybels. Instead of preaching with the fear of God in their hearts, they preach with the fear of the I.R.S. and the G.O.P. in their hearts. Or, worse than that, they "tiptoe through the tulips" for fear of their own church members.

I will say it one more time, if America's preachers would stand up in their pulpits every Sunday and not be afraid to preach the truth (and courageously relate it to America's everyday problems and challenges including our political problems and challenges), the ship of state could be turned around overnight! As the pulpits go, so goes the nation. And right now, the pulpits of America are leading our country over the cliff!

It is for this very reason that, a few years ago, I began a nationwide campaign to discover the modern "Black Regiment" pastors and churches in America. As a result of this effort, we have already identified scores of pastors and churches across America that have gladly chosen to identify themselves as being part of America's "Black Regiment."

See the Black Regiment web page here.

If you find a Black Regiment pastor in your area, by all means, join with and support both him and his congregation. How can pastors be expected to courageously proclaim the truth unless people who appreciate the truth support them with both their attendance and offerings?

It is also for this reason that I am now live-streaming my Sunday morning messages on the Internet. We now have hundreds of thirsty souls watching us every Sunday morning. For the most part, these are people who have tried desperately to find courageous, independent-minded patriot-pastors in their communities, but have failed to do so. Our live-streamed broadcast gives them an online home where truth is preached. If you want to join them, use this url on Sunday at approximately 10:30 a.m. (Central Daylight Time):

George Barna's research is tremendously revealing--and disconcerting. It is a sad day when many unbelievers seem to have more character and conviction about the foundational principles of constitutional government, liberty, and independence than do professing Christians. But then again, if Christians cannot be trusted to understand and revere the Sacred Text, how can they understand and revere the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Obama Socialism Will Wreck the Nation
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:26 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?

Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?

Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity, and confiscatory taxation?

Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich, and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money.

The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.

So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?

Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.

He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.

The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct — sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric — is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.

Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow.

He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative — when he has run out of other options.

Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads, “stay away.”

Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.

You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.

Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong “buy American” recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans.

Can affirmative action, low-income lending, and diversity outreach be far behind?

If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.

© 2009 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Obama’s False Choice
A “chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is exactly what we need right now.

By Mark Steyn

Writing in the Chicago Tribune last week, President Obama fell back on one of his favorite rhetorical tics: “But I also know,” he wrote, “that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.”

Really? For the moment, it’s a “false choice” mainly in the sense that he’s not offering it: “a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is not on the menu, which leaves “an oppressive government-run economy” as pretty much the only game in town. How oppressive is yet to be determined: To be sure, the official position remains that only “the richest five percent” will have taxes increased. But you’ll be surprised at the percentage of Americans who wind up in the richest five percent. This year federal government spending will rise to 28.5 per cent of GDP, the highest level ever, with the exception of the peak of the Second World War. The 44th president is proposing to add more to the national debt than the first 43 presidents combined, doubling it in the next six years, and tripling it within the decade. But to talk about it in percentages of this and trillions of that misses the point. It’s not about bookkeeping, it’s about government annexation of the economy, and thus of life: government supervision, government regulation, government control. No matter how small your small business is — plumbing, hairdressing, maple sugaring — the state will be burdening you with more permits, more paperwork, more bureaucracy.

And don’t plan on moving. Ahead of this week’s G20 summit in London, Timothy Geithner, America’s beloved Toxic Asset, called for “global regulation.” “Our hope,” said Toxic Tim, “is that we can work with Europe on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight . . . ”

“Global oversight:” Hmm. There’s a phrase to savor.

“We can’t,” he continued, “allow institutions to cherry pick among competing regulators and ship risk to where it faces the lowest standards and weakest constraints . . . ”

Just as a matter of interest, why not? If you don’t want to be subject to the punitive “oversight” of economically illiterate, demagogic legislators-for-life like Barney Frank, why shouldn’t you be “allowed” to move your business to some jurisdiction with a lighter regulatory touch?

Borders give you choices. Your town has a crummy grade school? Move ten miles north and there’s a better one. Sick of Massachusetts taxes? Move to New Hampshire, as thousands do. To modify the abortionists’ bumper sticker: “I’m Pro-Choice And I Vote With My Feet.” That’s part of the self-correcting dynamism of capitalism: For example, Bono, the global do-gooder who was last in Washington to play at the Obama inauguration, recently moved much of his business from Ireland to the Netherlands, in order to pay less tax. And good for him. To be sure, he’s always calling on governments to give more money to Africa and whatnot, but it’s heartening to know that, when it comes to his wallet as opposed to yours, Bono — like Secretary Geithner — has no desire to toss any more of his money into the great sucking maw of the government treasury than the absolute minimum he can get away with. I’m with Bono and Tim: They can spend their money more effectively than hack bureaucrats can. We should do as they do, not as they say.

