Deregulation Doesn't Kill Economies, People Do

We've all seen the bumper sticker....."Guns don't kill people, people do!!" The Left in this country has been desperately trying to ban private firearm ownership for years and their number one tactic has been to blame an inanimate object for human misbehavior. It's a means to an end. I've seen this same strategy (by both sides of the political aisle) employed to explain the economic collapse that we are experiencing right now. It is a naked attempt to shift the blame away from the actual living, breathing people responsible for this mess to words written into legislation. The deregulation of our financial markets may have opened the door for fiscal impropriety but the people responsible for this had to actually walk through that open door. Since the "watchdogs" of our democracy have chosen to not really dig into and explain this to the American people, I have done research on my own to try to understand how we have arrived at this mess. Here are the steps that have led to this crisis according to what I have been able to ascertain. I will provide links that I have found to be helpful but you can easily research this on your own. Please feel free to add to this. I am certainly not an expert, just a curious citizen wondering how those we elected to "protect" us allowed this to happen.

1) The Community Reinvestment Act: This law passed in 1977 under Carter forced banks to prove that they were making efforts to make mortgage loans in low income neighborhoods to people that normally wouldn't qualify (redlining) for those loans. Many on the Right point to this as the main cause of the mortgage meltdown. Since the meltdown didn't occur until almost 30 years after it's inception, it's a pretty weak argument. I would argue that because of it's loose enforcement, it was more of an annoyance to the banking industry than anything else. What it did accomplish though was to set the stage for future problems.

http://banking.about.com/od/loans/a/cra.htm

2) Financial Services Modernization Act: This bi-partisan bill was signed by Clinton in 1999 and deregulated and "opened up" Fannie and Freddie. This is chronicled by The New York Times (a Clinton propaganda ally at the time). This article is extremely important for you to read. It clearly states that it was the Clinton Administration that was applying the pressure on banks to make risky loans and is almost prophetic in explaining the dangers of this practice in case of an economic downturn. It's a must read.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=2&sq=&st=nyt

3) The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: Another bi-partisan bill signed by Clinton in 2000 on his way out of office. This was his "gift" to the incoming Bush Administration. This Act removed many of the regulations enacted in the 1930's that were intended to prevent another stock market crash like the one that had just occurred back then. It also deregulated the accounting practices used by corporations and included the famous "Enron Loophole".

http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub134.pdf

In my humble opinion it was these 3 Acts that "opened the door" to our current problems. If you are someone that simply wants to blame deregulation for our economic problems than you must place the blame on Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Phil Gramm (the architect of the 2 bills passed under Clinton). I tend to believe that if we had honest, responsible people in government and corporate America, these regulations would have been a boon for the economy and the country. That wasn't the case though.

So, who were the actual people that "walked" through that open door? There are too many to list but here are my main culprits.

1) Franklin Raines: Clinton's former budget director that was appointed to run Fannie Mae in the late 1990's. He cooked the books at Fannie and put enormous pressure on private lenders to make risky loans. Why? So that Fannie could buy those loans on the secondary market thus inflating Fannie's portfolio and thereby inflating his outrageous bonuses. This practice completely distorted the free market and directly led to the housing pricing bubble. He was removed in 2004 for this activity and really should be in jail for a long, long time. He is not in jail and only had to pay a fine for his crimes. Why? He is an established member of the Oligarchy and therefore immune to real punishment.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004358433_webraines18.html

2) Greedy CEOs: I truly believe that most corporate leaders are responsible and keep the best interests of their companies and stock holders at heart. There were enough irresponsible and greedy CEOs though that took advantage of the deregulation to explode their personal wealth and destroy the corporations that they were entrusted to protect. Need I say more?

