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.

After Daniel Henninger's article in the WSJ last Thursday, I remembered I had Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" on the shelf, one of many "must-reads"   I also went to my local library and took out Edmund Burke's "Refelections on the Revolution in France" so that I could try once again to actually read that conservative essential.  I love to read, but find these books do not motivate me (am I a Philistine?) the way a good mystery does.  And I wonder whether it will actually provide me with the vocabulary I need to function as a conservative.  Who knows?

I do know that I have made my own ivestment in myself.  Although I am a lawyer, I have dreamed of doing voiceovers for years.  Doies that make me crazy?  No.  I took some lessons with a voiceover artist, produced a commercial demo and started sending it out.  I landed one paying part so far and have been finalist on a few others.  No, I haven't recouped my investment yet.  But I remain optimistic about my ability to make a difference in my own life.  The government did not tell me to develop my voiceover skills.  Nor did it fund me.  But I am operating out there in the real world.  So, maybe I am not fully versed in conservative lore.  But I am living through my own means.

Stuck here in Bakruptcy court in Central Islip, NY waiting for the Chapter 7 Trustee (think of that job as the Town Dogcatcher) to get through his 10:30 calendar so that he can start his 11:30 calendar 90 minutes late. What does he care, he seems hungover anyway? Might as well blog to pass the time. That dogcatcher of the budget - Peter Orszag spent much of his time on CNBC this morning pawning off all economic problems as well as the drop in the Dow since the inauguration as being something obama inherited. Hey dogcatcher, your master was elected because he sais he would fix things. He then essentially saidb that the Obama Administration should have "a year or two" to be allowed to show results. That's two full years of blaming Bush, right through the 2010 elections. Don't fall for this. Throw these dogs out right when the failure is evident. Howl at every failure. Resist e very attempt to steal our income through confiscatory tax policies.

The truth of the Obama administration is this:  What's good for K Street is good for Main Street.  The economy be damned.  Sorry, the people be damned.  Well, actually, they don't see us as people, but as sheep.

Ostensibly, we are building roads (Obama likes to say we are re-building; most of the time he likes to make it seem like he is the first to ever propose any road building).  But, Obama and the Green Dogcatchers don't want us to be driving on those roads -- since they want to increase the cost of energy to the point of making travel prohibitive.  These policies will also make heating our homes prohibitively expensive.  We will be freezing in our homes; unable to travel in our cars, unable to work in any job which produces any "carbon"; living in misery.  Common sense should tell us that the great genius of individuals and their entrpreneurial spirit will get this economy moving again.  Government cannot legislate genius; government cannot legislate economic miracles.  If only government could get out of the way.  Let us be; give us a rest for a little while from all of these burdensome regulations.  Obama wants to create a society that is run by government bureaucrats who will tell us what music to listen to, who to associate with, penalize all creativity, apologize for all that's good in this great country.

And it is a great country.  If only we could let people live their lives.  We need to resist at all levels.  Resist every attempt to reduce our liberty.  For every Obama proposal to expand the power of government as a solution to any problem, we need to immediately and loudly propose a solution to that problem through limiting government's power.  Fiercely oppose expansion; passionately propose limitation.  I will start to think along those conservative lines myself.  I've been gloomy for too long about this Obama dogcatcher.  Every expansionist proposal will provide me with the material to propose a fresh approach, according to conservative, limited government principles.

Am I the only person outraged by what the Obama and his dogcatcher Holder have done in releasing classified memos from the Bush administration.  Where are the Republicans on this?  This is not about defending Bush; this is about defending the Prsidency.  For that matter, Democrats should be outraged too.  A lawyer asked to render a legal opinion designed to justify a position is doing a service for his client.  He is not bending the law, but looking for an interpretation of that law which covers the situation at that time.

In any event, is there any media outlet covering this for what it is:  an assault on the prerogative of the Executive Branch of government and the willful release of state secrets?  Obama is committing treason.  Arrest him, put him in jail.

I am 47 years old.  I simply cannot recall in my lifetime any president of this country authorizing the release of secret memos of his immediate predecessor; in fact of any predecessor.  Was this even in response to a FOIA request?  They volunteered this information for no other reason than to draw attention to Bush and deflect the attention that should  be given to this President's disastrous policies -- domestic and foreign policies.

I may have blogged this before, but it bears repeating:  How in the world was a majority of this country stupid enough to vote in the first anti-American president.  That's right, it sounds crazy, but Obama and his claque are anti-American.  They hate this country and will do whatever they can to destroy it -- economically, politically and socially.  And the media keeps on applauding him, exhorting us to have faith and give him a chance.  Forty days in and I am so frightened for this country and the world, to have such an irresponsible person at the helm of the greatest nation on earth.  I keep trying to go on and about my business, but it's getting more and more difficult as I see more and more liberties being stripped away.  I woulodn't put it past Obama to give our nuclear codes away.  Open up all the defense laboratories.  You name it.

Is it possible for the President of the United States to commit treason?  We have to to vote him out.  And then put him in jail, where he truly belongs.