If you listen to the principal spokesmen for U.S. economic policy — Obama and Geithner — they grow daily ever more explicitly hostile to the private sector and ever more comfortable with the language of micro-managed government-approved capitalism — which, of course, isn’t capitalism at all. They’ll have an easier time getting away with it in a world of “global oversight” where there’s nowhere to move to. Unfortunately, even then it won’t work. Think about it: It takes extraordinary skill to create and manage a billion-dollar company; there are very few human beings on the planet who can do it. Now look at Obama and Geithner, the two men currently “managing” more money than any individuals in human history: not billions, but trillions.

Notwithstanding the Treasury secretary’s protestations that the Yes/No prompt buttons of Turbo Tax were too complex for a simple soul such as himself, it’s no reflection on the hapless Geithner that he’s unable to fix the planet. When the Bolsheviks chose to introduce Russians to the blessings of a “command economy” 90 years ago, they were dealing with a relatively simple agricultural society largely contained within national borders. Obama and Geithner are trying to do it with a sophisticated global economy in which North American consumers, European bankers, Asian suppliers, Saudi investors, and Chinese debt-holders are more tangled than an octopuses’ orgy. Even with “global oversight” — with the Toxic Tims of Germany, Argentina, and India all agreeing on how to fix the game — it can’t be done.

Barack Obama, even when he’s not yukking it up on 60 Minutes, barely disguises his indifference to economic matters. He is not an economist, a political philosopher, a geopolitical strategist. He is the president as social engineer, the Community-Organizer-in-Chief. His plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving, for example, is not intended primarily to raise revenue, but to advance government as the distributor of largesse and diminish alternative sources of societal organization, such as civic groups. Likewise, his big plans for socialized health care, a green economy, universal college education: They’re about extending the reach of the state.

Unfortunately, all of it costs money he doesn’t have. So he has to borrow it, in your name. Where does the world’s hyperpower go to borrow more dough than anyone’s ever borrowed in human history? More to the point, given that, partly at the behest of Obama and Geithner, almost every other western government is ramping up national debt to cover massive bank bailouts and other phony-baloney “stimuli,” is there enough money out there to buy up the debt that’s already been run up? Last week, at the official British Treasury auction, investors failed to buy the full complement of so-called “gilt-edged” 40-year bonds. Two such auctions have already failed in Germany. The U.S. Treasury, facing similar investor reluctance to snap up $34 billion of five-year notes, was forced to increase the interest it will pay on them. The Chinese and the Saudis have long taken the view that it’s to their advantage to own as much of the western world as they can snaffle up, but it’s unclear whether even they have pockets deep enough for what America and the many Bailoutistans of Europe are proposing to spend.

In their first two months, Obama and Geithner have done nothing but vaporize your wealth, and your children’s future. What began as an economic crisis is now principally a political usurpation. And, to return to the president’s “false choice,” that “chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is exactly what we need right now. It’s the quickest, cheapest, fairest, most-efficient route to economic stabilization and renewal. A regimented and eternally forgiving global command economy with no moral hazard will destroy us all.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn
Doubling Down on the Welfare State
Get ready to pay twice for everything.

by P.J. O'Rourke
04/06/2009, Volume 014, Issue 28

The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich.

You may be surprised to discover you're rich, especially if you're broke. How do you know you are a member of the penurious plutocracy? Take this simple test: See if you pay double for everything.

The financial bailout, for example. Pay for it once with your IRA and 401(k) plan investments. Now pay for it again with your tax dollars.

Ditto with the economic stimulus. Write checks to cover your mortgage payment, utilities, insurance premiums, car loan, basic cable, high-speed Internet access, Visa, MasterCard, and American Express bills, and turn your teens loose in the Old Navy store. Think you're done stimulating the economy? I think not. You've also lent President Obama a godzillion dollars to go on an economically stimulational shopping spree of his own. For collateral the Bank of Obama is using a mortgage on that home of yours called America and a lien on all the future earnings of your children.

How about the new car you've paid for with government largesse to GM and Chrysler? They didn't even send a thank you note containing a scratch-and-sniff card with that new car smell. If you want a car that's visible in your driveway, you'll have to--you guessed it--pay double.