3) The Bush Administration: George Bush either willingly or incompetently turned a blind eye to all that was occurring in the financial markets during his term of office. Although the President has less to do with government oversight than the Congress, the buck must stop somewhere. He came into office promoting an "Ownership Society" and I believe he agreed with most of what was happening. His appointment of Chris Cox to head the SEC was a disaster and Cox is another official that deserves to be in jail for a long, long time. He is not. Why? He is an established member of the Oligarchy and immune to real punishment.

http://mises.org/story/1601

4) Bill Frist, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank: Bill Frist as the leader of the Senate blocked a critical bill that would have reformed Fannie and Freddie back in 2004 (a). This bill may have helped to avert our current crisis or at least, lessened it's impact. Dodd and Frank fought regulation tooth and nail during this time and voted in lock step with Democrats to block any reform of Fannie and Freddie's practices. Once in the majority (2006) these two men assumed the chairmanships of the Banking Committees in the Senate and House and continued to ignore the problem. Barney Frank is actually on television on CNBC in the summer of 2008, in the middle of the meltdown, telling the American people that Fannie is just fine. (b). At minimum he should have resigned in disgrace for his behavior. At most (my preference), he should be in jail for a long, long time. He is not. Why? He is an established member of the Oligarchy and immune to real punishment.

(a) http://www.quickdfw.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/102008dnnathousing.3ef5bab.html

(b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU

We are all free to determine for ourselves what happened and who is to blame. One thing is clear to me though. The roosters are watching the hen house and we as voters continue to put them there year after year. Maybe, at the end of the day, we have to take a hard look at ourselves. I think it's time to stop being sheep and start being real Americans, ready and willing to step up and take charge of our country.

This Issue Just Won't Go Away

Looks like the Oligarchy forgot to pass the word to Senator Richard Shelby that this is supposed to be covered up. I'm sure he will dummy up from now on.

"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. "You have to be born in America to be president."

Listen to an interview with the attorney trying to get to the bottom of this controversy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxnzlYAtqRQ

Obsession

My copy just arrived. It's not available at Amazon.com (surprise). I had to order it at the official site. It does appear to be available for rent at Blockbuster though. If anyone can't find this and really wants to see it, let me know. I will help you find it or even lend it out if necessary. It's must see tv.

Let's Play Name That Liberty!!!

Welcome back ladies and gentlemen to another round of America's favorite game show, "Name That Liberty!!!" This week we bring you Suzy Smith from South Florida and she will try to be the first ever winner here on the program. The object of the game is simple, name one form of human endeavour that is not somehow regulated, controlled or limited by the local, state or federal government.

Okay Suzy, you've had plenty of time to think about this, what is your first response?........

"Well Richard, I think I have you this time, I'm gonna say........buy a car! I am completely free to buy a car!"

Suzy....very good answer but I'm afraid not. You must have forgotten that cars must be registered with the state and insured. You will have to show some type of government identification so the dealer can process your paperwork. Also, what if you wanted to buy a car made out of plastic or a powerful car that gets only 5 mpg. As you know the federal government will not allow those cars to be made (for your own good of course) so your choices have been made for you in advance. Good news though, you're still allowed to pick the color!!

"Okay, I didn't think about all that, okay then what about working, surely in America I'm free to work anyway I want."

Hmmm.....I'm really sorry to tell you this but no. First of all you must be of a certain age to legally start working. If you decide to be self employed, you will need a license (permission) from the State and probably some type of insurance. Many forms of employment are banned or illegal completely, we won't go into that during prime time. If you work for a company you will need to have (theoretically) a government issued social security number so they can deduct taxes directly from your paycheck.

"Richard, I thought this would be easy but I must say, I'm getting a little frustrated. For my last response I will say.......breathing, yes of course, how did I not think of that before? There's my answer, breathing."

Tick tock, tick tock...............bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Oh no, Suzy. So close but I cannot give you breathing. You see Suzy, if you decide that as a free person, you would like to breathe into your lungs cigarette or cigar smoke (perfectly legal substances), you will be restricted by law as to when and where to do that and in some cities you are banned completely from exercising your free will. Let's not even talk about you deciding as a free person in charge of your own life, breathing in marijuana smoke!!! And of course, if you as the Owner of your own life, God forbid, choose to stop breathing, you will be charged with attempted suicide. Again, against the Law!!!

Nice try Suzy, and thank you for joining us here on Name That Liberty. Be sure to play at home and see if you can stump the blogger. Please chime in with your guesses.

FROM MICHAEL SAVAGE

Click on photo

I highly recommend watching the movie "Obsession" to truly understand the depth and scope of the fight we are in right now. It is unfortunate that talk radio and the internet are the only places to fully hear about the nature of our conflict with radical Islam.

THIS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

Anne Wortham is Black, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

In Fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004 she was awarded tenure.

