A promise Obama has kept!

Obama has delivered on his desire to raise the price of gas.

Obama stated in June 2008 on CNBC that he had no problem with high gas prices he just wanted the price to rise slowly.

In September 2008 Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.[roughly $8/gallon]”

It’s not surprise then that the average price of gas in American on Jan 19 2008 was $1.84 and it is now $3.72 and going up by the minute it would seem.

Keep in mind that high energy costs hit the poor and middle class the hardest, the 1% won’t even notice.

Obama is anti-Choice!

No not on abortion.

He still favors killing the inconvenient, especially if they are Black or Latino--Black women are 5 times as likely to kill their unborn child as whites and Latino's are 3 times as likely.

While he believes its ok to kill the unborn he doesn't think Americans should be allowed to chose to buy safe light bulbs.

When the new energy efficient bulbs break they release toxic mercury vapor. In fact the EPA has some pretty scary instructions on what to do when one of these new bulbs breaks--see them at the end of this post.

But Obama feels that a mother who doesn't want to risk exposing her children to toxins shouldn't have a choice.

I guess the only choice Obama supports is killing the unborn.

Here are the instructions from http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

Before Cleanup

• Have people and pets leave the room.
• Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
• Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
• Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
  • stiff paper or cardboard;
  • sticky tape;
  • damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
  • a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During Cleanup

• DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
• Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
• Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After Cleanup

• Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
• If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

A Lesson from Chairman Mao

In his little red book, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, Mao said “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

That’s the voice of the French revolution speaking.

In America we followed a different path. We believe that all men receive inalienable rights because God has given those rights to us.

In America political power was not intended to be unlimited and all encompassing. The Founding Fathers envisioned a society where people controlled most of their own lives and the governments role was minimal.

In the American view people are adults who can, in the vast majority of cases, regulate their own lives and their interactions with their fellow citizens. Not children who need a constantly watching nanny state to ensure that they don’t hurt themselves.

But since the rise of fascism and communism in the last century a growing segment of the West’s population have become entranced by the siren call of governmental power.

Initially many are seduced by the concept of the all powerful government because they believe that it is the only way to care for the poor and the helpless. The state is so big and so wealthy that only it can possibly care for those in need.

It sounds reasonable but history has shown it to be wrong.

Governments might help some but always at a terrible price in freedom. Moreover government help rarely brings people back into mainstream society. Rather since the power of government is a function of the peoples dependency government help generally works against returning people to independence.

Once hooked on the concept of government as savior the next step on the path to Mao is the belief that the masses are stupid and need to be controlled, not convinced. At this stage one believes that one has all the answers and if only the mechanisms of government weren’t so slow; so held back by reactionaries we could achieve a heaven on earth.



An example of this type of thinking is Obama saying it would be easier to run China and wishing that he could just do what he knows is right for the country without having to deal with those who deny the validity of his vision. 



Having accepted government as their personal savior people look to politics to solve all problems. But since they have accepted the concept of government control of every aspect of their lives that means they cannot accept losing any political struggle.



The protests we see in Wisconsin by unions are their reaction to the fact that they lost a political struggle. When your livelihood depends on the largesse of government rather than your own hard work political defeats hit you where it hurts.



Like welfare addicts in England, Greece, and Spain the unions know that losing the political fight has immediate and significant financial repercussions.

Unlike people who actually make their own way in the world modern government addicts are aware that their whole way of life is at risk every time there is an election. That’s because while the non-addicted know that the typical liberal might raise taxes a bit it will be a small thing and they’ll be able to cope. To them a bad government is a nuisance not a disaster.

To the government addicted politics is life. By ceding their independence to the government they have become dependent on the outcome of the political process.

That’s why the government addicted liberals are so single minded in their efforts to ensure their candidates win. That’s why all of the vote fraud is on the left. That’s why Al Gore dragged the country through a crisis even though there was no vote fraud while Richard Nixon accepted the results in 1960 and ignored the vote fraud that cost him the election.

Till now the majority of Americans have accepted the increase in government size because it didn’t seem to impact them directly. Few realize how much the government takes in taxes because the cash disappears before we ever see it. And in the main areas of our lives, such as health care, the adverse impacts of the government did not immediately show up. More importantly most Americans could live a lifestyle that was reasonably correlated with how hard they worked.

But now with Obamacare, the failure of the government to help with the recession, and the fact that it’s harder to make up for the money the government takes the non-government addicted have begun to react.



The productive Americans have begun to realize that America is at the limit of government power and control that can exist without degrading their lives. Americans are kind and generous. They accept that a big chunk of their effort goes to help others.



That does not mean however that they will allow their own lives to go down the tubes. Productive Americans, the ones who pay taxes and work for a living, generally like their health care. They feel that they are taxed enough and they fear for their jobs. 



