« Author Forward | Main | Meet George Soros (Chapter 9) »

Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."[i]


                Norman Thomas, American Socialist



When a storm gathers, the sky darkens as massive purple clouds of potential fury tower over nearby treetops.  Ominous crackles of lightning and rolling volleys of thunder intensify.  The dank smell of approaching rain heralds a visceral drop in temperature.  Dogs bark in primal alarm.  Birds take flight as trees bend against onrushing winds.  As branches pelt the house, you call the kids indoors and nervously watch the horizon.  This one looks bad.  You sense it deep down in your chest, that place where a tightly wound ball of fear jangles your nerve endings with electricity.  You suddenly feel a cold wave of anxiety, a gut-wrenching sense of dread and impending calamity.


           There is a violent storm gathering in America.  It is not a storm of pounding hail and howling wind, but rather a storm of political conflict and financial peril.  For two centuries, Americans embraced core values of individual liberty, limited government, and free-market capitalism.  But in recent decades, our Constitutional Republic has been buffeted by the chilling winds of collectivism.  Rushing in are the creeds of subservience, Big Government, and socialism.  Michelle Obama heralded the full fury of this storm when she announced with Ivy League elitism, “we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move to a different place as a nation.”[ii]  


Barack Obama characterized this storm during a victory speech with a remark drenched in unintentional irony:  “This was the moment…when we came together to remake this great nation…”[iii]  By “remake” he means transitioning to socialism.  By “remake” he means transferring our wealth to the underclass and empowering elites to run our lives from a massive bureaucracy in Washington.  The word “remake” echoes his constant campaign call for “change.”  It is the change he learned from Saul Alinsky.  It is the revolution that the Students for a Democratic Society hoped for.  It is the Open Society that George Soros has been cultivating.  Obama’s “change” mantra is a remarkable con with dreadful consequences for the middle class.


Shortly before the election in 2008, Barack Obama said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”[iv]  This chapter examines the transformative policies of the Obama administration.  It projects their impact on America in the coming years.  In other words, this chapter previews your future in a socialist America. 


Obama is “remaking” America with reckless abandon.  He is dispensing great gobs of imaginary Monopoly money measured in trillions.  He is committing us to enormous future liabilities, the cost of which will not weigh upon us until after the 2012 elections.  His administration is teeming with radicals and academics that are insentient to the impact of their policies on the American economy.    


He deceitfully ran as a centrist during the 2008 general election, but now he is executing policies as extremist as his radical pedigree presaged.  Even after the election, Obama continued deceiving America.  In February 2010, he pontificated, “We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences, as if waste doesn’t matter, as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation.”[v]  To make such an outlandishly disingenuous statement in 2010 after the obscene spending of his administration in 2009 is the height of hypocrisy and a sign of arrogant disdain for the intelligence of voters. 


Even leaders from other countries can read the handwriting on our walls.  Obama is being warned by former socialist countries not to follow the destructive path that they’ve already learned brutal lessons from.  Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek slammed Obama’s economic plans as a “road to hell.”[vi]   Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared, “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake….Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent….In the 20th Century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute.  In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive.  This lesson cost us dearly.  I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”[vii]  Embarrassingly, even Communist China warned the U.S. against reckless government spending.


Obama is ignoring their admonitions.  He is smitten by the siren song of Saul Alinsky and his other socialist mentors.  He is rushing headlong toward Big Government.  He is abandoning the limited government and free market principles that have been our touchstone for centuries.  His administration is bailing out failing companies and irresponsible individuals.  They are squandering resources on radical constituencies, and burdening us with suffocating debt.  Every initiative of the Obama administration is geared toward transferring wealth, rather than creating it.  They are ignoring Thomas Jefferson’s observation:  “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”[viii]  Obama is like Opposite George in a Seinfeld episode – every instinct of Obama is wrong for America, and we would be better off in almost every measure if he did the opposite of what he wanted.


Ron Bloom, Obama’s manufacturing czar, summarized the administration’s anti-capitalist perspective: “Generally speaking we get the joke.  We know that the free market is nonsense….We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”[ix]  Obama misinterpreted his 53% - 47% victory over McCain as a mandate to discard capitalism and embrace socialism.  Ironically, four years earlier he suggested that Bush should have seen his “51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate.”[x]  Apparently, three more margin points means that a socialist revolution is in order, rather than humility and compromise. 


Obama’s presumed mandate to transition to socialism means that the middle class is going to be devastated by the transfer of its wealth to the underclass.  Ironically, the middle class will also be devastated by the transfer of wealth and power to the elites of the education establishment, the banking and investment oligarchy, and the various healthcare and energy industries that will be nationalized into government bureaucracies and run by public service unions.   In short, Obama will bail out the poor, and enrich the elites.  That leaves the middle class crushed in a brutal fiscal vice. 


During the 2008 election, Obama conned us into believing that he was an advocate for the middle class.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  His largest campaign contributors were investment and banking companies like Goldman Sachs, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley.[xi]  These companies are being fed trillions of our dollars in bailouts and stimulus funds.  The rich will not pay for Obama’s spending spree, because they do not collectively make enough money.  Many of the rich are recipients of Obama’s spending spree, including the bankers, the government bureaucrats who administer the infrastructure of the welfare system and the consultants and academic elites who thrive on government grants. 


Even if the administration tries to confiscate the wealth of the rich who don’t feed at the government trough, we will simply see a mass exodus of assets and skill, just like the brain drain that devastated England when they tried to soak their rich.  As Soros put it, “the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can.”[xii]  In other words, rich people can freely move their assets around the world to avoid higher taxes, if they so choose.  No matter how this plays out, the middle class will be left holding the bag for Obama’s scam.


Obama foisted this con on the middle class by invoking the specter of “crisis” during the election.   His policies are a great political bait-and-switch ploy.  His stimulus programs are not really designed to jumpstart the moribund economy, but rather to implement his radical agenda.  His cap-and-trade proposal will not save the environment, but it will nationalize the energy industry and create another lucrative source of taxation to feed his socialist ambitions.  His government takeover of health care will not make health care better or more affordable, but it will absorb nearly 20% of the economy into the sphere of government and take control over intimate parts of our personal lives.  His housing and mortgage proposals will not fix the toxic debt problem, but they will transfer wealth to the underclass and effect control over the financial industry. 


Obama foreshadowed this con in his book The Audacity of Hope.  First, he wrote that he is in favor of capitalism, but only as long as it is socialism:  “I am optimistic about the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy and the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment—but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population.”[xiii]  Then, he wrote that it is a politician’s job to foist such cons:  “Today’s politician…may not lie, but he understands that there is no great reward in store for those who speak the truth, particularly when the truth may be complicated.”[xiv]


The Obama administration is blatantly honest about taking advantage of crises to justify the implementation of its agenda.  Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, said, “Never let a serious crisis to go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”[xv]  Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State, reiterated Emanuel’s “never waste a good crisis” mantra when speaking to the European Parliament.[xvi]  President Obama declared there is “great opportunity in the midst of great crisis.”[xvii]   They have duped many into accepting the false dichotomy that the mere existence of a crisis justifies an unprecedented government grab for power.  If a private business gouged consumers during a crisis, it would be called an outrage.  When the government gouges us, the radicals tell us it is for our own good. 


With Obama in the White House allied with a complicit Congress, the radicals are going for broke.   To them, every problem is a crisis, and every solution includes more government, higher spending, and intrusions on our liberty.  They are force-feeding us socialism with the ridiculous syllogism that something must be done, socialism is something, therefore we must move toward socialism.  A simple reading of history illustrates the folly of this.  When Japan had an economic crisis, their government launched massive stimulus packages, propped up failing companies, lowered interest rates to zero, and nationalized the banks.  As a result, they lost an entire generation to economic stagnation and became mired in unprecedented debt. 


Our government has gone on a spending spree that dwarfs all others.  Obama’s $3.7 trillion 2010 budget increases non-defense spending to 20% of American GDP, the highest level in U.S. history.  This budget does not account for the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare outlays nor the government-run health care and cap-and-trade programs.  His administration said that “the new budget is a means to altering the very architecture of American life, with government playing a much larger role than before.”[xviii]   


In April 2010, Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, said:  “U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can’t be solved through minor changes.  It’s a matter of arithmetic.”[xix]   Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress that “given the significant costs and risks associated with a rapidly rising federal debt, our nation should soon put in place a credible plan for reducing deficits to sustainable levels….”[xx]  It’s not clear why Bernanke waited until after the Obama administration had already squandered our future before he sounded the alarm.


Ironically, Obama conned us into believing that he opposed rampant deficit spending when he chastised the Bush administration in The Audacity of Hope:  “We say we value the legacy we leave the next generation and then saddle that generation with mountains of debt.”[xxi]  Then, he wrote that the only solution is to cut government spending:  “If we’re serious about avoiding such a future, then we’ll have to start digging ourselves out of this hole.  On paper, at least, we know what to do.  We can cut and consolidate nonessential programs.  We can rein in spending on health-care costs.”[xxii]  What a magnificent con!  Right after taking the oath of office, he ignored his own admonitions and launched a deficit spending rampage unlike any other, and later signed into law a massive new health care entitlement program. 


Let’s examine Obama’s staggering profligacy.  Every taxpayer should be appalled by the $800 billion price tag of his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Bill).  The bill included $750 million for community development block grants that eventually go to groups like ACORN, which was investigated for voter registration fraud in many states.  It included $6 billion for mass transit, even though most urban transit systems are so inefficient they already require taxpayers to subsidize 50% of their costs.  It included $252 billion in Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and tax “rebates” to people who didn’t pay income taxes, essentially moving a pile of money from productive to unproductive people.  It included 9,000 pork barrel earmarks for special interests, such as $200,000 for gang member tattoo removal.   


The $800 billion Stimulus Bill added 32 new government programs, many of which will continue indefinitely.  As Ronald Reagan once observed, a government program is the closest thing we have to eternal life.  Unfortunately, this perpetual government intrusion into our lives is exactly what the Obama administration intended.  The bill was essentially a political patronage bonanza that funded pet projects the radicals have sought for 40 years.  The Congressional Budget Office reported that Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if the government had simply done nothing, because it will crowd out more productive activity.[xxiii]  The bill, which was intended to jump-start the economy and reduce unemployment, failed miserably.  Unemployment went up and stayed up after it was implemented. 


Obama’s $3.7 trillion 2010 budget does not include the next gargantuan government spending spree, which will be for nationalized health care.  Early estimates of the health care reform bill suggest a price tag of $1 trillion over ten years.  Using Orwellian illogic, Joe Biden told an AARP gathering that the only way for the government to avoid bankruptcy was to spend another trillion dollars on health care.[xxiv]  Absurdly, Obama echoed this illogic during an ABC News interview.[xxv]  


The Obama administration is also proposing massive increases in education spending.  He declared, “I’m going to put billions of dollars into early childhood education that makes sure that our African-American youth, Latino youth, poor youth of every race, are getting the kind of help that they need….”[xxvi]  Unfortunately, the problems with our education system have nothing to do with how much money we spend.  The U.S. spends more per pupil than every other country, yet our achievement test scores rank below many other industrialized nations.  Our kids will not be any smarter for Obama’s spending proposals, but our wallets will be emptier.