Of course paying double for everything didn't start with the Meltdown of '08. It's an integral part of the modern welfare state.

Beginning with welfare. Your tax dollars pay for federal, state, and local welfare programs. Then you pay for your daughter to pursue a career in "holistic dance liberation." You pay for your son's Internet start up idea--"Buttbook," a website where everybody is an enemy. Plus there's your bum of a brother-in-law, drunk in the double-wide, watching Cartoon Network on the widescreen high-definition television you paid for.

Same with schools. Your school taxes pay for Sara Jane Olson Public High School--conveniently right down the street, inconveniently full of methamphetamine and 9mm handguns. So you also pay tuition at Friar Torquemada Parochial High.

At school, home, or work, the most important purpose of government is to protect your person and property. That's what the police department is for. And you get to pay the police and pay for burglar alarms, private security patrols, and guard dogs, such as our family guard dog, Pinky-Wink. (For the information of any prospective robbers of the O'Rourke house, Pinky-Wink isn't really a Mexican Hairless. He's .  .  . um .  .  . a Rhodesian Ridgeback, weighing 100 .  .  . make that 150 .  .  . pounds. Uh, the kids named him. Stop yapping, Pinky-Wink.)

The second most important purpose of government is trash pickup. Municipal garbage collectors pick up the trash from your house. But not until you've sorted it into its proper recycling bins--which you do by picking up the trash from your house. What you don't pay double for in money you pay double for in time and effort.

But usually it's money. When you pay a hospital bill you're really paying two hospital bills--one bill for you because you have a job and/or insurance and can pay the hospital and another bill, which is tacked onto your bill, to cover the medical expenses of someone who doesn't have a job and/or insurance and can't pay the hospital. Your tennis elbow underwrites the Sara Jane Olson Public High School student's 9mm handgun wound.

And never is paying double as doubly troubling as it is in the matter of retirement. You have to pay into Social Security and into your IRA and your 401(k) plan and put some more money in your savings account too. You have to pay Medicare tax and buy Medicare supplemental insurance and contribute to a medical savings account and make doctor bill co-payments besides. And the funding for Social Security and Medicare is so under-financed and actuarially shaky that you cannot be certain those programs will exist at all by the time you're eligible for them. And you're 64.

Would you like to know what ordinary taxpayers are getting out of this deal? You and me both. How do we benefit from this twinning, this twoing, this duality? Damned if I can figure it out. Barkeep, make that a double.

P. J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The Ship is Sinking: Quick, Add Water
Paying for the Democrats’ dream agenda.

By Mona Charen

Let’s imagine that President Obama decides to go help out in Fargo, N.D., where they are experiencing floods. Mr. Obama enters the home of a flooded family. The water is already six inches high in the living room. The president produces a fire hose and begins to douse the room with even more water. “What are you doing?” cry the anguished homeowners. The president fixes them with one of his impatient looks, and explains “May I remind you that I inherited this flood?”

President Obama has reminded us countless times that he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. Even if he were about to propose the most responsible, prudent, visionary budget imaginable, that complaint would still be petulant and unseemly. But considering what Obama’s own spending will do to the deficit, it’s jaw-droppingly galling. He now proposes to increase that deficit to $7 trillion in ten years. And that $7 trillion is probably a low estimate (the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be $2.3 trillion higher). When the new spending for programs like Pell grants, education for handicapped children, and so forth comes up for renewal in a few years, Congress is not going to let it lapse. So, to review, it was terrible for President Bush and the Democratic Congress (the president neglects to mention the latter) to saddle him with all this debt. His answer is to triple it. That’s showing ‘em!

Some cynics insist that Democrats only decry spending they dislike (such as on the military) and Republicans only deprecate spending they dislike (such as on welfare). There’s a germ of truth in this — but only a germ. In the first place, a significant number of Republicans chastise other Republicans for failing to live up to their lean-government principles. And some Republicans are honest enough to criticize spending their party generally favors. John McCain, for example, has been a scourge of Pentagon contractors. It’s hard to think of a comparably positioned Democrat who has targeted waste, fraud, or abuse in social-service programs or education spending.