Every time our DogCatcher in Chief steps out in a non-campaign-like setting he always has some form of policy bodyguard. The other day, he's out there flanked by Biden and Geithner. Or flags. Or some new summit of experts. I find it troubling. I am a child of Holcaust survivors. Every one of his public appearances begins to look more and more like an imitation fascist rally with all those power thug symbols. That's just the packaging. The substance of Obama's plans to reduce our liberty -- limiting our economic and personal choices; raising the cost of our electricity; making government a "partner" (and not a silent one) in ever more endeavors (as if gover nment regulations on how to label plums originating in Northern California wasn't a big enough waste of time and taxpayer money, but who ever thought we would find those regulatiins to be "benign?"), I am getting more and more nervous that we will have the thought police patrolling our neighborhoods, without any dissent in the media which thinks it is actually independent. Am I too paranoid? .

Obama rambles on , but always makes sure to use the phrase "shared prosperity."  He is so unabashed in his communism; never gets called out on it.  But he is praised for promising to "call out" officials for wasting stimulus money.

I haven't posted anything in a few days.  I find that the more I focus on and stay engaged with current events, the more nervous and depressed I get.  As I feared, Jindal has been marginalized.  Never mind that Bill Clinton made an absolute fool of himself when he spoke at the 1988 Democratic Nataional Conventon.

On the other hand, burying my head in the sand will not accomplish anything.  I heard Mark Levin (among others) say he was confident that Obama would be a one-termer.  I hope so.  But saying this over and over again will not make it happen.  What do we need to do to assure Obama's defeat in 2012?  We can say "Reagan" over and over again until we are blue in the face.  His name will not accomplish anything.  And it is shorthand for nothing other than lazy thinking and betrays an inability to articulate the common-sense positions which should appeal to voteers.

A good friend of mine said to me "Give Obama a chance."  I most certainly have.  And every day I am rewarded with more and more grandiose spending plans which are not thought through, will not create (or ":save") jobs (and what does it actually mean to save a job?).  None of these plans will augment the private sector; they will crowd it out and that is the point of these programs.  Government can legitimately spend money on a limited number of things:  weapons systems and maintaining our armed forces are really all that come to mind, but I am sure there are some other legitimate (as opposed to legal) areas for government spending.  What it can legitimately spend money on benefits its citizens (provides protection) and also creates jobs.

I cannot see any of these spending plans helping the economy.  Indeed, the economy will have its own recovery in spite of these crazy plans.  And won't Obama and the Democrats claim credit for that when it happens, despite the fact that there massive spending will have sown the seeds for an even more crushing recession/stagflation period?  And during that short period of recovery which will coincide with elections, won't Obama be re-elected?  Can this nation survive eight years of this man?

The only chance we ever have of "tackling the issue" of Social Security is when it finally does bankrupt us.  Even then, people will be heard to counsel a "go slow" approach.  This is what we will get as long as we continue to elect people who are qualified to be no more than dogcatchers. I don't care if they are Democrat or Republican dogcatchers.  Let's be honest:  the 1994 class of Republicans showed some promise.  But soon enough, they reverted to dogcatchers.

I am so sick and tired of this talk of a "loyal opposition." being a a thing of the past.      After the near-treason coommitted by Democrats for the past several years, what are these people babbling on about?  Democrats are always courageous; Republicans always obstructionists.  this was like how they lamented the "old":McCain.  Once he lost the election -- lost it in large part because he couldn't effectively  be anything other than a stereotypical old-school losing Republican "standard bearer" -- the media was back in his corner.  The only good Republican is a loser, in this narrative.

I so hated the idea that McCain would run a dignified campaign.  how he utterly wasted the talent and time of Sarah Palin.  There is no dignity in losing .  Lee Atwater understood that.  And so did David Axelrod.  Give credit where it is due.  I hope Bobby Jindal doesn't get marginalized tonight.

The NY Times reported that give a $BILLION TO "GAZA"  and wants us to believe that it will not get into the hands of Hamas.  "'None of the money will go to Hamas, it will be funneled through NGOs  and U.N. groups,' said an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the aid before Mrs. Clinton announced it."  I wouldn't want to have my name attributed to that either.  That clearly marks one as a dogcatcher.

How do they get the NY Times to print this stuff?  Do the reporters have no shame?  Look at this article:Quieter Approach to Spreading Democracy Abroad.  Not only does the article reveal the corruption of those advising Obama -- David Plouffe accepting money from anti-democratic forces -- it portrays the Obama sellout of fledgling democracies as a subtle, positive shift in policy.  More disgraceful still is the opinionating posing as reporting as in describing Bush's "grand, even grandiose vision" and going on to "report" that  the "shift has been met with relief in Washington and much of the world, which never grew comfortable with Mr. Bush’s missionary rhetoric, seeing it as alternately cynical or naïve."  That the article has no facts to back this up -- or seems to think that no facts are needed to back it up -- shows the purely editorializing nature of the reporting.

One of the things I found so irritating about Bill Clinton was his incessant need to travel to foreign capitals and apologize for American military and/or intelligence actions.  Now that Desmond Tutu has urged Obama to apologize for Iraq, I think we will see the beginning of a long cycle of these apologies.  Far from making the U.S. look good, this self-flagellation only serves to make our government look ridiculous in the eyes of friends and foes alike.  What purpose does it serve?  We never apologized to Eastern Europe for Yalta; should that be next?   But we should apologize to Iraq for getting rid of Saddam?  I am sickened.  Perhaps Obama will start a new campaign:  He will apologize on behalf of the U.S, and he will conitnually urge all of the former colonial powers to issue apologies for their behavior; followed by a full-bore offfensive against Israel for its "shameful" actions against the poor Palestinians.