Obama’s spending orgy will graciously include the rest of the world, because he supports the Global Poverty Act.  If this bill is enacted, it will execute the mandate imposed by the United Nations to spend 0.7% of our GDP, or $843 billion over 13 years, to ameliorate poverty overseas.  This bill is just another transfer of wealth to poor people, government bureaucrats, and perhaps even brutal dictators and their regimes.  It is essentially an international tax on Americans by the United Nations.        


Incredibly, Obama also intends to transfer wealth from the middle class to resolve the problems of history, in the form of indirect reparations for slavery.   Obama declared, “I consistently believe that when it comes to…reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. Government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”[xxvii]  He later clarified that he’s not advocating direct payments to descendents of slaves, but rather government programs that will “close the gap” between races.[xxviii]  He believes that the government should enact “major redistributive change” through assistance programs that are nominally available to all people who qualify, knowing that African-Americans will disproportionately benefit from them.[xxix]


It’s easy to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars.  Just ask any socialist.  But the real gut check is deciding where to get the mountains of “mad money” from.  Government money can only come from three sources.  Governments can tax money from citizens, they can print it out of thin air, or they can borrow it.  All three have terrible consequences, if done in excess.  Sadly, because of Obama’s outlandish spending spree, our government will have to do all three excessively.  This is the real crime against the middle class, which will bear the brunt of all three excesses.   


Let’s discuss the excessive borrowing first.  Obama’s spending during his first four years in office will more than double the national debt.  Clearly, the U.S. government can’t afford its lifestyle.  The government is borrowing from the Social Security trust fund, foreign nations, American bondholders, our children, and people who aren’t even born yet.  It is unsustainable, and it will end badly for everyone.


In 2009 alone, Federal Government debt increased by roughly $20,000 for each family of four.  So, despite the spending restraints of your family, you and your children fell $20,000 further in debt because of the government.  And your family will fall another $20,000 further in debt this year, and the year after that, and also the year after that, ad infinitum.  We haven’t directly felt the impact yet, because the payments for this debt are not due until some point in the future.  But we will feel the impact eventually.  The government can con middle class voters, but it can’t con reality. 


There is a massive present cost of this debt that can’t be ignored or postponed.   In 2009, the federal government spent $200 billion on interest for its debt.  The more the government spends on interest, the less the rest of us can spend on items that are personally important to us.   More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that the federal government will incur in the next decade will be because of interest expenses.[xxx]  In other words, we are borrowing just to pay interest on earlier borrowing. 


Let’s put this fiduciary calamity in perspective.  If you spent $2 million dollars every day of every year, from the birth of Christ until today, you will not have spent as much as Obama borrowed to cover just his 2009 spending.  In four years of his administration, Obama’s budget deficits will be greater than the combined deficits of all of the other presidents over the course of 233 years.   Obama’s deficit in just 2009 was greater than the last five Bush deficits combined.  Ironically, the mainstream media called Bush’s biggest deficit a “deficit disaster,” but described Obama’s deficits as “breathtakingly bold.” [xxxi]   His deficits are not bold, they are obscene.  He is borrowing almost $5 billion per day.


The government's total debt exceeded $12 trillion by January 2010.  This is equal to $40,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in our country.


Deficit spending is not inherently bad, in the proper context.  Many families do it, particularly to make important investments like housing and education.  But, such borrowing only makes sense when the likelihood of future income and wealth is sufficient to cover the interest and repay the debt.  On the other hand, if government debt grows faster than GDP over the long term, disaster awaits.  It is waiting for us now.  


When public debt grows faster than GDP, interest expenses crowd out real investment.  When investment drops, GDP suffers due to missed opportunities for efficiency gains.  Then, while the interest expense of government debt rises, the ability to pay for it declines.  Worse yet, when lenders sense that a country has lost control of its finances, they begin demanding risk premiums on top of normal interest rates.  This further drives up interest expenses, and further reduces the ability of a country to grow and prosper.  This is how some countries have gone into death spirals (Greece is a poignant example today).  It is one of the possible modes of collapse that we must begin to fear in America.

           We should fear not just the current national debt, but also future debt that we are already obligated to.  The true deficit of the Federal Government, including future unfunded obligations like Social Security and Medicare benefits, is $60 trillion, which is four times the U.S. annual GDP and exceeds the annual GDP of the entire world. 


Even though we have promised citizens trillions of dollars in future Social Security and Medicare benefits, there is not a single penny set aside for them.  All of the cash receipts from the past decades for these programs have either been paid out to beneficiaries or have been diverted to the general budget of the Federal Government.


When the government reports that the Social Security trust fund has a surplus, they are really reporting that the trust fund holds an enormous pile of worthless IOU’s stored in a government filing cabinet in West Virginia.  The general fund of the Federal Government wrote these IOU’s when they borrowed money from Social Security to maintain the illusion that we could afford our massive spending programs.  There is nothing in the Social Security trust fund.  Sure, the trust fund will eventually cash in the IOU’s when retiree benefits exceed payroll taxes currently going into the trust fund, but the other arm of the government that is obligated to repay the IOU’s doesn’t have any money either.  It’s a situation akin to when a sailor takes a loan against his 401(k) account, spends it all in a drunken reverie, and then wakes up the next morning to realize he now owes himself the very money that he thought he had saved his whole life.  He is not only penniless, he is indebted to himself.  


According to economist John Williams, author of  the website Shadow Government Statistics, “Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing….The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control.  The federal government is bankrupt.  In a post-Enron world, if the federal government was a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary.”[xxxii]


Social Security is a time bomb about to go off.  For decades, we had far more workers than retirees, which allowed us to accumulate a “surplus” in the trust fund that was in turn “loaned” to the Federal Government, which in turn squandered it all.  Unfortunately, the day of reckoning has arrived, partly because the Baby Boomers are starting to retire, and partly because the dramatic rise in unemployment during the current recession cut Social Security contributions from workers and employers.  Social Security revenue will barely exceed benefits paid to retirees in 2010, according the Congressional Budget Office.   


Social Security taxes will either have to be raised, or retirement benefits cut.  Starting in 2010, the Federal Government will not be able to borrow “surpluses” from the Social Security trust fund any more, and it will eventually have to begin paying back the mountain of IOU’s held by the trust fund in order to keep benefits flowing to seniors.  This will have a staggering impact on the Federal deficit.  The Social Security trust fund holds essentially zero cash and $2.4 trillion of IOU’s payable by the general fund of the government.  This really means $2.4 trillion payable by taxpayers, most of who incorrectly believe that they have already funded Social Security.


Many state and local governments also have their own underfunded pension plans, including a $62 billion shortfall in California and a $59 billion shortfall in New York City.  These plans are underfunded because our civic leaders have been recklessly over-generous in making future commitments to civil service workers, and because the recent economic collapse has devastated the net worth of pension funds.   This means that we must either raise taxes or cut pension payments to support civil service retirees.  Reality will not allow any other option.  


There are only two options for paying the principal and interest on our debt.  One option is to dramatically increase taxes.  The other option is to devalue our currency by printing money.  


Let’s discuss taxation first.  Since the rich don’t collectively make enough money to fund Obama’s socialist initiatives, the tax collectors will eventually come after the vast middle class.  The Obama administration is already mentally preparing us for this.  Obama told us we are selfish if we want to keep our income instead of giving it to the government.[xxxiii]  He also told us, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”[xxxiv]  Biden told wealthy Americans it was their patriotic duty to pay more taxes.[xxxv]  These pariahs ignore the reality that the tax burden on a middle class wage earner, including income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and user fees, has already exceeded that of a feudal serf, who only had to contribute one third of his labor to his baron.


Middle-class voters should be angry that Obama lied about the coming tax increases in order to get elected.  During the election, he claimed that he would not raise taxes on 95% of Americans.[xxxvi]  He also claimed that only those making $250,000 per year would see increased taxes.[xxxvii] 


These absurd promises will be impossible to keep.  The Wall Street Journal reported that if we instituted a 100% tax rate on everyone earning $250,000 or more, the revenue would still not eliminate Obama’s deficits.  If the government confiscated 100% of the income of everyone making $75,000 or more, it would barely have enough to cover planned expenditures for 2010.  Since tax rates of 100% are unspeakable, simple math tells us that people making less than $75,000 are going to pay more taxes sometime during the Obama administration.


Many of the coming tax increases on the middle class will be hidden or deceptive.  For example, Obama intends to allow some or all of the Bush tax cuts to expire after 2010.  This means that income, dividend, and capital gains tax rates will all increase dramatically.  Obama will tell you that expiring tax cuts aren’t technically a tax increase, but there will be no confusion about this when your paycheck is lighter.  In June 2007, Obama said about the Bush tax cuts, “…people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”[xxxviii]  If Obama allows all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, taxes will go up by an estimated $3 trillion over ten years, which would be the largest peacetime tax hike in American history.  Taxes would increase by $2,600 annually for the average household.   The biggest percentage increases would hit the lowest income brackets.


Another deceptive tax increase is likely to be a Value Added Tax (VAT).  The Obama administration established a Deficit Commission in 2010 which has begun evaluating the implementation of a VAT.  The VAT would be a tax on producers at each level of the manufacturing supply chain.  Thus, this stealth tax would be buried in the cost (and the price) of nearly every product made in America.  Every consumer would pay this hidden tax, regardless of income level.  Coincidentally, the Deficit Commission will not make its formal recommendations until shortly after the mid-term elections in November 2010. 


The 2009 Stimulus Bill also deceptively planted the seeds for future tax increases.  Almost $60 billion was earmarked for states to permanently expand assistance programs for poor people.  However, the stimulus funding is only available for a few years.  When that money runs out, the states will have to continue supporting the higher level of benefits set by the stimulus mandates.  This will strain local budgets and increase pressure for state and local tax increases.


Another deceptive tax hit to the middle class is likely to come from increased taxes on businesses, which will pass them on to their customers.  Obama has discussed taxing income that U.S. multinationals earn overseas, even if the profits are not returned to the U.S.  America has the second highest corporate tax in the world.  Since the high U.S. tax currently applies only when money is mailed home, firms can compete overseas by keeping their income overseas.   If Obama changes this, the middle class will pay higher prices for goods and services when businesses pass their higher taxes through.


The threat of higher corporate taxes has already motivated U.S. companies to move offshore, including Tyco International, Ingersoll-Rand, and Accenture.  An Accenture board member said, “What shareholder would ever vote to incorporate in a country that taxes your worldwide income?”[xxxix]


Middle class Social Security and Medicare taxes will also have to increase.  As the Baby Boomers retire and fewer workers support them, the annual cap on Social Security payroll taxes for anyone making over $106,000 per year will have to go up.  This will also result in a tax increase on employers, because the 12.4% Social Security tax is equally split between employers and workers.