Even taking account of the Democrats’ traditional love of lavish government programs, the current gusher quite takes your breath away. In just the first two months of his term, President Obama has proposed the largest increase in federal spending since World War II. If his budget is enacted, the national debt will be close to 100 percent of GDP in nine years. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate is massively increasing government debt at the same time that individuals are struggling to reduce their private debt. So Mr. and Mrs. Jones are cutting back on meals out at restaurants, new clothes, new cars, and fancy cell phones, while the government is going into deep debt on their behalf to pay for windmills, universal preschool, and lots of new transfer payments dressed up as “making work pay.” In other words, the state is taking decisions about how much debt Mr. and Mrs. Jones will incur out of their hands. The Joneses will have to pay back the debt some time (or their children will), but they will not be paying off their own purchases or their kids’ college educations. Instead they will be paying for the Democrats’ dream agenda. As the Wall Street Journal’s Steven Moore notes, “Most of the money that has been borrowed since September 2008 has been used to bail out irresponsible borrowers, failed financial institutions and car companies, and for expansions of welfare programs. . . . Any unbiased assessment of the return on investment . . . for these programs would find dismally low payoffs for taxpayers.”

The sheer size of this proposed debt is making even Europeans quake. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has three times declined the urging of Obama administration officials to mimic America’s debt spree. Some Europeans are even becoming role models for Republicans. As Veronique de Rugy reports in National Review Online, Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) introduced an amendment “to ensure that the budget of the Federal Government is put on a sustainable path by prohibiting consideration of a budget resolution that does not meet the minimum standard of budgetary discipline as defined by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty): a budget deficit no larger than 3% of GDP and government debt no larger than 60% of GDP.” The amendment was rejected.

Senator Gregg, nobody’s idea of a hysteric, is profoundly worried: “If you take all the debt of our country run up by all of our presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush, the total debt over all those 200-plus years since we started as a nation, it is President Obama’s plan to double that debt in just the first five years that he is in office.”

To quote the theme song of the TV show Monk, “If you paid attention you’d be worried too.”

— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.

The West's Fatal Overdose
By Gabor Steingart in Washington D.C.

The G-20 has agreed on plans to fight the global downturn. But its approach will only lay the foundation for the next, bigger crisis. Instead of "stability, growth, jobs," the summit's real slogan should have been "debt, unemployment, inflation."

Now they're celebrating again. An "historic compromise" had been reached, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the conclusion of the G-20 summit in London, while US President Barack Obama spoke of a "turning point" in the fight against the global downturn. Behind the two leaders, the summit's motto could clearly be seen: "stability, growth, jobs."

US President Barack Obama: The G-20 is laying the foundation for the next crisis.
When the celebrations have died down, it will be easier to look at what actually happened in London with a cool eye. The summit participants took the easy way out. Their decision to pump a further $5 trillion (€3.72 trillion) into the collapsing world economy within the foreseeable future, could indeed prove to be a historical turning point -- but a turning point downwards. In combating this crisis, the international community is in fact laying the foundation for the next crisis, which will be larger. It would probably have been more honest if the summit participants had written "debt, unemployment, inflation" on the wall.

The crucial questions went unanswered because they weren't even asked. Why are we in the current situation anyway? Who or what has got us into this mess?

The search for an answer would have revealed that the failure of the markets was preceded by a failure on the part of the state. Wall Street and the banks -- the greedy players of the financial industry -- played an important, but not decisive, role. The bank manager was the dealer that distributed the hot, speculation-based money throughout the nation.

But the poppy farmer sits in the White House. And during his time in office, US President George W. Bush enormously expanded the acreage under cultivation. The chief crop on his farm was the cheap dollar, which eventually flooded the entire world, artificially bloating the banks' balance sheets, creating sham growth and causing a speculative bubble in the US real estate market. The lack of transparency in the financial markets ensured that the poison could spread all around the world.

There are -- even in the modern world -- two things that no private company can do on its own: wage war and print money. Both of those things, however, formed Bush's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Many column inches have already been devoted to Bush's first mistake, the invasion of Baghdad. But his second error -- flooding the global economy with trillions of dollars of cheap money -- has barely been acknowledged.

No other president has ever printed money and expanded the money supply with such abandon as Bush. This new money -- and therein lies its danger -- was not backed by real value in the form of goods or services. The measure may have had the desired effect -- the world economy revived, at least initially. And US consumption kept the global economy going for years. But the growth rates generated in the process were illusionary. The US had begun to hallucinate.

The addiction to new cash injections was chronic. The US had allowed itself to sink into an abject lifestyle. It sold more and more billions in new government bonds in order to preserve the appearance of a prosperous nation. To make matters worse, private households copied the example of the state. The average American now lives from hand to mouth and has 15 credit cards. The savings rate is almost zero. At the end of the Bush era, 75 percent of global savings were flowing into the US.