No He Can't
by Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,
Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for President. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .
I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America . Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them. I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the President of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be President, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

FOR JULIO AND HENRIETTA

This blog is dedicated to the two questioners at the Ft. Meyers, Obama town hall meeting. This blog is for anyone out there that believes it is the duty of the federal government to take money from other people and give it to them. This blog is for anyone that wasn't utterly embarrassed for their country after that round of questions in Ft. Meyers last Tuesday.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”- President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." —Benjamin Franklin

The first quote is a statement by the author of the law of this land explaining why he was going to veto a bill that would have given money to war refugees including widows and orphans. The second quote from President Pierce, 80 years later, explaining his veto of a popular measure to help the mentally ill. Finally, perhaps our wisest Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin predicting the future with his words of warning.

The Julios and Henriettas of our society that have been mis-educated, misinformed, brainwashed, lied to and otherwise hobbled into government dependence, need to please burn these quotes into your long term memories. You will become better, stronger and happier self-reliant, proud people. This country was not founded on the idea that government's purpose is to coddle you from cradle to grave. Most of us believe in giving folks a hand up in times of need but many of us believe that it is actually immoral and destructive to make people dependent on those hand outs. Julio and Henrietta are examples of that destructiveness.

Almost all of the social spending programs that we live with today (and the massive debt incurred by them) were instituted by FDR and LBJ with the New Deal and the Great Society Program. They were put into place late in our country's history and were voted in as a result of having a Democrat president with overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress and questionable Supreme Court justices that found a way around the Constitution. Sound familiar???

If you disagree with this notion than you are in disagreement with the Founders and the man that wrote most of the Constitution. If you believe it is our moral or religious obligation to transfer money to those in need, I have some really good news for you. You live in a country that allows you to pursue happiness in whatever manner you wish. Please break out your checkbooks, donate your time or possessions (our favorite charity is St. Judes). Feel free to give as much as you want to those in need, God bless you for your generosity and humanity, but the minute that you vote to force others (with the threat of IRS imprisonment for non-compliance) to follow your values or lifestyle, you are engaging in classic fascism. It may be a happy faced, liberal fascism but fascism non the less.

Government "charity" is not constructive it is destructive. It is not moral, it is immoral. It teaches people to look to government instead of themselves. If you don't believe me, just ask Julio or Henrietta.

JUST A THOUGHT..........

"We no longer find slavery abhorrent," she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. "We embrace it." She explained in another speech, "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."

With the recent announcement that Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg is battling cancer and will surely be stepping down soon, I have an offer for President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. I will give you your "stimulus" bill and everything you want for the next four years in exchange for putting Janice Rogers Brown on the court. She is worth all that and more.

A man can dream can't he?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200505170812.asp

HERE IT COMES !!

I didn't think I would have to write this blog for at least another couple of months. What was just uncovered in the "stimulus" bill has forced this to come out early.

Recently I had a short conversion with some friends over dinner and they expressed to me that they thought Socialized medicine was a good idea. They used the European models as their example. They were both naturalized citizens so I gave them a pass on not fully understanding the American experience, why the country was founded, why people fled Europe to find freedom, the Constitutional protections from government oppression, etc. and so on. I thought a lot about that conversation and decided that if I could understand their attraction to this system that I might better understand why so many in our country seem to lean that way. My conclusion was that most people believe that Socialized medicine will be some sort of panacea. Here is my list of what I think people believe will be accomplished by having gov't run health care:

1) I will have the same health care that I have now except that the gov't will pay for it.

2) Those 40 million or so without health care will now have it.

3) Doctors and pharmaceutical companies will no longer be able to gouge the public and get rich off of my illness.


These misconceptions are understandable considering the demagoguery and outright lies coming from the politicians. Let me briefly work my way up on this list.

3) If the gov't tries to limit compensation to docs and drug companies the drug companies will not be able to afford to research new medications and treatments. Almost all new breakthroughs in medication are coming out of the US because of the oppressive rules placed on companies in other socialized countries. Doctors are our best and brightest and if limits are placed on how much they can earn and how they can treat their patients, the trend will be for our youngsters to go into other fields where their earnings will be limited only by their talents and abilities. Most going into law or business (oops, Obama has already started to limit Wall St. compensation).