The Obama administration is considering other subtle tax increases on the middle class.  These include potentially eliminating the tax break for 401(k) contributions, eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions, reducing the Child Tax Credit, and taxing dividends as ordinary income rather than at the 15% rate.


A brutal stealth tax increase on the middle class will happen when the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) impacts more and more tax filers.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 28 million middle income filers will automatically get hit by the AMT, unless Congress takes steps to prevent this.  When the AMT comes into play, it almost always increases tax liability as compared to normal income tax calculations.


Another brutal stealth tax increase on the middle class will come in the form of higher energy costs as energy providers pass through impending cap-and-trade taxes to their consumers.  The purpose of cap-and-trade is to limit manmade greenhouse gases to combat global warming, even though the most abundant greenhouse gas (by far) is water vapor.  Cap-and-trade will indirectly increase taxes on everyone who consumes energy.  According to Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the estimated $300 billion tax increase from cap-and-trade is equivalent to $1,000 each year for every American.     


Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t even waiting for cap-and-trade legislation.  It has already declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant and it has begun regulating this greenhouse gas because of the “danger” it poses to people.[xl]  Such alarmism ignores the fact that every living creature exudes greenhouse gases, either through breathing or flatulence.  Cows exude more greenhouse gas than all of the SUV’s in the world.  Such senseless EPA regulations will accomplish nothing but higher costs for businesses and higher prices for consumers. 


In contradiction to the EPA’s concern about carbon dioxide and global warming, a comprehensive report prepared by scientist and public policy expert Christopher Monckton in March 2009 for the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce declared: “…the Committee should consider again, and carefully, the question whether the anthropogenic effect on global mean surface temperature has - albeit inadvertently - been considerably exaggerated.  Upon this question all else depends.  If climate sensitivity is as low as theory and the satellite data are agreed in showing it to be, then that is the end of the ‘climate crisis,’ and it would be foolish to spend trillions on addressing a non-problem when there are so many real problems that need to be addressed.”[xli]


More bluntly, anthropogenic global warming is a scam.  It is a Trojan horse being used by socialists to siphon money from taxpayers to the government.  More than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.’s in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, and environment, signed a petition rejecting the notion that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.  The petition declares: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.  Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”[xlii]


According to Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, global warming is caused by the Sun, not by human activity.  “The evidence we have shows an extremely strong correlation with solar activity.  The (Earth’s) temperature follows the solar activity and the correlation is very strong.”[xliii]  Remarkably, as solar activity has ebbed in the last decade, so have global temperatures.   


Obama reportedly cranked up the thermostat in the Oval Office on his first day.  According to David Axelrod, “He likes it warm.  You could grow orchids in there.”[xliv]  Contrast that with Obama’s words during the 2008 campaign: “We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times….That’s not leadership.  That’s not going to happen.”[xlv]  Translation:  “You’re not going to be able to set your thermostat to 72 degrees…but I will!”


The global warming scam is the perfect ruse for advocates of Big Government.  Saul Alinsky, the original “change” master, advocated using environmental issues to push the radical agenda: “Once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move.”[xlvi]  Almost daily, environmental alarmists publish predictions that global warming will cause disasters around the globe, including rising seas, mass starvation, and extinction of species.  Not surprisingly, all of the countermeasures needed to slay the unseen monster require higher taxes, more bureaucrats, and increased regulation of businesses and individuals.    


Global warming is the perfect ruse because there can be no objective way to know if the expensive countermeasures will help.  We will, however, be objectively poorer and less free.   The real agenda of the radicals was hinted at during the December 2009 Global Warming Summit in Copenhagen.  The biggest standing ovation came when Marxist Hugo Chavez said, “…let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system….Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”[xlvii]   


The recently enacted government takeover of health care is another misleading boondoggle that will result in higher taxes.  This intrusion by the Federal Government into 17% of our national economy will limit our medical options, lead to rationing, and cost an additional $1 trillion dollars to cover currently uninsured citizens.  Ironically, one of the ways the government is considering to pay for its takeover of health care is to tax employee health benefits, which is precisely the same proposal made by McCain that Obama derided during the campaign as “the largest middle-class tax in history.”[xlviii]  Apparently, Obama thinks the largest middle-class tax in history is now a good idea.


Estate taxes, otherwise known as death taxes, are likely to increase from zero to 55%.  This will devastate small business and farm owners as they try to pass their assets to their children.  Many of their assets will have to be liquidated to pay the government rather than be bequeathed to their descendents.


There is one whimsical option for solving our debt problem that was suggested by Jay Leno amid a flurry of tax-cheating Obama nominations.  He said, “I think Barack Obama is a genius….Do you ever notice when Barack Obama nominates someone, the first thing they do is pay their taxes?  He’s found a way to pay off the deficit.  Nominate every single person in the country one at a time, until they pay off the deficit.”[xlix]  There was one special day in Congress that was drenched in delicious irony when tax cheat Timothy Geithner testified in front of tax cheat Charlie Rangel’s House Ways and Means Committee on how to reduce tax cheating by ordinary citizens.[l] [li]


One of the falsehoods propagated by radicals is that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes.  To the contrary, our tax system is progressive at the top end, and the subsidies provided to citizens on the bottom end are generous.  The top 1% of income earners pays 32% of all Federal income taxes.  The top 2% pay as much income tax as the bottom 95% combined.  The bottom 40% pay zero Federal income taxes, and in many cases are actually subsidized by the Federal tax code through programs such as Earned Income Credit.  The radicals will tell us that we should soak the rich even more to pay for their Big Government ambitions, but as mentioned earlier, even if we took everything from the rich, it still wouldn’t be enough.  All indicators point to the middle class as the eventual victims of the government’s spending spree.        


The middle class should be offended by the arrogance of our gluttonous government officials, who spend and spend while the rest of us feel the terrible burden of the Great Recession.  Taxpayers are facing pay cuts, shortened hours, layoffs, reduced benefits, and delayed gratification as they choose not to buy things.  In the meantime, government bureaucrats are spending like drunken sailors and taking on record levels of debt.  Government is one of the very few sectors of the economy adding workers.  There are now 380,000 Federal Government employees who make over $100,000 per year.  Eighteen months ago, that number was only 260,000.  There are now 66,000 who make more than $150,000.  Eighteen months ago, there were only 30,000.[lii]   


In October 2008, 100 distinguished economists, including five Nobel Prize winners, signed a statement explaining why Barack Obama’s misguided tax hikes would harm our economy.  They concluded that “Barack Obama’s economic proposals are wrong for the American economy….(They) defy both economic reason and economic experience.”[liii] 


According to these economists, “Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy.  They would do nothing of the sort.  Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite.  They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America.  Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession.  It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the 1930’s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.”[liv]


Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire warned, “The practical implication of this is bankruptcy for the United States.  There’s no other way around it.  If we maintain the proposals that are in this budget over the ten-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt.  People will not buy our debt, our dollar will become devalued.  It is a very severe situation.”[lv]   


Obama’s spending and taxation policies are blatantly antagonistic toward innovation, productivity, and growth.  They directly punish success and reward failure.  They declare war on small businesses, which typically generate the bulk of new jobs and innovations that drive economic growth.  They declare war on wealth, which is the very fount of investment and capital that entire societies are built upon. 


When Obama tries to soak the rich, they will likely find some other place to live or to stash their wealth.  This has already happened in Maryland.  When Maryland had trouble balancing its budget, it raised taxes on millionaires.  In 2007, Maryland had roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns.  In 2008, after the tax was implemented, there were mysteriously only 2,000 such returns.  Instead of a revenue bonanza, the state experienced a $100 million drop in collections from millionaires.[lvi]  A likely explanation is that many of them simply moved away to avoid the tax.   Middle class taxpayers in Maryland will now have to shoulder a bigger share of the tax burden than ever before.   


The Tax Foundation estimated how high Federal income tax rates would have to go in order to fund Obama’s spending without additional borrowing.  For example, for couples filing joint returns, the tax rates for the $17,151 - $69,600 income bracket would have to rise from 15% to 28.1%.  The tax rates for the $69,601 - $140,500 income bracket would have to rise from 25% to 46.8%.  The tax rates for the $140,501 - $214,100 bracket would have to rise from 28% to 52.4%.[lvii]  This is not to suggest that the Obama administration has announced their intention to do this (yet).  It is, however, to suggest that reality will require this to happen at some point.  When the government is borrowing almost half of the annual spending in its budget, it is unavoidable that taxes will have to nearly double at some point


There are alternatives to these frightening tax increases, but they are equally as ugly.  We’ve already discussed one alternative, which is to keep borrowing money and hope our children forgive us when their lifestyles are diminished in order to pay our debts.  Another alternative is to induce inflation by printing money.  Politicians that fear getting “fired” by angry taxpayers for directly raising taxes will likely resort to this insidious form of stealth taxation.  Governments benefit from inflation because they use the money they print to fund their spending sprees.  Unfortunately, when money is printed, citizens become poorer as their investments and savings lose buying power due to the devalued dollar.  Printing money does not create wealth, it silently steals it.  It is essentially a tax on wealth, including middle-class wealth.


We will have a period of deflation during the current recession as excess capacity and sluggish velocity of money drive down prices worldwide.  But, in the long run, the government has little choice but to print money and create inflation.  Taxpayers will become angrier and angrier as more and more tax increases are enacted.  And as the national debt mounts, it will become harder to find lenders to loan us enough money, especially with interest rates near zero in order to drive economic expansion. 


We are heavily dependent on foreign countries lending us money by investing in our Treasury bills.  However, foreign countries are becoming more reluctant to do so, because they are frightened of reckless U.S. spending.  It is irrational for them to hold U.S. debt when their investments lose value as the dollar loses value.  Treasury bond auctions have already started to sputter.  The Federal Government printed a trillion dollars in 2009 alone to essentially buy its own debt from itself, because there were not enough willing lenders at such low interest rates and at such high risk.


Foreigners hold about 55% of outstanding U.S. debt.  China holds nearly a trillion dollars, and Japan holds nearly $600 billion.  These countries can hinder our ability to finance our debt by simply refusing to buy more Treasury bills.  One reason they might refuse is fear that our government will default on its debt.  Prices have risen on credit default insurance on U.S. Government bonds.  For a brief period, it cost more to insure U.S. Government debt than to insure debt issued by McDonald’s.[lviii]  In other words, a hamburger joint was considered a safer investment than the U.S. Government.


As lenders resist investing in America, our government has four options.  First, it can raise interest rates to entice lenders to overcome their fears.  This is not a likely option, because raising interest rates will depress economic activity and lead to another recession.   Second, it can raise taxes instead of borrowing money.  This will happen to some degree, but as voters edge closer to a tax revolt, this option will become tenuous.  Third, it can dramatically cut spending to reduce the need to borrow.  This is not a likely option, because it would derail the socialist programs the radicals are pushing.  Fourth, it can print money to cover its own debt.  This is the option that will be relied upon the most, because it is the most politically expedient. 