They worried about the massive debt increase and the huge spending bills that the government addicted advocated but they trusted the government when they were told that those huge expenses would restart the economy.



Now they know better. Now they are saying enough is enough.

Where I live the first sign of a break in the monolithic left was a very liberal newspaper complaining about how much city workers were paid. Something I’d never expected to see. Perhaps it was related to the fact that many workers at that paper had been let go because of the economy while the unions defended the huge, and unaffordable, retirement packages the government gave city workers.



Since then across the nation there has been an upswelling of feeling that we’ve drifted too far from what productive Americans want and too close to the sort of government that Mao would endorse. The Tea Party is not just about specific economic policies but about the general concept that the government is too big, too powerful, and too generous with other peoples money.

If your income depends on the government and the people who pay the bills, via their taxes, have said no more what do you do?

Up until now in America the fanaticism of liberal government addicts has been enough to keep them from suffering cuts. Sure those on welfare were impacted by the changes to welfare the Republican Congress forced down Bill Clintons craw but they tend to not vote. In any case the economy was doing well so they could live with the cuts.



But now the number of Americans getting significant money from the government has gone up and the government unions are suddenly feeling the heat as well. It looks like merely being committed will not be enough to keep their entitlements flowing.



What do you do if you’re government addict? You turn to a giant in the field of governmental worship. You turn to Mao, or any number of other all government all the time people, and you embrace the use of force, or the threat of force, to get your way.

After all in the minds of liberals laws only exist to further the good of those who worship at the feet of government so when laws do not work in the favor of the government addicts they should be ignored. Similarly civility is a one way street since in the mind of the government addicted the other side is intrinsically selfish and evil.



Wisconsin made minor changes to the economic outlook of workers who made significantly more than their private sector counterparts. Yet those workers felt entitled to lay siege to Madison, skip out of work, and try to physically intimidate politicians they didn’t agree with.



We should not be surprised at this violence. It’s the natural result of the modern liberal philosophy that politics is all. If the scope of the government is such that its decisions are life and death then no one can accept a compromise.

Right now only a minority of Americans are so dependent on the government that they cannot survive changes without having to accept personal responsibility for their lives. But that minority is large enough that it can cause a great deal of trouble.



We need to prepare to stand strong against violence on the left. To give in to their terrorism, true terrorism not the made up version ascribed to those who would limit the scope of government, is to ensure our children will suffer what the Greeks are currently going through.

It's the marriage, stupid!

Once again being gay has trumped the law and legal precedent.
Historically judges have been required to recuse themselves when they stand to either benefit or be hurt by the ruling they make on a case. That makes sense. Having a judge rule on a suit against a company he has stock in wouldn’t leave the claimants feeling they got a fair shake. Similarly what person on trial for robbery would want the judge whose house he burgled on his case?
Liberals support this position and take it to an extreme. Liberals have tried to have a court determine that a Roman Catholic Congressman couldn’t vote on abortion related laws because his religious views were a source of impermissible bias. Strangely they don’t object to Black Congressmen voting on Civil Rights laws.
Yet when gays are involved this quite reasonable legal position is tossed out the window.
The Federal judge who overruled the millions of Californians who voted for Prop.8, and in the process determined that the Constitution of the United States requires gay marriage, is homosexual. He’s been living with the same man for more than 10 years.
The media claimed that the objection to Judge Vaughn’s suitability was that he was gay but that’s not the case. Instead the argument was the following.
Judge Vaughn was in a long term relationship with another man. Judge Vaughn lives in California with said man. Judge Vaughn, if Prop. 8 was upheld, would not be able to marry his partner. On the other hand if Judge Vaughn discovered a right to gay marriage in a document written by men who viewed homosexuality as one of the worst evils then Judge Vaughn could marry this man he loves.
Any sane person would view this as an obvious conflict of interest. Even if Judge Vaughn has no intention of marrying his partner the appearance of impropriety does great damage to the credibility of the judicial system.
But a U.S. District Judge, James Ware, has ruled that there is no conflict of interest on the part of Judge Vaughn because he hasn’t, to date, tried to marry his partner.
But suppose Judge Vaughn is planning on marrying his partner when the dust settles? Do the millions of California’s who worked for, donated for, and voted for Prop. 8 get to hit the reset button and return the law to the way it was before Judge Vaughn’s ruling? No they don’t. They don’t even get a mulligan--which would involve millions of dollars and untold sacrifices--because no California proposition can overrule the Federal Constitution.
This is another example of one of the core tenants of liberalism, the end justifies the means. It’s clear that if a Mormon judge were to rule that a proposition that legalized gay marriage was unconstitutional, even though the Mormon judge neither stood to gain or lose personally from the decision, the liberal mobs would be howling for his blood.

