1. Poverty: Starve the government; feed the people. 2. Healthcare: Starve the government; heal the people. 3. Economy: Starve the government; free the people. 4. Education: Starve the government; teach the children. More to come . . .

It's Universal DeathCare.  I heard someone promoting the idea that we should call it "politicized healthcare" because "socialized healthcare"doesn't get a rise out of people.  I think we should describe it for what it is.  Universal DeathCare, where a committee of bureaucrats will get to decide who heals and who stays wounded; who lives and who dies; who gets care; who remains forever in the waiting room.  Heaven help us if those decision-makers start to base those decisions on who is the favored political group.  More likely, the new DeathCare bureaucracy will be an absolute breeding ground for graft and corruption.  Let the bribes begin!

On another note, I thank former VP Cheney for stating that releasing the memos was a breach of national security.  I said that in reality, it was treason.

It's not enough that he hates America.  No.  It's not enough to go around apologizing wherever there is a microphone for the sins of this country -- the list of sins continues to grow bigger.  But to have an elected President releasing national security secrets is simply unconscionable.  And that is exactly what these legal opinions released by Obama are.  The feeding frenzy of the media is only a sideshow.  Only the extreme left really cares about this so-called torture and that's why the "torture" stories haven't helped increase the circulation of the NY TImes or other newspapers.

But that's a sideshow.  And the show trials coming up -- those will be sideshows too.  The sensitive national security information which this administration so cavalierly releases to the press (they don't even bother with leaking the info, they simply print it up) signals any enemy, actual or potential, that our most precious national secrets are for sale by an administration seeking nothing more than fleeting political gain in exchange for the information.  It's absolutely sickening.  Unfortunately, I don't think that a President can actually be charged and tried for treason.

Worse still, Republicans will one day be elected to clean up yet another mess of Jimmy Carter proportions.  Those Republicans will do the responsible thing and not act like current Democrats in criminalizing politics by going after former administration officials who acted in good faith.  Yet, they will get no kudos for doing the right thing and will face the same witch hunt when the next Democrat gets elected.

Am I alone in thinking that Obama is more dangerous than we give him credit for?  Going around apologizing to everyone, embracing a dictator like he's a bosom buddy, slicing up the economic pie in ever smaller pieces, rather than growing a bigger pie.  He has no problem at all revealing secret internal memos on critical intelligence and national security matters.  On the same day that Ahmedinejad runs off at the mouth, all we get is a weak "the President obviously doesn't share this view" from his press secretary.  Yet, the President will speak to this dictator.

Because our president believes in the righteousness of everyone else's anti-American causes.  I have been lying low for a few weeks (Passover and all), but also because I am in despair.

I came across this article from the AP:  LONDON – Juggling crises, President Barack Obama joined his South Korean counterpart Thursday in calling for a "stern, united" world response if North Korea goes ahead with a long-range rocket launch.

Does Chairman MaoBama ever say anything of substance?  Seriously, are they always platitudes?  What exactly is stern and united?  Did President Bush always speak like this.  I wonder.  Maybe I am just pretending that Bush had more substance.

Chairman MAObama says the government is now running parts and service at General Motors.  I guess now "inefficiency is Job 1".

We must resist Chairman MAObama.

I listened toObama's message to Iran; for those who thought Bush was silly for finishing reading that children's story on 9-11, just listen to the childish sound of his voice.  How can anyone take this naivete seriously.  He will be lauded for the "courageous" nature of his outreach.  As far as I'm concerned, Obama and his team are (no pun intended) bush leaguers.

Our Teleprompter-in-Chief unveiled his budget proposal.  "This budget makes the investments that will lead to real growth and real prosperity," Mr. Obama said.

Real Growth = growth in government

Real Prosperity = take from the productive and give to the idlers.

What in the world does Paul Volcker know about the conflict in the Middle East?  Nothing.  But having his name included among those urging Obama to sell out Israel provides cover for the main architect -- Zbigniew Brzezinski -- who is Obama's real adviser on all matters involving Israel.  Brzezinski revels in taking anti-Israel positions and would like nothing more than to witness Israel being pushed into the sea.  I wonder, who gives money to Brzezinski to maintain these views?  Somebody must be, although this Polish-born "expert" on national security (his expertise contributed to U.S. decline during his tenure with that other genius and anti-semite Jimmy Carter).  Obama will be selling Israel right down the river, all the while saying that he's just following Paul Volcker's advice, because how can you argue with Volcker?  Dogcatchers.

I am made a bit hopeful by the following report from AP which from my quick reading (I'm a little beat tonight and not up to doing close readings of anything) seems to mock Obama.  I hope this is the beginning of more of this from the mainstream.  Even a little bit of skepticisim will b e helpful.  That's all for tonight.  Down with that socialist Obama!