Unfortunately for the middle class, there will be considerable collateral damage when the government prints money.  First, inflation will make the money in our savings accounts worth less in the future as the buying power of the dollar diminishes.   Second, inflation will increase the cost of government interest payments.  Under inflation, interest rates must rise to compensate lenders for the declining value of money over time.  Currently, our interest expenses are about $200 billion per year.  If interest rates rise to just 10% (which is not as high as rates rose under Carter), the government’s annual interest expenses will climb to $1 trillion, which is more than current Federal spending for education, energy, and defense—combined.  Third, inflation will retard long-term economic activity.  Under inflation, it is better to borrow than to save, because dollars are worth less in the future than today.  When people borrow more and save less, there is less social capital available for investment, which ultimately leads to economic decline.


Government printing presses won’t be the only contributor to inflation.  Upward pressure on energy prices will also occur when Obama’s policies increase the cost of fossil fuel sources.  For example, in January 2008, Obama said this about coal-generated electricity:  “So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”[lix]  He also said, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket….That will cost money.  They will pass that money on to consumers.”[lx]


A related inflation risk is Obama’s strategy to impede exploration for domestic oil and natural gas.  The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 added two million acres to the 107 million acres of federally-owned wilderness area.[lxi]  That area is bigger than Montana and Wyoming combined.  This legislation made eight trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil off-limits to American consumers.  As a Senator, Obama voted against drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  “We cannot drill our way out of the problem,” he said.  “Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1% of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructure.”[lxii]


Ethanol is one of Obama’s preferred sources of alternative energy.  In The Audacity of Hope, he wrote:  “The bottom line is that fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels like E85, a fuel formulated with 85 percent ethanol, represent the future of the auto industry.”[lxiii]  Unfortunately, by 2008 ethanol proved itself an unmitigated disaster.  It consumed more energy to produce than it yielded as a final product.  It was causing record-high food prices in the U.S. as farmland was diverted to producing fuel.  Thus, not only were Obama’s energy policies driving the cost of energy up, they were inflating the cost of food.  Higher prices caused by the ethanol scam were just another form of indirect taxation on the middle class.


Inflation, whether caused by printed money or by rising costs of key resources like energy and food, will have terrible long term consequences for America.  One of the consequences is that the U.S. dollar will be worth less.  It may even cease to be the international reserve currency.  Reckless spending and borrowing by the U.S. Government has spooked foreign countries that have historically used the U.S. dollar as the benchmark for world economic activity.  They are frightened that the declining worth of the dollar will devastate the value of their dollar-denominated holdings and drive up the cost of dollar-denominated resources like oil.  


China in particular is agitating for change.  They have long relied on the dollar as the international currency for denominating commodity prices and as a safe place to invest its significant reserves earned through trade with the U.S.  The Chinese would like to remove the threat of a weakened dollar to their wealth by establishing an international currency, which they made clear at the April 2009 G20 summit in London.  

In March 2009, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao declared:  “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets….I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets.”[lxiv]  Nobu Su, head of Taiwan’s TMT group, said that “China has woken up.  The West is a black hole with all this money being printed.”[lxv]

The Chinese are working to convince other countries to abandon the dollar as the reserve currency by 2018.  As the U.S. continues down the path of fiscal insanity, more and more countries will jump onto this bandwagon.   Once this ball starts rolling downhill and the dollar loses its status as the international reserve currency, its value will drop even further as countries divest themselves.  According to Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Paul Samuelson, “…we must accept that at some future date there will be a run on the dollar.  Probably the kind of disorderly run that precipitates a global financial crisis.”[lxvi] 


The radicals in Washington are so eager to transition to socialism that they are willing to spend our children’s wealth, induce inflation by printing oodles of money, and allow the U.S. dollar to decline.  But, financial devastation alone is not sufficient for them.  Socialism not only involves transferring (and destroying) wealth, it involves controlling, regulating, and even nationalizing industries.      

The Obama administration is increasing government control over the banking, finance, automotive, energy, and health care industries.  The grand scope of their ambition is breathtaking, given the importance of those industries to our economy and our lives.   Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a Marxist, joked, “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors.  Comrade Obama!  Fidel (Castro), careful or we are going to end up to his right.”[lxvii]  When Chavez and Castro worry that they might be more conservative than Obama, we have reason for grave concern here in America.

The government now has partial ownership of two icons of American industry, General Motors and Chrysler.  The property rights of investors were ignored during the government-managed bankruptcies of these two companies.  Secured creditors received zero compensation during the liquidations, while the UAW, an unsecured creditor but a patron of the Obama administration, was given ownership stakes in the restructured companies.  GM Chairman Rick Wagoner was forced to resign during the bankruptcy proceedings, but UAW President Ron Gettelfinger was not. 

The government has also taken equity positions in banks, investment firms, and insurance conglomerates, after stuffing these financial institutions with $700 billion of our money via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Kenneth Feinberg, the U.S. Treasury Department special paymaster, ordered five companies that received government bailouts to slash 2010 compensation for executives.[lxviii]  Some companies who were uncomfortable with government intervention in their businesses tried to return the money, but were told that they could not.  According to the Wall Street Journal, one bank was threatened with “adverse consequences” if it persisted in trying to return TARP money.[lxix] 


Is such meddling proper for a government nominally responsible for protecting individual rights and private property?  According to Ayn Rand, “The right to property is the right of use and disposal.  Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.”[lxx]  Is fascism too strong of a description for the direction that Obama’s policies are headed in?  Consider this: The Obama administration asked Congress to give Treasury Secretary Geithner unprecedented authority to seize companies whose collapse would damage the economy.  Senator Bob Corker called this “truly breathtaking” and something that “should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise.”[lxxi]


Obama declared that only the government had sufficient resources to resuscitate the economy, which absurdly ignores centuries of America history. [lxxii]  It is a pronouncement that only a socialist or a fascist could make.  The government is not going to save our economy, it is going to take our middle-class wealth and transfer it to someone else who is either poor or very rich.  For example, the government proposed establishing a “bank” that will buy the bad debt of other banks, in order to save them from collapse.  In return, taxpayers will get stuck with an artificial bank that owns nothing but bad loans.  Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, “The Geithner plan is very badly flawed….Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people.”[lxxiii]  Such control of private business by the state is part of the definition of fascism.


The government is also moving toward nationalizing the energy industry by controlling what land can be used for exploration, how much carbon can be emitted into the atmosphere, what fees have to be paid in order to produce energy, what alternative energy technologies will be subsidized with our tax dollars, what kinds of appliances we can have in our homes, and what vehicles will be allowed in the marketplace. 


The government is even going to coerce our churches to muddle in energy affairs.  Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships recommended to the EPA that they provide financial assistance to churches that agreed to preach the environmental religion.  The Council said, “Regional (EPA) staff would work to engage local faith-and community-based groups to help meet the Obama administration targets for greening buildings and promoting environmental quality.”[lxxiv] 


Is government meddling in energy a good thing or a bad thing?   Consider this:  The U.S. Department of Energy was created to make us less dependent on imported foreign oil.  This department now has a $24 billion budget and 16,000 government employees.  And yet, after 32 years of this expensive bureaucracy, we are far more dependent on foreign oil than we were back in 1977.  Such failure is a harbinger of the ineptitude we can expect when the government takes even greater control of the energy industry.


The government is also taking over the health care industry.  The Obama administration signed health care legislation that will eventually result in higher taxes, reduced services, lower quality, and greater government intervention in our private decisions about health care.  We are heading down the path of government-controlled health care that European countries, who have already tried it, are starting to retreat from because of poor quality and long waits.  Remarkably, we may become more socialistic than the European countries we mocked for decades. 


If you are in the middle class, you will get less health care at a higher cost.  You will stand in line behind people who don’t pay for health care, perhaps including illegal immigrants who may get amnesty, and therefore coverage.  If you are elderly, you will eventually be told that a government efficiency formula has determined that expensive drugs and surgeries are not appropriate for you, since you have too few years left for society to benefit from the “investment.”  


As government takes greater control of industry after industry, its size and power will expand.  Likewise, public sector labor unions that parasitically feed off the government monopoly over taxpayers will also grow in size and power.  The effect of this will be extortion of wealth from hard-working middle-class taxpayers to highly-compensated government bureaucrats whose job is to impede our lives somehow.  It will be a transfer of wealth from citizens who produce to citizens who live off those who produce.

           Obama has always collaborated with unions.  Here’s how he described his relationship with unions that supported his campaigns:  “I owe those unions.  When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away.  I don’t consider this corrupting in any way; I don’t mind feeling obligated….”[lxxv]  Here’s how he described his relationship with the giant service sector union SEIU:  “I’ve spent my entire adult life working with SEIU.  I’m not a newcomer to this.  I didn’t suddenly discover SEIU on the campaign trail.”[lxxvi]  Andy Stern, President of the SEIU, visited the White House 22 times in the first eight months after Obama’s inauguration.[lxxvii]


Stern pointed out the symbiosis between labor unions and Obama’s vision for America.   He said that he wants the economy judged on “whether we have shared prosperity, not just growth…the government has a role in distributing wealth and social benefits.  We are at a historic crossroads…we are witnessing the first new American economic plan led by the government, not necessarily by the private sector.”[lxxviii]


Obama promised unions that he would pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  He pledged to “make it the law of the land when I am president of the United States.”[lxxix]  EFCA would effectively eliminate secret-ballot elections during union drives.  This would allow union organizers to strong-arm workers until they agree to support a union drive.  This truly Orwellian legislation would empower unions to not only extort businesses, but to extort workers to extort businesses.  And when government workers are involved, unions will be empowered to extort workers to extort government agencies to extort taxpayers.  The rest of us will be the chumps at the bottom rung of this extortion food chain. 


Public sector unions will always support left-leaning politicians, because they know these politicians will advocate bigger government, which means more unionized government workers, which means more union dues, which means more money to support leftist politicians.  Everybody does well in this vicious cycle, except taxpayers and private businesses.  In January 2010, the Department of Labor announced that there are now more unionized government workers than unionized private sector workers.  They also announced that Washington, D.C. had the lowest unemployment rate of any city in the nation.  Six of the wealthiest counties in the country are on the outskirts of Washington, D.C.  The public sector is currently the only part of the U.S. economy that is growing, and public sector unions are the only unions increasing their membership.  The implication is that the only “business” booming in America is government and their unionized employees.     


The Obama administration is pushing unionization in order to multiply the army of voters eager to move us toward socialism.  Another army that might abet the leftward drift of our government is illegal immigrants.  The Obama administration is building momentum for immigration reform legislation.  This will portend badly for middle-class taxpayers.   


In July 2007, Obama spoke to the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).  NCLR is an advocate for open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants.  He told them, “I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.”[lxxx]  In July 2008, he told them, “The system isn’t working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids….We’ll make the system work again for everyone….And together, we won’t just win an election; we will transform this nation.”[lxxxi]


By “transforming this nation,” it is likely that Obama means giving amnesty to illegal aliens.  He can’t evict them from the country, because that would violate his promise not to turn his back on them.  If he doesn’t give them amnesty, it would violate his commitment to “transform the nation.” 