The president and the head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, knew about the problem very well. Perhaps the Americans even knew just how irresponsible their actions were -- at any rate, they did everything they could to hide them from the world. Since 2006, figures for the money supply -- in other words, the total number of dollars in circulation -- have no longer been published in the US. As a result, a statistic which is regarded by the European Central Bank as a key indicator is now treated as a state secret in the US.

Only on the basis of independent estimates can the outside world get a sense of the internal erosion of what was once the strongest currency in the world. These estimates report a steep rise in the amount of money in circulation. Since the decision to keep the figures confidential, the growth rate for the expansion of the money supply has tripled. Last year alone, the money supply increased by 17 percent. As a comparison, the money in circulation in Europe grew by a mere 5 percent during the same period.

But the change of government in Washington has not brought a return to self-restraint and solidity. On the contrary, it has led to further abandon. Barack Obama has continued the course towards greater and greater state debt -- and increased the pace. One-third of his budget is no longer covered by revenues. The only things which are currently running at full production in the US are the printing presses at the Treasury.

At the summit in London, delegates talked about everything -- except this issue. As a result, no attention was given to the fact that the crisis is being fought with the same instrument that caused it in the first place. The acreage for cheap dollars will now be extended once again. Only this time, the state is also acting as the dealer, so that it can personally take care of how the trillions are distributed.

The International Money Fund was authorized to double, and later triple, its assistance funds -- by borrowing more. The World Bank is also being authorized to increase its borrowing. All the participating countries want to help their economies through state guarantees, which, should they be made use of, would result in a huge increase in the national debt. The US is preparing a new, debt-financed economic stimulus package. Other countries will probably follow its example.

We live in truly historic times -- in that respect, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is right. The West may very well be giving itself a fatal overdose.

The Gang of 20 and the New World Order

By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Apr 3—KIN-- The mouthpiece of the new world order—the mainstream news media—is falling all over itself to show the images and symbols of how leaders of the 20 most powerful nations on earth came together to “save the world.” Their tinny reporting has all the makings of a corny B movie about a bunch of inexperienced, yet cunning crooks, plotting to close down or control all the places where people keep their money, steal the world’s wealth, redistribute it among their buddies, and deceive the masses while appearing to be a frat house of raucous superheroes. Unfortunately, the world stage is little different than Hollywood and the myth of the movie is, in truth, a reality show.

Great Britain’s Prime Minister Harold Brown whipped the media into a frenzy by declaring, “I think a new world order is emerging and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international cooperation.” Brown underscored a global communist theme in saying, “We have resolved from today, we will together manage the process of globalization to secure responsibility from all and fairness to all.” Brown summarized the accomplishments of the G20 summit saying world leaders embarked on the largest redistribution of wealth in history by agreeing to reform banks, restructure the global financial system, give money to the poor and ensure “a green recovery.”

The man who now occupies the Oval Office threw America’s sovereignty under the bus, joined up with the gang of 20, and agreed to an international heist of a trillion dollars as the first installment of redistributing America’s wealth to the rest of the world in support of programs that will make his socialist and communist buddies richer and more powerful. He explained his strategy of compromise to adoring reporters: "Each country has its own quirks and own particular issues that a leader may decide is really, really important, something that is non-negotiable for them. And what we tried to do as much as possible was to accommodate those issues in a way that did not hamper the effectiveness of the overall document."

Even Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hailed the US President as "my new comrade." The Russians are ecstatic over the possibility of the US now reversing all previous policies that protected America and her allies from Russian-inspired attacks.

2 Timothy 3:13 warned of the type of leaders that would emerge in the latter days. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” The world has witnessed the very foundational cornerstone being laid of a one world order. And those who do not know better are embracing this deadly plague dressed like a virgin bride—just like in the movies. This script, however, was not written in Hollywood.

Friday, April 03, 2009

When atrocities are acceptable
Exclusive: Hal Lindsey compares terrorists' attack on kids, Israel's alleged 'war crimes'

Posted: April 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Hal Lindsey


Two different stories carried in the same issue of the Jerusalem Post shine a spotlight on the contrasts that exist between the world in which Israel lives and the world occupied by everybody else. One of them deals with the allegations of "war crimes" committed against Palestinians in Gaza during Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" last December.

Following more than 6,000 missile attacks against Israeli cities and towns within range of the Gaza border, together with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier then held hostage for ransom by Hamas, Israeli officials concluded that enough was enough.