I was reading an article by Larry Greenfield from the Claremont institute.  Nothing I had not seen before.  But the cumulative effect of all of the information in one article made me wonder:  Is this guy a madman?  He's certainly not a President; he's definitely a teleprompter puppet.  Seriously, Obama the Dogcatcher-in-Chief is a madman, not fit for office.  Let Biden take over (I know he's a madman too, but at least he's a predictable madman) and commit the Dogcatcher to the mental ward for observation.

Well, I started reading Edmund Burke -- it's been twenty years since I tried him and the going is every bit as slow.  I'm really excited about getting Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson from the library.  Now that book sounds interesting to me -- even if do have a B.A. in Economics (from Brooklyn College).

Also, every day we get further away from the 2008 election and closer to the 2010 election is a step closer in the direction of getting some sanity back.  Even if Obama succeeds in socializing the U.S. (I pray every day that the will of g-d is opposed to that outcome, no matter how temporary), the horror that will ensue from the realization that we are not only on the path of socialism, but of fascism and an eventual complete loss of our freedom (to earn a living; to travel; to benfit from the greatest healthcare system in the worl, to live; to love) -- enough voters will rise up, scream "NO!!" and throw these dogcatchers out on the street and back into the political wilderness.  The truth is, Democrats are already beginning to see the folly of buying into everything this lying salesman-radical Obama is selling.  They are beginning to openly express doubts as to the wisdom of mortgaging our financial future to this communist-fascist.  Send Obama back to the 'hood, where he can ply his dogcatching trade with the rest of those corrupt-pig-Chicago politicians

No, I don't wish him well;.  I'm so sick of that namby-pamby qualifier, "Of course we wish him well . . ."  I don't like him; don't like what he stands for.  Why should I want him to succeed?  This nonsensical idea of hoping he succeeds is premised on the idea that his success will mean that that the economy has turned around and for the better.

Quite the opposite!  Obama's success means socialism, plain and simple.  It means the economy will be stuck in a Luddite limbo.  Progress will end on any and every front:  economic stagnation will be the rule; healthcare will be rationed out (who will be the winners in this rationing system, I wonder?); productive people will be asked to work in order to support those living off the system.

Don't you love cap and trade?  How it will create the incentive for alternative forms of energy through confiscatory tax policies?  This is alot like the way they keep raising the cigarette tax in order to finance bloated state government budgets.  Yet as less people smoke, somehow the spending models built on the humane goal of eliminating cigarette smoking never seem to be scaled back.  And the tobacco companies just look overseas for their sales growth -- did you think they would waste their time trying to develp a safe cigarette?  I don't even think such a thing exists.  Yet, these same experts believe that we will develp alternative enrgy sources.  What will happen is that our quality of life will go down as we start to use less energy in response to increased energy taxes -- we are going to have some cold unheated homes, so we betterhope for more global warming.  The energy companies -- no dummies they -- willo pursue growth opportunities overseas, where the regulatory environment will be more inviting.

Fossol fuels will not go away.  We just will find it more expensive to use them here.  Throwing gobs of money at alternative energy research will not produce a breakthrough -- you cannot dictate or legislate innovation.

But let's get really real here:  Gobs of money will not be thrown at alternative energy research or any other kind of basic research.  Instead, the tons of money generated by this tax and trade caps scheme will instantly put gobs of money into the national coffers.  Our politicians will just build spending models based on ever-increasing sums of money coming in, forgetting that the revenue intake from this scheme will quickly flatten rather than grow; ultimately the revenue stream will begin decreasing.  But those entitlement programs -- both those being proposed now, as well as those not yet dreamed of -- will be with us.

So I don't want Obama to succeed.  His success means institutionalizing lowered expectaions, zero-sum growth, and makes failure a virtue.

We must continue to resist.  If only our elected leaders showed some spine.

I got a comment from a liberal named "Hate" in response to my blog about Orszag saying he can blame Bush for the next two years.  What would possess someone to call him/herself "Hate?"  But why be afraid to leave some way to respond?  Anyway, here's what i have to say to "Hate":  When Reagan came to office, I wasn't sure at the time (I was 19) that he knew what he was doing.  I didn't vote for him the first time (I was one of those morons who voted for John Anderson).  I did know that Reagan made me feel good every time he spoke.  That is quite important.  Obama is a downer.

Also, Reagan did not blame Carter for two years.  You are wrong.  And Reagan did not come into office having ANY of his top aides tell the press that we should have up to two years to be allowed to blame the previous administration.