Amnesty will be another burden on middle-class America.  It will enable a new segment of the underclass to lay claim to taxpayer wealth via government services.  It will also create another massive voter block that will support Democrats out of gratitude, which will accelerate the drift toward socialism.   The ten million Latino voters in the 2008 presidential election leaned decidedly toward Obama.


Obama made clear his support for illegal aliens in May 2010 when he vociferously criticized a new Arizona statute that empowered local law enforcement professionals to enforce existing Federal laws regarding identification requirements for aliens.  Obama condemned the Arizona bill without even reading it, despite the fact that the bill was simply authorizing local enforcement of the policies of his Federal bureaucracy.  He even collaborated with a foreign leader, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, in a public denouncement and criticism of the legislation of an American state.   In other words, he sided with the foreign leader responsible for the invasion of aliens across our Southern border, and sided against his own citizens in Arizona who were simply trying to protect their border from that foreign leader.


Obama is weakening America in the face of external threats in other ways.  Unlike many “responsibilities” that Obama has invented for our government, defending our nation against terrorists and foreign invaders is constitutionally required of him as Commander-in-Chief.  Despite this obligation, national defense is one of few areas of the budget that he is seeking to shrink.


Obama is anxious to cut military spending, because he wants to reallocate our financial resources to his socialist agenda.  His Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, proposed cuts in defense spending that will reduce acquisition of ships, planes, high-tech military hardware, and equipment to protect and rescue soldiers.[lxxxii]


Obama used the power of his office to diminish America’s standing abroad.  His apology tours in Germany, England, Egypt, the Middle East, and Asia portrayed America as an arrogant imperialist nation, rather than as an honorable and generous nation that has frequently rallied to the defense and aid of the entire world.  He does not see American soldiers as defenders of freedom, but as reckless agents who are “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”[lxxxiii]


Obama criticized our allies and kowtowed to our enemies.  He bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which the Washington Times called “a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate” and an “extraordinary protocol violation.”[lxxxiv]  He bowed to Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan, but not to Queen Elizabeth of England.[lxxxv]  During a July 2007 debate, he said that he would meet without preconditions some of the world’s most villainous dictators, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il.[lxxxvi]  In a botched attempt to appease Russia, he terminated a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the day after the rogue nation North Korea launched a missile capable of reaching Poland.  Russia snubbed Obama’s appeasement by announcing a program to help Iran’s nuclear program.  Some of our gravest enemies, including Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong-Il, endorsed Obama for President.[lxxxvii] 


  Obama’s groveling and apologies appear to have earned nothing but international disdain.  President Nicolas Sarkozy of France reportedly described Obama’s position on Iran as “utterly immature.”[lxxxviii]   Allegedly, a report from France’s Directorate-General for External Security quoted Sarkozy describing Obama as a “mad lunatic.”[lxxxix] 


According to Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report, a renowned Asian leader remarked, “We are convinced that he (Obama) is not strong enough to confront his enemy.  We are concerned that he is not strong enough to support his friends.”[xc]  Nobel laureate Lech Walesa said in February 2010:  “They (the United States) don’t lead morally and politically any more.  The world has no leadership.  The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations.  There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States.  Today, we lost that hope.”[xci]


Obama’s policy of treating terrorism as a criminal rather than a military matter is another threat to our security.  As political analysts Dick Morris and Eileen McGann explained, “Obama urged us to go back to the era of criminal-justice prosecution of terror suspects, citing the successful efforts to imprison those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993….That prosecution, and the ground rules for it, had more to do with our inability to avert 9/11 than any other single factor.  Because we treated the 1993 WTC bombing as simply a crime, our investigation was slow, sluggish and constrained by the need to acquire admissible evidence to convict the terrorists.  As a result, we didn’t know that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997—too late for us to grab Osama when Sudan offered to send him to us in 1996.”[xcii]  In an unprecedented move, Obama’s administration decided to put 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on criminal trial in New York City, the primary scene of the slaughter of Americans.[xciii] 


Obama emasculated our most effective defenses against terrorism, our intelligence agencies.  He promoted disclosure of sensitive and compromising information under the Freedom of Information Act.  He vilified and threatened to prosecute agents who successfully used aggressive (and effective) interrogation techniques to prevent terrorist attacks.  He ordered the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to be closed and the captured enemy combatants housed there to be relocated inside America.  He turned the blind eye of political correctness to the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood.  He released information on U.S. intelligence methods, ignoring the counsel of four former CIA Directors.  He required our soldiers to read Miranda rights to captured enemy combatants in the heat of battle.


Obama’s policies project weakness to rogue nations and international terrorists who will interpret his passivity as an invitation for further mischief.  Just as Clinton’s passivity led to the attacks of 9/11, Obama’s treatment of terrorists as “man-caused disasters” is the kind of namby-pamby political correctness that will embolden the cutthroats who despise and wish to kill us.  He added troops to the war in Afghanistan, while announcing to our enemies an exact timetable for them to leave.  He did this during a speech in which he never made reference to victory, because he doesn’t like the word.[xciv]  Afghanistan is called the graveyard for empires.  Politically compromised battle plans and public disclosure of tactics will certainly endanger American soldiers and lead to failure there. 


The Obama administration is also weakening the foundation of our society.  The bedrock of our political system, the U.S. Constitution, is slowly being eroded as the guarantor of limited government and sovereign individual rights.  This must necessarily happen under Obama’s administration, because his lust for socialism is the antithesis of limited government and individual rights.  The U.S. Constitution and the aspirations of the Obama administration cannot co-exist in any meaningful way. 


As Obama pursues his agenda to take wealth and liberty from the middle class, he will appoint activist judges who are sympathetic to an end-run around the Constitution.  Sonia Sotomayor, his first pick for the Supreme Court, is an “empathetic” justice who will legislate from the bench and establish “policy,” based on remarks she made before her nomination.[xcv] [xcvi]   His second pick, Elena Kagan, wrote her senior thesis at Princeton on the topic of socialism in New York City.  Near the end of her thesis, she wistfully wrote, “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States.  Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories rather than of socialism’s greatness.”[xcvii]  The Obama administration will rely on justices like Sotomayor and Kagan to “authenticate” unconstitutional transfers of wealth and power to the elites and to the underclass. 


In The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:  “…just as I recognize the comfort offered by the strict constructionist, so I see a certain appeal to this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the constitutional text doesn’t constrain us much at all, so that we are free to assert our own values unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past.   It’s the freedom of the relativist, the rule breaker, the teenager who has discovered his parents are imperfect and has learned to play one off of the other—the freedom of the apostate.”[xcviii]  He also wrote:  “…I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”[xcix]


That is exactly what a constitution is not.  Our Constitution is a firm commitment to the basic moral and philosophical principles of our society.  It is not an infinitely malleable tool to help facilitate “change,” especially the socialistic change that Obama is peddling.  While it is possible and sometimes desirable to change the Constitution as our society evolves, the prescribed process for doing so is extremely burdensome, by design.  As John Locke noted, the foundations of a society should not be changed for light and transient reasons.  They should certainly not be changed at the behest of one leader or nine justices. 


One of the first casualties in an Obama world of a “living” Constitution will be dissent by opposing voices.  The radicals are intent on implementing some version of a strategy previously called the “Fairness Doctrine.”  The goal of this doctrine was to minimize the influence of conservative and Christian talk radio.  Obama’s FCC is preparing to use regulatory constraints like “diversity,” “localism,” and the “public interest” to steer broadcast content more toward the left end of the political spectrum.[c]  Obama’s acting FCC Chairman, Michael Copps, said he believes the government should enforce media “diversity” and make sure radio programming is “more reflective” of “public interest.”[ci]  He said, “If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play.”[cii]  The market dominance of conservatives and Christians on the radio is fueling the desire of the radicals to find non-market ways to marginalize the voices that oppose Obama’s “change.” 


Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin proposed a “Newspaper Revitalization Act” that would give the increasingly obsolete newspaper industry Federal subsidies in exchange for influence over their editorial decisions.[ciii]  This would essentially make newspapers mouthpieces of the government, which is clearly antagonistic to the First Amendment.  Here is Obama’s perspective:  “I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding.”[civ]  His self-serving implication is that if newspapers become extensions of his government, the news that they report will be inherently unimpeachable.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  The unique purpose of the independent news industry in our society is to shine a bright spotlight on those in power in order to enforce transparency and accountability.  Once a newspaper becomes beholden to political leaders for its survival and its content, it may as well change its name to Government Times, just as GM is now laughingly called Government Motors.


Another First Amendment battleground will be the internet.  Cass Sunstein, one of Obama’s many czars, has argued that the internet is inherently anti-democratic because of the way users can select information of their own choosing.[cv]  He said, “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”[cvi]   Not only is this perspective self-contradictory and nonsensical, it is another indication of the administration’s interest in increasing control over the flow of information.  Expect to hear more discussion about how to regulate the activity of bloggers on the internet.   Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, wrote in 1996, “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action—which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate—then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.”[cvii]  In other words, if the internet or any other medium becomes skewed toward the conservative end of the political spectrum, then government intervention to “un-skew” it is desirable. 


The government’s yearning to control dissent includes a growing focus on controlling how our children think.  Public schools are run by administrators and unionized teachers who are paid by the government, so they are inherently reluctant to dissent against the collectivist masters that feed them.  As Upton Sinclair put it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”[cviii]  From the age of five onward, our children are exposed to far more indoctrination at school than they get at home.  Most of that indoctrination leans to the left.


Obama was involved for years in radicalizing the Chicago public school system with his accomplice, William Ayers.  He tip-toed back into that arena in September 2009 when he addressed school students nationwide, encouraging them to work hard and to participate in community service.  Before his speech, teachers were coached to read books about Obama and ask students why it is important that they listen to him and other elected officials.  During the speech, teachers were instructed to challenge the kids to write down key points about what Obama was challenging them to think about and do.


Obama’s budget includes $10 billion for “Zero to Five” education, which will give government-funded educators access to the minds of our children for the only five years that they are currently free from indoctrination.[cix]  Obama also signed into law the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (formerly called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act).  This $6 billion legislation created 175,000 new “service opportunities” for young adults under AmeriCorps.[cx] [cxi]  It established additional organizations to focus on issues dear to the radicals, including Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Global Energy Corps, and Green Jobs Corp. 


The bill’s opponents said it was a tool for proselytizing young “volunteers.”  Ominously, the original version of the bill proposed to create a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”  If the original version of the bill had passed, this commission would have explored “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation.”[cxii]  This provision was stricken from the bill due to negative publicity. 