Israel launched a 22-day offensive against Hamas in Gaza with two objectives; the first was to recover their kidnapped soldier, Sgt. Gilad Shalit, the second to put a stop to the rocket attacks.

Before moving on, let's take a second to put things into perspective. Suppose Mexico kidnapped a U.S. soldier and threatened to kill him if Washington didn't release every Mexican drug dealer now held in U.S. prisons?

Want to really understand the reasons for the Israel-Palestinian battle? Get "From Time Immemorial: Origins of Arab-Jewish Conflict" – available only here

And secondarily, suppose members of the Mexican military began randomly shelling cities along Mexico's border with Arizona. After 6,000 shells had landed, including many that struck American day-care centers and supermarkets, what would America's response be? (Even with Obama in the White House?)

Let's make it a bit more realistic. Suppose the rockets kept raining down around Douglas and Bixby, Ariz., even after U.S. troops were sent in to stop the shelling – and the bad guys began hiding in schools and hospitals. What would we do?

We'd probably do what we did in Iraq (when it wasn't our cities and it wasn't our soldiers). We'd call in air strikes and send in troops to mop up. What wouldn't we do? We wouldn't leave the job half finished, would we? (We didn't in Iraq.)

The United Nations just completed a report that accused Israeli soldiers of "routinely and intentionally putting children in harms' way" during that 22-day offensive. Never mind that Hamas operatives hid themselves among the civilian population – something the U.N. report acknowledges, but assigns no blame for. Never mind that Israeli forces were not the ones responsible for the location of the terrorists, nor aware of who lived in which house in a city of millions.(an enemy city in which any Jew would be instantly killed for the "crime" of being a Jew). But the U.N. condemned Israel for committing war crimes that it said in its report were "too numerous to list." Heavens! Too numerous to list! So in their report, the U.N. chose to list ... two.

The report also cited unspecified but "targeted and indiscriminate" attacks on hospitals and clinics, water and sewage treatment facilities, government buildings, utilities and farming and said the offensive "intensified the already catastrophic humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people." (This would be the people that were still firing rockets into Israeli schools, homes and markets even as Operation Cast Lead was under way.)

"There are strong and credible reports of war crimes and other violations of international norms," it said, adding that many observers have said war crimes investigations should be undertaken.

At the same time, the U.N. said the IDF's denials should be ignored on the grounds the IDF cannot be trusted to investigate itself. But accusations against the IDF by Hamas are reliable?

"To the extent that the combat zone was so densely populated by civilians, it meant that, with the types of weaponry relied upon, there was no lawful way to carry out the Israeli military operations," said Richard Falk, addressing the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Hamas was firing directly into civilian areas, without any military targets, without any combat zone of any kind, but the U.N. Human Rights Council found that Israel's actions denied the "Palestinian's right to flee the combat zone."

"Such a war policy should be treated as a distinct and new crime against humanity," Falk said.

Unless it is Hamas committing the identical "offense" against Israelis. Then it is not a crime at all.

The second story from the JPost (I promised there were two) goes like this:

A Palestinian who was given a job working in the Israeli settlement of Bat Ayin attacked two Israelis with an ax. One was killed, the other merely wounded. The Israeli that was murdered by the ax-wielding terrorist was a 13-year-old boy. The other intended victim was able to escape with "just" a head wound. He was presumably the more spry, since he was only 7 years old!

Islamic Jihad took credit for the attack. A Hamas spokesman, Ayman Taha, told the Jerusalem Post: "This attack was committed in the framework of the resistance. This is a reaction to the continuing occupation and the continued building of settlements.

"This is a natural reaction," he said, "especially against the backdrop of Israel attacks. We are a people occupied, and it is our right to defend ourselves and to act in every way and with every means at our disposal in order to defend ourselves."

Not a war crime. Not a crime against humanity. A "legitimate effort" by the Palestinians to "defend themselves." By bashing in the heads of two children with an ax.
Obama bows to Saudi king
Greeting called 'most unbecoming for president of the United States'

Posted: April 02, 2009
4:12 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.

"I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States," writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.

The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.

In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch's waist:

President Obama's bow to Saudi king

In a second image, Obama has straightened up and is exchanging remarks with the Saudi leader:

Obama speaks briefly with Saudi king after bowing

Video by a television crew was posted on YouTube. The bow comes at about 50 seconds into the video:

The action appeared especially awkward since among the dozens of world leaders and their spouses, handshakes abounded, but there appeared to be no other bowing in the room.

The U.S. State Department's office of protocol, in a statement attributed to acting chief of protocol Gladys Blouda, confirmed the type of greeting between heads of state depends on the customs of the countries, but a handshake is the most common form of greeting.