What's breaking Democracy in America

We all know that America is a Republic not a Democracy. Still we believe that by voting for politicians we are influencing the direction the country takes. The ever growing feeling by more and more Americans that our votes don’t matter coupled with the government taking a continuously increasing fraction of our money and freedoms is fueling the Tea Party and other anti-big government movements.
How often have you heard that “all politicians are the same” or that it’s those “Washington insiders” who run the show? People believe there is a disconnect between what they want, what they vote for, and what gets done. This in turn generates a feeling of powerlessness and frustration that is often channeled into attacks on all politicians and the entire political establishment.
While some Americans have always felt unrepresented it’s only very recently that a very large fraction of Americans, perhaps even the majority feel excluded and ignored.
Three primary mechanisms are responsible for this massive wave of disenchantment with our government.

• The growth of government
• The unConstitutional expansion of Judicial power
• The collapse of a shared vision of what America stands for

In the past government played a smaller role in the average persons life so that the average voter was much more likely to find a candidate who shared their vision on political issues. The growing role of government has changed that.
As government expands its tendrils intersect with peoples lives in more and more ways. People therefore are interested in more issues than they were before. Sadly however they still can only vote for one Representative, two Senators, and one President. If you’re a single issue voter then that’s plenty of choices. But if you care about multiple issues-- say abortion, the federal deficit, and ending the war in Afghanistan-- you may be hard pressed to find a candidate who agrees with all of your positions.
When you have no candidate who supports all of your positions you’re at least partially disenfranchised even before you cast your vote. Many socially conservative Republicans felt that way when McCain was chosen as “their” candidate for President.
Political gerrymandering adds to this problem by ensuring that large fractions of people in many districts are permanently disenfranchised.
For example in my district the same Democrat has been elected for 38 years. I have no hope of seeing a Republican, or even a conservative Democrat, elected. The only way I can make my voice heard is by contributing to political campaigns in other districts. And I am far from alone.
The second source of problems is the legislative role taken on by the judiciary. Irrespective of your position on abortion it should be bothersome that the Supreme Court overturned the laws of all 50 states, even the most liberal ones, and declared that abortion for any reason at any point in a pregnancy is legal. Clearly the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution never intended it to protect abortion since abortion was considered a heinous crime back then.
The long list of Judicial legislation, including judges ordering taxes to be increased, has given many Americans a feeling of powerlessness. Look at Prop 8 in California. It was overturned by one, gay, Federal judge. Millions of votes, millions of dollars, millions of volunteer hours down the tubes because one Judge decided that the Constitution, written and ratified by people who thought homosexuality was an abomination, some how secretly said that marriage needed to be redefined to include two men.
Judicial legislation is particularly offensive because it’s nearly impossible to overturn. The only way to overrule the Supreme Court is to either restrict the cases it can act upon, a tool that has never been used, or to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
To reject the decision of just five judges it’s necessary to get a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate to vote for the Amendment. Then 38 states have to vote for the Amendment. All that to overturn the decision of five rich lawyers.
Because it’s so easy for the Courts to overthrow the will of the people and so hard to correct the Courts people know that unless five Supreme Court justices agree with you no amount of political effort is worth anything.
Just like serfs in a monarchy people who don’t happen to agree with the Courts vision of America are feeling powerless and oppressed.
The final source of voter anger is the breakdown of a consensus on what America is and should be. We see one side or another saying that their position is favored by most Americans when the split is 45% to 55%.
Look at California one of the most liberal states. Yet even there Jerry Brown only got 54% of the vote. That means that 46% of Californians didn’t want him as governor.
It doesn’t bode well for popular support for the political process when 46% of the voters are depressed about an election.
Americans are nearly evenly split on a host of key issues including the role of government and a plethora of social issues. Coupling that with questions about Democrat support for illegal voting produces and steadily increasing taxes means that a very large fraction of the populace is effectively taxed without representation; the very formula that led to the original Tea Party.
America needs to take steps to address the valid concerns of the governed. The most effective step would be a return to the more limited government defined in the Constitution.
That’s why at the core of the Tea Party movement and the current discontent with Washington is the desire to limit the role of government. People know that whenever the Federal government comes to help it does so at the expense of individual wealth and liberty.
Neither a Republic nor a Democracy can survive when the scope of government is unlimited because in that ecosystem the only winners are the political animals not the common man.
If we are to retain our freedom we must work for a fundamental revision of the role of government. Simply reducing taxes isn’t enough. We must return power to the people; not the judges, not the political insiders, not the professional politicians, not the liberal media, and not the unions.