In his book, The Plan:  Big Ideas for America, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote, “We propose universal civilian service for every young American.  Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”[cxiii]   


Obama was a founding board member of a youth service group called Public Allies in 1992.  Michelle Obama was the Executive Director for Public Allies Chicago for several years.  Obama plans to use this group as the model for his national service corps.[cxiv]   Public Allies deploys 2,200 community organizers to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in major U.S. cities.  “I get to practice being an activist and get paid for it,” declared a Public Allies participant.[cxv] 


Public Allies, which gets half of its funding from the U.S. Government, is a training ground for future Obamas.  It brags that 80% of its graduates go on to work in nonprofit or government jobs.  It’s training the “next generation of nonprofit leaders.”[cxvi]   This is consistent with Barack and Michelle’s general disdain for the private sector.  Michelle said, “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do.  Don’t go into corporate America.  Become teachers.  Work for the community.  Be social workers.”[cxvii]  Barack told graduating students at Wesleyan University, “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”[cxviii]  If our kids are not all good socialists yet, it’s not from lack of trying by the Obamas and their fellow radicals.


Many in the education establishment are eager to radicalize American youth along the lines of Obama’s vision.  At a school in Massillon, Ohio, students in a government class passed out internship applications for the Organizing for America group, which uses the web address barackobama.com.[cxix]  This organization is recruiting students to “build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda.”[cxx]   The recommended reading list for recruits includes Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and chapters from Obama’s Dreams from My Father.[cxxi]


Julian Huxley wrote in his 1947 book, UNESCO: It’s Purpose and Its Philosophy:  “The task before UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization)…is to help the emergence of a single world culture…at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other…individualism versus collectivism…capitalism versus communism…Christianity versus Marxism.  Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?... if we are to achieve progress, we must learn to un-crystallize our dogmas.”[cxxii]   In essence, he said we need to embrace the dialectic materialism of Marx and Hegel, the theoretical mechanism that would facilitate the evolution from capitalism to communism.


Such “synthesis,” such philosophical compromise between diametrically opposed world views, is not meant to find peace in the world, but rather to weaken the foundation of one world view so that it can be supplanted by another.   Efforts like the Serve America Act and Public Allies are designed to change our culture from one of capitalism, individual rights, and individual responsibility; to one of socialism, collective rights, and collective responsibility.  This cultural change is being driven through our children.   Initiatives like Public Allies and the Serve America Act are designed to “un-crystallize” young minds from the current cultural paradigm, fill them with a passion for service and collectivism, “refreeze” them with the new ideology, and thereby establish a generational foundation for socialism in America. 


Aldous Huxley wrote in his 1946 edition of Brave New World:  “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.  To make them love it is the task assigned…to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors, and schoolteachers.”[cxxiii]


Youth indoctrination models are common in collectivist states.  The Soviets called their version Praxis.  Praxis was a program in which students learned practical collectivism, a mind-changing process that was the centerpiece of “service learning” in their schools and communities.[cxxiv]  The primary goal behind group service learning was not compassion, but subservience to the collective.  If there were in fact any good results from group service, they were of secondary importance to the inculcation of communal purpose and activity.  Socialism by definition requires individuals to subsume themselves into the great collective.  That is what Hegel meant with his proto-socialist concept of the “Species Being.”


The Soviet praxis model was similar to National Socialist programs in Nazi Germany.  Young Germans from ages 10 to 19 had to serve in the Hitler Youth Program.[cxxv]  Youth service was a source of cheap labor, and it was a way for the Nazis to propagandize an entire generation.  Hitler told a crowd in 1933:  “When an opponent says, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already….What are you?  You will pass on.  Your descendents, however, now stand in the new camp.  In a short time, they will know nothing else but this new community.”[cxxvi]   Hitler also said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow.  For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled.”[cxxvii]




We are being force-fed a “new community” by the radicals.  A monumental change is taking place in the relationship between the state and the individual in America.  America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic of free and independent citizens to a collectivist socialist state that is larger and more intrusive than the autocratic British monarchy we revolted against two centuries ago.  This “change” will not bode well for the middle class.


We are at a dangerous tipping point in our democracy.  Mob rule is about to overwhelm our Constitutional protections.  Roughly 55% of eligible voters pay Federal income taxes, and the remaining 45% don’t.  Once that ratio becomes unfavorable for the taxpayers, they will be exposed to an electoral majority that could simply choose to vote their wealth away.  The radicals with the “share the wealth” mantra who invaded Washington after the 2008 election are eager to push America over that tipping point.    


When we are told that the Constitution is a flexible “living document,” we are really being told that the rule of law is flexible, our rights are flexible, and the limits on government are flexible.  If that is the case, then our rights and the Constitution mean nothing--they can be subsumed by the whims and fancies of the moment.  Such “flexibility” leaves us essentially defenseless against the marauding mob of socialist wannabes that has gained political control.


This mob, operating with the “end justifies the means” morality of Saul Alinsky, has declared war on the middle class and on the concept of constitutionally-protected individual rights.  The prize for the mob in this conflict is parasitic socialism.  The cost to us is everything we hold dear.  Like a plague of locusts that consumes everything in its path, the radicals are flooding the voting booths with armies of “victims” and “dependents” who will vote for the radicals in hope of leeching onto American taxpayers to get all of their needs and wishes fulfilled.   Thomas Paine postulated two centuries ago that the world consists of taxpayers and those who live upon the taxpayers.  He predicted that those who live upon the taxpayers will work tirelessly to expand their role as parasites.  Today, the parasites are on the verge of winning.  They will devour the middle class, which is the heart and soul of our country, leaving behind the skeletal remains of a once-vibrant society.


In The Audacity of Hope, Obama clearly stated that he doesn’t embrace the American system of free enterprise.  He described capitalism as “chaotic and unforgiving,” and said that he wants to roll back the “ownership society.”[cxxviii] [cxxix]  This is to be expected, since socialist mentors have guided his entire life, including Barack Obama Sr., Frank Marshall Davis, disciples of Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward, Frances Piven, William Ayers, Malcolm X, Alice Palmer, Carl Davidson, Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, ad nauseum. 


Obama’s antipathy to capitalism ignores the warnings of conservative author Dr. Adrian Rogers: “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else.  When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.  You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”[cxxx]


P.J. O’Rourke put it more bluntly: “Freedom is not empowerment.  Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia.  Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered.  It’s not entitlement.  An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they?  It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the ‘right’ to education, the ‘right’ to health care, the ‘right’ to food and housing.  That’s not freedom, that’s dependency.  Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle.  There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please.  And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”[cxxxi]


Unfortunately, these perspectives are falling on more and more deaf ears in today’s culture.  A great “change” is taking place in America, a change that is transforming the individual from a sovereign entity protected by the Constitution into submissive chattel of the state.  America is devolving into a collectivist gang-state controlled by elites whose mission is to corral the rest of us into a great uniform proletarian herd.  This “change” is being embraced without understanding its true nature.  Norman Thomas, an American socialist, predicted this:  “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."  Karl Marx said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”[cxxxii] 


It is foolish to believe that compromise is possible between our capitalist foundations and the socialistic ambitions of the radicals.  Lenin, an iconic Marxist, said:  “As long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace:  in the end, one or the other will triumph.”[cxxxiii]  In other words, no long-term compromise is possible between socialism and capitalism.  The premises, worldviews, and practical applications of each are diametrically opposed.  A society that tries to accommodate both will never achieve lasting tranquility. 


Pope Benedict XVI, describing the fall of the Soviet Union, offered a powerful perspective on this in Truth and Tolerance:  “…where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors are now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world.  Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”[cxxxiv]


Marxism can only end in demonic results.  The Marxists in Russia murdered 40 million of their own.  The Marxists in China eliminated 70 million.  The Marxists in Vietnam and Cambodia each slaughtered two million.  These “testimonials” lay bare the dictum of Lenin that no peace is possible until all enemies of socialism are destroyed, from without and from within. 


Obama declared during a Colorado campaign stop: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.  People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”[cxxxv]  Why do we need a strong civilian national security force?  We already have the most powerful defense capabilities in the world.  Perhaps it is because socialism always hides its totalitarian aims under the banner of coercive community service or “civilian national security.”


Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope:  “In 1941, FDR said he looked forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms:  freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  Our own experience tells us that those last two freedoms—freedom from want and freedom from fear—are prerequisites for all others.”[cxxxvi]  This is the entrée into collectivism for Obama.  The vain hope to be absolved from want and fear is the nose of the socialist camel under the capitalist tent.  The temptation of being freed from self-responsibility by the state is the great tease for the middle class, the great proffering of poisoned gingerbread.  If we succumb to the temptation, we will find ourselves serving the state, in order for the state to serve us.   If we succumb to the temptation, we will find ourselves trapped by totalitarian logic in which the “rights” of some become “liens” on others.  In the Orwellian paradigm of the socialists, freedom is not possible without chains.

Michelle Obama told us that Barack will require us to “volunteer” our time.  He will “recommend” that we meet “obligatory volunteer goals.”[cxxxvii]  Barack said, “I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States…this will be a cause of my presidency.”[cxxxviii]  This is where the words of Pope Benedict XVI come crashing home:  “Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”  There is a vital difference between community activism and socialism.  It is one thing for individuals to express their faith by doing God’s work on Earth with acts of charity.  It is another thing altogether to leverage the financial, military, and police apparatus of the government to forcibly compel individuals to do the work of a god they call the state.  Altruism enforced by the power of the state can never be God-like; it can only be destructive of individual rights and liberty.  Transfer of wealth compelled by the state is not charity, it is theft on the grandest of scales. 

The beauty of our Constitution is that it is designed to allow the free exercise of altruism without the evil of state compulsion and confiscation.  Our Constitution creates the opportunity for individuals to pursue moral redemption in a way that is appropriate for each of them.  Socialism obliterates moral redemption with guns and tax collectors.  As Ayn Rand put it, “Morality ends where a gun begins.”[cxxxix] 

Obama has appointed an army of czars to administer his illusory policies of redemption, the profane work of his own statist god.  He has created new government positions through executive order that require no senate approval.  These czars are therefore beholden, not to the American people, but to Obama himself.  In effect, he is creating a two-tiered government, one tier consisting of its public face, in the form of Cabinet Secretaries who are subject to public approval and scrutiny, and another tier consisting of shadowy czars of questionable background and intent who are subject only to Obama’s approval.[cxl]


What are these furtive, unaccountable forces doing with our trillions of dollars?  How much more of our wealth must be siphoned to Goldman Sachs, General Motors, and the rest of the elite robber barons who howl at the moon of calamity and beg for more and more corporate welfare?  How much more of our liberty must be sacrificed on the altar of collective enslavement to our lowest common denominators?   Why must we tolerate an Information and Regulatory Czar who wanted to outlaw hunting and who supported giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits?[cxli]   Why must we countenance a Science Czar who advocated compulsory sterilization and who believed that we should have fewer people, a global police force, and a Planetary Government?[cxlii]


The statist beast is insatiable, as it always has been, absent a powerful Constitution compelling limited government.  We have already accumulated more debt than any country in history.  And yet our leaders pursue even more debt, as they construct the foundation of socialism with the building blocks of government-run health care and government-controlled energy.  There will be no end to it, because their envy of our wealth is boundless, and their hatred of our freedom is absolute.  Through it all, we will be beguiled with temptresses named “Hope” and “Change,” which were the campaign leitmotifs of National Socialism too.[cxliii] [cxliv]   One of Hitler’s slogans was “Alles muss anders sein!,” or “Everything must be different!”[cxlv]


The middle class will not only bear the brunt of this “change,” the middle class will evaporate.  Socialism is not a productive politico-economic system.  It is a parasite, and a mindless parasite at that, because it is too foolish to know when to stop bleeding its host.  When the host dies, when responsibility, initiative, investment, and ambition fade into oblivion in America, there will be nothing left but to stand in line for scarce goods and rue the passing of our greatness.  This will be of little concern to the elites who orchestrated the disaster, because they will still have sufficient power and guns to siphon the meager resources left in our society for their own use.  This has been true in all collectivist dictatorships.  The party leaders live like kings, while the worker bees are scolded that they must sacrifice and live barren lifestyles marked only by slavish commitment to the sacrosanct state.  The demise of America’s greatness will also be of little concern to the helplessly dependent lemmings of the underclass.  They will be groveling along with us for scraps, but with conspiratorial gleams in their eyes from the knowledge that they helped collapse us into collective poverty in a fit of envy and sloth emblematic of Cloward and Piven’s Orchestrated Chaos. 