2) When you hear some politician crying crocodile tears about the uninsured in this country, realize that most of the people in that category are people that have freely chosen not to purchase insurance, folks in between jobs or are illegal aliens. Let's face it, nobody goes without health care in this country. The poor have medicaid, our seniors have medicare and our emergency rooms are bound by law to accept anyone in an emergency medical situation, even illegal aliens. This is not a perfect system of course, but I'm getting tired of the Big Lie that people are dying on the streets. That more accurately describes participants of Canadian and European health care as many are flat out denied treatment by their "compassionate" bureaucrats.

1) The big hook for changing systems is the cost factor. We all agree that health care is much too expensive (this from gov't intrusion and frivolous lawsuits) so it is understandable that many want to turn it over to the gov't with the hope that it will now be free. This is a terrible lie perpetuated by corrupt leaders. Do any research at all on the internet and you will find that health care is bankrupting Canada and many European nations and their tax rates are astronomical.


All these things considered the biggest reason not to adopt Socialized medicine is that once gov't is "paying" for it, they get to make the rules. We have caught a glimpse of this with the recent bank bailouts. Obama has limited the salaries of CEO's and even changed their bonus plans. We are all now hearing of corporate decisions to sponsor Mets stadium, renovate offices, trips to Vegas, etc. People feel outraged and the gov't now feels empowered to tell them what to do with their money because they received TARP funds. This is exactly what gov't health care will look like but worse. Self righteous politicians advancing their careers by decrying how much doctors earn or the high cost of prescription drugs. They will tell hospitals how they should be run and how certain procedures are just too darn expensive for the public to have to pay for. That's right, mindless, corrupt, ambitious politicians and bureaucrats making life and death decisions for you and your family. Sidebar: You will also have your neighbors watching you to make sure your little Johnny doesn't get braces before their little Janey because she was first on the waiting list. If you think I am full of it, please take at least as much time as you would researching a new car purchase to research socialized medicine and you will find countless web sites devoted to the horrors of government run health care. These sites are posted by citizens in these countries not "right wing" bomb throwers, bought and paid for by the drug lobby like me (if only).

I bring this up now because it recently came to light that there is a disturbing, hidden provision tucked away in the "stimulus bill". This is written about in length by Betsy McCaughey on Bloomberg.com ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs ) and I strongly urge everyone to read it with an open mind. What this provision does is create a new federal government bureaucracy (just what we need and can't afford) called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This group of big hearted, all knowing, god-like, gov't employees will be charged with the responsibility of overseeing your doctor's decisions on how to treat you. They will have available at their fingertips all of your medical information because as Obama promised, we will be spending a fortune to put every American's health record into a national computer database, (Where are all the Patriot Act protesters now? Talk about an invasion of privacy and violation of civil liberties, whew). Non-participating doctors may be fined and as if that weren't enough, the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be in charge approving or not approving treatments based on cost effectiveness.

Yes, as I have tried to warn you, the federal government will be making life and death medical decisions for you and your family based on cost. This all may sound attractive to many of you but not to me. I prefer my medical decisions to be between me and my doctor, period. I don't need my "master's" permission to save my own life or that of my family. For any gov't or organization to stick its ugly nose into this area goes far beyond arrogance or lust for power, I believe it to be evil. Mankind has been struggling since the beginning of history through revolt, revolution and uprising to free itself from tyranny, monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc. In 1776 we came as close as ever before and in 1787 we set into writing the restraints on what our Founders considered a "necessary evil". Since then, we have slowly ceded that freedom to the gov't and once we turn over our health care to them, we won't be much more than glorified serfs. With the massive national debt growing ever so quickly and the unstoppable expansion of the federal government, the next generations will be economic slaves, working to pay off this debt and support these monstrous bureaucracies.

The right hand column of this blog contains words from the great patriot (and brewer) Samuel Adams. He makes it clear that it is our duty to maintain our Freedom not only for us but for the generations to come. Those great men and women and those that followed gave blood and treasure to protect it. My grandfather fought in WWII against fascism. I don't think he left his wife and put his life in danger to protect Social Security or make sure welfare payments would be safe for future generations. He along with thousands of others were fighting to make sure that their children and grandchildren would grow up in the same country that they did. A country where the government was fiercely limited and took orders from them, not the other way around. Oh, how far we have come in one generation.