The online Travel Etiquette website for Saudi Arabia said handshakes are common greetings between members of the same sex.

"You should expect to undertake a considerable amount of small talk, and learning a few Arabic greetings would be well received. Saudis will stand closer to each other than many westerners are used to, and members of the same sex will often touch arms when postulating or emphasizing a point. You should not draw away from this as it would be considered rude and rejecting. Be aware that due to the conservative nature of Saudi Arabian society, it is not considered proper etiquette for men and women to greet each other in public," the site advises.

"It is proper etiquette to refer to a royal as Your Highness, and any members of the government ministries as Your Excellency," it said.

Learn about the rest of Obama's plans for the United States, in "The Audacity of Deceit"

Many of the proper procedures for meeting royalty are set by the British monarchy, since its members carry probably the highest royal profile around the world today.

The website for the British queen advises men who are from the United Kingdom to provide a neck bow (from the head only) "whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way."

"On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is 'Your Majesty' and subsequently 'Ma'am'," the site advises.

ABC reported Obama and his wife, Michelle, were less formal meeting Queen Elizabeth II earlier this week, when they exchanged handshakes. The queen briefly touched Michelle Obama on the back, and she returned the contact.

Pundits were surprised, since in 1992 Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticized when he put his arm around the queen in violation of a general "no-touch" rule regarding royalty.

But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: "One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects."

Jamie Glazov, the author of "United in Hate," said Obama's act actually was to be expected.

"And people don't know what's going on here? Are we kidding?" he said. "This is simply the continuation of fellow traveling. It's to be totally expected. Leftists have prostrated themselves before despots throughout history – during the whole Cold War and now vis-Ã -vis jihadists in the terror war. 'United in Hate' crystallizes with precision how and why this dark process occurs."

He cited the Obamas' less formal interaction with the queen earlier.

"Obviously, the queen does not wield totalitarian power and does not mete out sadistic punishment – with which a believer yearns to identify. The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose. This is the process of negative identification that every leftist must practice and that 'United in Hate' documents is at the heart of every leftist's main driving force," he said.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

What's Washington smoking this time?
Exclusive: Chuck Norris warns,
Americans have become 'tea'd'!

Posted: March 30, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris

Smoke screening is an effective military maneuver used to mask the location or movement of units such as infantry, aircraft, tanks or ships. But those who have mastered that art of deception are not just those on the battlefield, but those in the halls of Washington.

Just five days after the election, back on Nov. 9, 2008, now White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel explained the Obama administration's philosophy for governing (for smoke screening): "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it is an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." Here's how they and Congress are living out those words today.

The present smoke hovering over the capital's landscape is the American International Group, or AIG, which has been bailed out four times by the government since last September – to the tune of roughly $170 billion. And, while our eyes have been on the AIG associates who have pilfered $165 million through bonuses, and congressional participants who have condoned such abuses, the Fed is running a quarterback sneak in areas ranging from funding European economies to unhinging America's conservative underpinnings.

First, while people blow a cork over AIG corruptions, far larger amounts of money are being funneled to European financial groups without a peep of protest. AIG employee bonuses are chump change in comparison.

Where is the roughly $170 billion of AIG bailout monies from taxpayers going? Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout are European financial affiliates of AIG.

While AIG monies were distributed to American companies like Goldman Sachs ($13 billion), Merrill Lynch ($7 billion) and Bank of America ($5 billion), European partners were making out like bandits too. The banks include Societe Generale of France ($12 billion), the Deutsche Bank of Germany ($12 billion), Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion) and UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion). Can you believe it?

And it should also be noted that while AIG associates in America are considering giving back their bonuses, AIG executives in Europe say they have no such intent. (By the way, about $85 million of the $165 million in AIG bonuses were given outside the U.S.)

Whatever justification of systemic risk might be proposed, there's no overlooking the fact that these funds are being given to foreign countries to build up their economies when they could be poured into our own in 1,000 different places – like to those who have lost their homes, good name and credit. These congressional permissions are not only outright abusive uses of taxpayers monies, but they are constitutionally criminal. Charity begins at home. It time for us to get our own house in order before helping others with theirs.

So why hasn't there been a major outcry over these bailout monies delegated by AIG to foreign powers? Could it be that the political smokescreens are that pervasive? Is the mainstream media's love affair with Obama still so intoxicating that they are also blind to toxic overseas messes? If foreign investors and institutions are so critically involved in AIG's recovery, why don't their governments help to foot the bill for AIG's rescue?