This is no longer a contest between Republicans and Democrats.  It is a fight against socialism.  It is a fight for the survival of the middle class.  It is a fight for our Constitutional Republic.  It is a fight for our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If socialism wins out, we will all be poorer and we will all have fewer rights than before.  Socialism is a system with a proven track record of abuse, failure, and destruction.  


Even now, certain constituencies of Obama that have been his strongest supporters are experiencing dreadful results wrought by failed collectivism.  After just one and a half years of Obama’s administration, African-Americans are being devastated by unemployment approaching 35%, which is close to what the general population experienced during the Great Depression.  The 19-28 year old age group is being crushed by unemployment approaching 25%.  The next decade of their lives is already being called lost.  In the decades after that, their generation will get stuck with the bill for today’s spending.  This is because no politician is suicidal enough to raise taxes to match our current level of spending, and the current administration has no intention of reducing the spending.  The city of Detroit, which has been managed by leftist radicals for decades, epitomizes the moral hazard of socialism and the abject failure of collectivism.  To get a sneak preview of the socialist America of tomorrow, look at Detroit today.


This administration is perhaps the most divisive in history.  As the government takes a larger and larger role in our lives, the classic fault lines in our society are widening.  As we all compete for our “share” of the diminishing socialist loot, races will be pitted against each other, generations will vie for position against each other, and economic classes will reach for metaphorical torches and pitchforks to assault each other.


At what point will the middle class of America revolt against this insanity?  At the close of Obama’s first year in office, general U.S. unemployment was at 17% under the broad “U6” gauge.  Trillions of dollars of equity evaporated from retirement accounts and real estate.  Over 300,000 properties were foreclosed in just October 2009.  More Americans lost their homes in 2009 than during the entire Great Depression.  Seven million more homes are on the precipice of foreclosure.   In December 2009, the government increased the cap on taxpayer “insurance” of mortgage insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $200 billion to infinity.  This means they are fearful of a massive collapse of the real estate market.  If that collapse happens, the financial losses will become a gargantuan obligation of every taxpayer.  Analysts believe that nearly half of the mortgages that Fannie and Freddie insure, which total in the trillions, are toxic. 


Of course, much of this has been blamed on Bush by the radicals.  There are two problems with this diversionary tactic, however.  First, the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007.  Congress controls the purse-strings of our government.  Second, the Bush administration was also a tragic disappointment to champions of limited government, as it too flirted with collectivism in a misguided effort to assuage moderates.  Remember, this battle is no longer a struggle between Democrats and Republicans.  It is a struggle by the middle class against collectivism spawned by politicians of all persuasions. 


This storm has been brewing for decades.  It is only now that we feel its ferocity as the shutters and shingles of our tidy suburban homes are blown off.  The ends have been played against the middle.   The last half-century has been a giant pincer movement against the middle class, with the underclass clamoring for more and more transfers of wealth, and the elites clamoring for more and more corporate welfare and control of our lives. 


Obama is just the denouement of a long play, the smiling and waving engineer of a train that left the station of collectivism decades ago.   That train is now a runaway juggernaut as both major political parties jockey to gain the support of the political center, ironically by promising to promiscuously spend the wealth of the political center.  The reality that the middle class has yet to fully comprehend is that both major political parties are not really jockeying for the center, they are in a bidding war for the right to attack and devour the center.  We’ve been had by both parties, and it’s imperative that we come to grips with that realization.  


Advocates of limited government and individual rights need to stand up now and confront this socialist threat to our country.  If Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are still running this country three years from now, the American way of life will be irretrievably lost.  The programs that they are implementing day after day in Washington will soon be irreversible.  Once government-run health care is fully implemented, there will be no undoing it.  There will only be waiting lists for procedures that the government will ration for the middle class, but will give away for free to the underclass.  Once illegal immigrants are given amnesty, free education, health care, and other social benefits, there will be no undoing it.  There will only be a reduced standard of living, class warfare, and bi-lingual signs everywhere. 


Forget your retirement plans.  With Social Security funds already spent, the nation trillions of dollars in debt, massive new entitlement programs being created, taxes soon to rise everywhere, and energy costs increasing due to ascetic environmental programs, retirement will be beyond your reach.  You will have to work your entire life with your nose to the grindstone.  As you do so, think deeply about those people in the underclass who have become generationally dependent upon your support, and those elites whose lives have been enriched by your bail-outs and sacrifices.  You will be a slave to them. 


The middle class will be the victim in Obama’s grand march toward socialism.  He supports the underclass with wealth transfers and myriad government programs.  He supports the elites with corporate bailouts and millions of bureaucratic jobs.  His staff is a gilded roster of Washington and Wall Street insiders.  His biggest campaign supporters were bankers and insurance moguls.  David Rockefeller is a family friend.  Soros is his puppeteer.  Where does the middle class fit in this picture?  If you can’t figure out who the mark is in a con, it’s you.


One thing is certain.  If Obama and the radicals are allowed to finish their mission, there will be no middle class in America, just as there is no middle class in any collectivist regime anywhere in the world.  Money doesn’t grow on trees.  Prosperity doesn’t come from government printing presses.   Obama’s “Hope” and “Change” are far more likely to yield dependency and disappointment than freedom and prosperity.


When Toto pulled back the curtain to reveal what was behind the smoke and mechanical artifices in Oz, the myth of the all-powerful Wizard imploded.  Instead of an imposing, otherworldly, godlike force, the Wizard was just a shriveled old sideshow con man.  Likewise, when the media-abetted deification of Obama is finally pierced by the arrow of harsh reality, we will see instead a professional community agitator accomplished in hypocrisy, deceit, misinformation, and not much else.  We will see a conniving alchemist yearning to transform government spending into real wealth, in a modernized version of the age-old urge to turn lead into gold.

Obama is just a huckstering smiley face concealing a con of great consequence.  He will flash his charming grin at the cameras and recite rhetoric with grandiose pomposity from a teleprompter.  He will tell us that he is pursuing some nonsense called The Third Way, a philosophy that is part capitalism and part socialism.  Unfortunately, the half of his philosophy that exalts the state and empowers it to intrude in our lives will inevitably overwhelm the other half.  It has always been that way, because the state has the implied force of guns and the very real power to confiscate wealth.  It is not possible to be half free, at least not for long. 

The Democrats have become the party of Big Government, wealth transfers, and corporate bail-outs, with a nominal bias toward civil libertarianism.  The Republicans are becoming the party of Big Government, wealth transfers, and corporate bail-outs, with a nominal bias toward free market capitalism.  The center point between these two still leaves Big Government, wealth transfers, and corporate bail-outs firmly entrenched.  The debate around this center point is really just lip service regarding civil liberties and free markets, to whatever extent that Big Government graciously allows them to play out.  In a sense, it’s like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.  One wolf is the wealthy elites.  The other wolf is the underclass.  The rest of us are the sheep.  We all know how the vote will come out. 

An alternative center point in our polity is a return to our core principle of limited government, wherein us middle class sheep have unalienable Constitutional rights that protect us from political carnivores.  From a civil liberty perspective, this means less government intrusion in our individual lives and behaviors.  From an economic perspective, this means less government intrusion in the free market.  Colloquially, this means that the government should keep its hands off our families and our wallets. 


This will have to be the center point that the middle class eventually forces political parties to gravitate toward, if it is to survive.  This is the revolution that must happen in America, and it must happen quickly.  The good news is that the middle class has sufficient numbers to execute this revolution politically.  The bad news is that few in the middle class truly understand the con that has been foisted upon them by their leaders.


This alternative center point is firmly rooted in individual rights and freedom.  Freedom means that our economic activity should be voluntary, and the government should stay out of our personal affairs.  Freedom means that the government should stay out of our wallets, out of our privacy, out of educating our kids, out of influencing our moral conduct, and out of our businesses.  The government should protect our rights, not control our lives. 


The political platform of a movement focused on this alternative center point would be built upon the pillars of limited government, individual rights, individual responsibility, and the U.S. Constitution.  Such a platform would: 


  • ·         Embrace fiscal responsibility, which means advocating a dramatic downsizing in government spending, commitments, and involvement.  It means recognizing that individuals are responsible for their lives, not society.


  • ·         Embrace a strong national and civil defense, but only for the purpose of protecting, with extreme prejudice, our citizens, our property, and our interests from attack by rogue nations, terrorists, and criminals.  Limited government is inconsistent with nation-building and occupying foreign lands.


  • ·         Embrace immigrants coming to America, as is our tradition, but only if they do so lawfully and can carry their own weight.   Limited government is inconsistent with taking on waves of illegal immigrants dependent on state handouts.


  • ·         Insist on a judiciary that adheres to the Constitution, rather than one that seeks to unilaterally change the Constitution.  The role of the judiciary is to ensure our rights to life and property are protected from the majority, not dissolved by the majority.


  • ·         Embrace a limited-government perspective on social issues.  This may run counter to the intuition of certain conservatives, but it is incongruous to demand less government in most things, while insisting that government stick its nose in moral, ethical, or religious affairs.  In the context of limited government, civil libertarianism will not threaten social values held dear by conservatives or liberals.  If civil liberty is properly honored, all people should be free to live their lives as they choose, according to the values that are dear to them, as long as they respect the similar rights of others.


  • ·         Embrace economic growth.  A growing prosperity is the only way that our society will be able to support an improved standard of living for the next generations while supporting the commitments that we have already made to the current generations for programs such as Social Security.  Our society should allow free markets to allocate capital and labor, to price assets and resources, and to choose winners and losers.  Strong economic growth is the only “change” that benefits everyone.  It offers the potential for all people to come out ahead, not just certain groups.  It promotes trade, which is the amicable and voluntary tie that binds not only citizens in America, but also countries around the world.  Prosperity is the true fount of “hope”.  This kind of hope is the ultimate defense against civil unrest and the rise of totalitarianism.