Here are some excerpts from Betsy's column, please take a moment to read the entire article and then do some research on your own:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

I am starting a section on the blog to post links to stories that point out how bad and intrusive gov't run health care really is. Please send me links to add to this list. I am starting out with a story that will seem humorous at first but is really tragic and scary.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2007/11/17/New_Zealand_bans_fat_wife/UPI-74381195331694/

WELL...........

I guess I'm not toooooooo crazy.........

Thank you Newsweek for watching my back.

Meet The Oligarchy

The Paradigm Shift

Many political junkies on the Right started to notice something funny going on during the first few years of the Bush 2 presidency. Republicans in Congress were beginning to look and act a lot like Democrats. Bloated budgets and an expanding federal government seemed to be back in style. Things became crystal clear shortly after Bush won re election. He no longer had to pander to the conservatives in his Party and was completely free to pursue his real agenda. A partial list of the Bush agenda/legacy includes amnesty for illegals, largest expansion of the gov't since LBJ, staggering deficits, Dubai port deal, prescription drug entitlement, Kennedy education Bill, partial nationalization of the banking and auto industries, declining Dollar and (in my opinion) sabotaging the 2006 mid-term election for the Republicans. This in order to have a liberal Congress to pass more of his leftist agenda.

At this time, except for a few hot button social issues, there is very little difference between our two political parties. They all talk and promise big things to their respective bases in order to get elected but if you go back to look at the record, I believe you will find that we have been moving in a straight line from Bush 1 through Obama. Except for his Supreme Court appointees and failed attempt at socialized medicine, Clinton basically governed from the center (much credit to the Gingrich congress). He was less conservative than Bush 1 but continued the Nafta and China policies and moved the country to the left. Bush 2 talked like a conservative cowboy but governed to the left of Clinton. Bush's bloated budgets and attempt at amnesty probably would have gotten Clinton impeached (oh yeah, he was). During his last two years with the help of liberals in Congress and a castrated Republican party, he brought us right up to the edge of Socialism. I believe it will be Obama's assignment to finish the job.

In my humble and semi-educated opinion, there has been a paradigm shift in our political system. There are no longer two parties with strongly differing views on policy and political convictions. 'The game is no longer Republican vs. Democrat but us against them. What my eyes and ears are telling me is that we are being run by an oligarchy. The politicians aren't really Dems and Reps but they play them well on television. They fight and argue with passion while in the public eye but end up at the same parties and lobbyist paid junkets. The stories of corruption and scandal seem to go on forever from both sides of the aisle but I rarely see these folks getting punished. In fact, many get promotions; Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Tom Daschle, etc. If you watch really closely you will also notice that the same people seem to run the show. They may change titles or positions but they never go away. The Obama appointments make this all too obvious. His heavy reliance on Clintonistas helps my argument here that we are entering into our 21st year of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

This could be all in my head but it appears to me that there is an orchestrated effort to move the United States into a new world order (who first coined that phrase? that's right, Bush 1). We are socializing our economy, breaking the Dollar, melting into the world trade community, diluting the American culture with massive and unregulated immigration and destroying our tradition of rugged individualism in favor of collectivism. All of this would be impossible if the Constitution was being enforced. If you have read my earlier blogs, you know that the Constitution is under constant assault and if swing voting Anthony Kennedy steps down, Obama will surely appoint a leftist justice. This will secure a 5 vote majority of people that believe the Constitution is a "living document", a really good set of suggestions or an outright obstacle to the completion of the transformation of the country.

This would also be impossible if the media was doing it's required duty in a democratic society. They are supposed to be critical of the government, informing the public so we can keep them honest and serving us instead of the other way around. Well except for some talk radio and the internet, there is not only very little criticism but all out collaboration with the government. Fox and MSNBC play the same game as the politicians, posing on the left and right but never really ask the tough questions or expose the real crimes. Didn't Chris Matthews recently declare that it was his "job" to make the Obama presidency a success? He may have let the cat out of the bag but more accurately, it seems to be the mainstream media's job to keep the Oligarchy in power.

We will probably see some sort of socialized medicine very soon. It may start out small but will end with the government running things. So, not only will our major economic industries be semi-nationalized, not only will they control what we do in our cars, schools and (with the help of the global warming hoax) in our homes but they will now hold in their hands the power to make life and death medical decisions for every citizen. At that point, with nothing left to constrain it, the omnipotent Oligarchy will be free to move us neatly and efficiently into the new world order.