As pundits and the public have been mesmerized by AIG associate bonuses, Obama continued to slip in more bailouts and even link his 2010 staggering $3.6 trillion budget as another necessary instrument of economic recovery. Forget that the new Congressional Budget Office predicted that the Obama budget would create $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years –$2.3 trillion more than the White House predicted. Does anyone care about that type of debt being placed on our children and children's children's generations?

The majority of Congress is equally a part of the smokescreen plot. Can it not stop these financial sidebars and this legislative insanity? Does it not seem a bit skewed to anyone else that, after the government doles out $170 billion to AIG, it then also throws a 90 percent tax on those who received bonuses from that money? While it might feel like justified revenge, it is a gross abuse of Congress' constitutional powers. Is it the spoiled children (AIG executives) who need a spanking or the parent (Congress) who spoils the brats? As Fortune noted, "Yes, AIG has received vast amounts of bailout money from the government. But that doesn't mean that every bonus-receiving employee is some sort of troll or incompetent who deserves to be threatened with a 90 percent tax or with having his address made public so that people can picket his house." Abuse abounds on every level.

Everyone has become so accustomed to this ludicrous legislative licentiousness that the Obama administration went for broke this past week, when Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner came to Congress to try and obtain sole political and financial autonomy for bailing out select financial institutions the Feds deem necessary to be saved. Of course, Geithner's guise is not political power but economic welfare and concern, saying he merely sought the "broad authority governments need to manage financial crises effectively and protect the economy from the trauma that comes." Again, forget that the Constitution prohibits government from interfering with private contracts.

Of course financial institutions are not the only ones "benefiting" from Washington's smokescreens – so are pet projects and liberal philosophical platforms across the country. Here are just a few other arenas in which Congress and the president have made political headway, while we were sleeping under AIG corruptions and other alleged economic recovery incentives.

Let's not forget Congress and the president passed the $410 billion omnibus "stimulus" bill with its 9,000 earmarks (despite saying he wouldn't do so during his campaign).
More politicians with tax evasion problems have been appointed to the Obama cabinet than ever before in the history of the presidency (despite that he said his administration would perform some of the "most sweeping ethics reform in history").
Obama appointed (and Congress confirmed) David Ogden, a defender of child pornography, to the No. 2 position in the Justice Department
Obama's newly appointed secretary of education, Arne Duncan, isn't likely going to win the hearts of parents committed to private or homeschooling, as he explained in an NPR radio interview, "I'm a big believer in choice and competition, but I think we can do that within the public school framework." (Duncan, great to hear you can articulate what "I" think, but will you represent "We, the People" in your decisions? I hear you're a good man, so please don't abandon those of us who choose options other than public schools.)
Obama's new budget will reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts and severely cripple nonprofits, which are already hurting by America's recession.
If Congress passes Obama's new budget, increased taxes will fall upon a larger number of small business owners than once projected and only ultimately discourage economic growth and penalize productivity. As Yale University professor Michael Graetz noted, "We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically by relying as heavily as we do on income taxes when the rest of the world relies on consumption taxes."
Despite its history of fraud, ACORN, that alleged political bastion of election neutrality, will participate in the 2010 consensus.
An executive order was signed for Gitmo to be closed, and the War on Terror was reassigned as an "Overseas Contingency Operation"
And Obama announced just last week that he's sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan with possibly 30,000 more troops next year (despite that during his campaign he promised to reduce our troops and pull us out of the Middle East).
Pro-choice platforms and practices have been pushed in ways that America hasn't seen since the original 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy," now allowing federal funds to support international family planning groups who provide abortions. Restrictions for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have been lifted. The Conscience Clause is about to be rescinded, if the public doesn't fight immediately. Parental rights are about to be handed over to the United Nations. And FOCA is closing fast on the horizon.
In two-thirds of his first 100 days, Obama has spent more money than any president to date (and most combined), grown big government larger than any administration, raised the debt ceiling and national budget higher than any government in the world, made more liberal changes than Planned Parenthood could plan, and gotten away with breaking any campaign promises he chooses. And he's done all of that with virtually few contests or rebuttals and a continued 65 percent approval rating.

One thing is certain: There's nothing that Obama can't get away with at this point. He is the orchestra leader of a new political blitzkrieg that makes the Clinton machine look like Tinker Toys.

And you thought AIG was the problem?

America, please wake up and let your voice be known to your legislatures that "We are TEA'D!"