Today’s problems are political and philosophical.  The central issue of the debate is individual liberty versus socialism.  Democracy can only save itself from itself when enough people realize that we need a return to limited government, not surrender to Big Government.   Our society will be saved from communal suicide only when enough people realize that capitalism is the sole internally consistent philosophy that will achieve our goals of efficiency, privacy, fairness, and security.


This battle needs to be won before there are so many people dependent on the government that socialism is simply the default mechanism of survival for the majority, because the next step in that cause and effect sequence will be the destruction of America.  A frightening harbinger of this societal Armageddon occurred after an October 2008 campaign stop by Obama in Florida.  An Obama supporter told a reporter, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car.  I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.  You know, if I help him, he’s gonna help me.”[cxlvi]  The Obama supporter probably did not ponder what would happen to America if nobody worried about these things.


It is up to the middle class to save America.  Reagan told us: “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.”[cxlvii]  Lincoln told us: “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”[cxlviii]  Common sense tells us that this is a situation of our own making, and therefore a situation that we can correct.  We elected the politicians who legislated and executed this mess, so therefore we can vote them out of office.  


Simple math lays before us the scope of our challenge.  There are 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen, and one President.  These 536 quislings spend the trillions, set the tax rates, burden us with the debt, print the bogus money, create the regulations, kowtow to the lobbyists and the bankers, bribe the underclass with entitlement programs, appoint the czars, select the judges, hire the millions of bureaucrats, grant themselves pork barrel sugarplums, and collaborate with the media, cultural, and education elites to con the middle class into a self-destructive conspiracy of the lemmings.   


Reagan also told us:  “No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”[cxlix]  Free men and women, it is time to exercise our will and moral courage, before we slip completely into the abyss of totalitarianism.  We essentially have three options. 


One option is to quietly accept this catastrophe and melt silently into the darkness as the “change” that Obama and the radicals are implementing becomes absolute, leaving us and our children to wallow in debt and lost “hope.”   However, this option is morally and spiritually repugnant to those who cherish liberty and understand the dangers of Big Government.


A second option is non-violent revolution, perhaps in the form of succession from the union.  Many states have introduced sovereignty resolutions that underscore their right to separate from the union, if necessary.  The Montana resolution ends with: “That if any act of Congress becomes law or if an Executive Order or Judicial Order is put into force related to the reservations expressed in this resolution, Montana’s ‘Compact With the United States’ is breached and all powers previously delegated to the United States by the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights revert to the states individually.”[cl]


But it is not yet time for widespread civil disobedience or succession.  Our institutions are too grand, our history too elegant, our communities too sacred, and our lives too precious to engage in acts that could precipitate another civil war.


The third and most appropriate option is to vote every scoundrel out of office who believes that our lives are chattel to be bargained away in a grand socialist experiment that has no possible outcome other than abject failure and enslavement to the Leviathan.  The dire situation we face was created through politics, and we must exhaust every effort to resolve it through politics.  The war between the advocates of limited government and the advocates of collectivism must first be fought at the ballot box, just like Saul Alinsky concluded many decades ago.  He knew that he had to win the heart and soul of the middle class in order to achieve socialism by popular vote.  The warning to the middle class today is that socialism has no place in it for you, other than for you to serve as the oxen that wear the yokes. 


The first step in fixing the situation is to recognize the problem.  The problem is that we in the middle class have unwittingly been used as pawns by the elites and by the underclass.  Consequently, we are being devoured by both.  We have been conned by a giant political pincer movement.  Quite simply, we’ve been had.   It’s time for us to get mad as hell, or disappear.


It is no longer sufficient to just show up at the polls every few years and vote.  My wife and I had an epiphany on Election Day in November 2008.  When the results of the election came in, we shed some tears, sank into a depression, and mourned the incipient dissolution of our great country.  Later that evening, it dawned on us that we had not earned the right to be angry and despondent.  Sure, we had done our civic duty and voted.  But, voting on Election Day is like going to church on Sunday.  Just as being a true Christian requires participation every day, not just on Sunday, being a true citizen requires participation every day, not just on the first Tuesday in November. 


Being a true citizen requires becoming an active warrior in the political battle against socialism.  Being a true citizen requires convincing fellow Americans that morality is on the side of limited government.  Being a true citizen requires working tirelessly to mobilize fellow patriots to rally to the defense of our Constitution.  Being a true citizen requires speaking out against every encroachment on our liberty and holding our leaders accountable for every wayward decision.  Being a true citizen requires a refusal to leave the world to our children in the mess that is now.  Our fathers and forefathers left our generation a priceless jewel of a country.  It is on the verge of being destroyed.  It is up to every one of us to save it.


The epiphany that my wife and I experienced launched this book project and inspired us to join the TEA Party movement.   Millions of others have joined too.  Over one million Americans attended TEA Parties on Tax Day in 2009, and then again on Tax Day in 2010.  Middle class revolts are erupting around the country, including Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, where senatorial candidate Scott Brown immortalized himself by correctly identifying Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat as “the people’s seat.”[cli]   The TEA Party movement has learned the lesson that Alinsky taught the radicals:  Either sit at home and feel sorry for your selves, or organize, build power, and take control during the next elections.  


In his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln said, “This country…belongs to the people who inhabit it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”[clii]


Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”[cliii]


Edmund Burke told us, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”[cliv] 


Millions of good men and women in America are choosing to do something about our dire predicament.


Will you? 

Refuse to be had any longer!

(If you enjoyed this chapter, please consider purchasing the complete book by clicking on this link to We've Been Had:  How Obama and the Radicals Conned Middle Class AmericaClick on this link to visit James R. Keena's We've Been Had Facebook page.)


[i] Joseph Farah, “The Day Socialism Comes to America”, World Net Daily, February 17, 2008; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=56620 [accessed April 6, 2010].

[ii] Glenn Beck, “Rewriting our History, Changing Our Traditions”, FoxNews.com, December 16, 2009; available online at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580414,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r3:c0.000000:b0:z5 [accessed April 6, 2007].

[iii] Mark Steyn, “Obama, Political Viagra”, National Review Online, June 7, 2008; available online at: http://article.nationalreview.com/360082/obama-political-viagra/mark-steyn [accessed April 6, 2010].

[iv] Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, p. 1.

[v] Brian Montopoli, “Obama: Taxes Can’t be ‘Monopoly Money’”, CBS News, February 1, 2010; available online at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6162902-503544.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[vi] Ralph R. Reiland, “Hopelessly Naïve”, The American Spectator, March 30, 2009; available online at: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/30/hopelessly-naive [accessed April 20, 2010].

[vii] “Putin Speaks at Davos”, Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2009; available online at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html [accessed April 6, 2010].

[viii] “Thomas Jefferson Quotes”, Brainy Quotes, copyright 2010; available online at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157220.html [accessed April 6, 2010].

[ix] “Glenn Beck: Manufacturing Czar Says ‘The Free Market is Nonsense’”, The Glenn Beck Program, October 20, 2009; available online at: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/32133/ [accessed April 6, 2010].

[x] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 25.

[xi] Corsi, The Obama Nation, p. 252.

[xii] Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 218.

[xiii] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 209.

[xiv] Ibid., p. 152.

[xv] “A 40-Year Wish List”, Wall Street Journal”, January 28, 2009; available online at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xvi] Matthew Vadum, “Hillary Clinton: ‘Never Waste a Good Crisis’”, The American Spectator, July 3, 2009; available online at: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/03/hillary-clinton-never-waste-a [accessed April 6, 2010].

[xvii] Timothy P. Carney, “Secretary Loophole”, The American Spectator, May 2009 issue; available online at: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/15/secretary-loophole/print [accessed April 6, 2010].

[xviii] John Mauldin, “Debt Crisis Economic End Game, Future Evolution of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio”, The Market Oracle, May 19, 2009; available online at: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10743.html [accessed April 6, 2010].

[xix] James Shott, “Potential New Tax Threatens to Keep the U.S. Economy in a Crisis”, Annuit Coeptis, April 13, 2010; available online at: http://news-political.com/2010/04/13/potential-new-tax-threatens-to-keep-the-u-s-economy-in-a-crisis/ [accessed May 2, 2010].

[xx] Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, “Bernanke says Prompt Action Needed on Deficit”, Reuters, April 27, 2010; available online at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE63Q2KH20100427?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11708 [accessed May 3, 2010].

[xxi] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 83.

[xxii] Ibid., p. 223.

[xxiii] Steve Dinan, “CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul”, The Washington Times, February 4, 2009; available online at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxiv] Mike, “Biden: We have to Spend More Money Faster so We don’t Run out of Money”, Save the GOP, July 17, 2009; available online at: http://www.savethegop.com/?p=8005 [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxv] “Transcript: George Stephanopoulos’ Exclusive Interview with President Obama”, ABC News, January 20, 2010; available online at: http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/transcript-george-stephanopoulos-exclusive-interview-with-president-obama.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[xxvi] Lisa Snell, “Failing Public Schools Wipe out any Preschools Gains”, Reason Foundation, June 6, 2008; available at: http://reason.org/news/show/failing-public-schools-wipe-ou [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxvii] Paul Sperry, “Obama’s Stealth Reparations”, FrontPageMag.com, October 28, 2008; available online at: [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Jeanne Sahadi, “$4.8 Trillion – Interest on U.S. Debt”, CNNMoney, December 20, 2009; available online at: http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxxi] L. Brent Bozell III, “Breathtakingly Bold Barack”, Media Research Center, March 4, 2009; available online at: http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2009/col20090304.asp [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxxii] Jerome R. Corsi, “Federal Obligations Exceed World GDP”, World Net Daily, February 13, 2009; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=88851 [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxxiii] Jake Tapper, “Obama’s New Attack on those Who don’t Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’”, ABC News, October 31, 2008; available online at: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[xxxiv] Ed Morrissey, “Obama: I do Think at a Certain Point You’ve Made Enough Money”, Hot Air, April 29, 2010; available online at: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/29/obama-i-do-think-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money/ [accessed May 31, 2010].

[xxxv] “Biden Calls Paying Higher Taxes a Patriotic Act”, MSNBC, September 18, 2008; available online at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26771716/ [accessed April 10, 2010].

[xxxvi] Ned Barnett, “Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases for People Earning under $250K”, American Thinker, October 27, 2008; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxxvii] Ibid.

[xxxviii] Steve Dennis, “Obama’s Backdoor Tax Increase (Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire)”, America’s Watchtower, February 23, 2009; available online at: http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/23/obamas-backdoor-tax-increase-letting-the-bush-tax-cuts-expire/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xxxix] Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell, “Chasing Corporations out of the U.S.”, Investors.com, November 16, 2009; available online at: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=512549 [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xl] Ed Morrissey, “EPA Declares Air a Danger to Human Health”, Hot Air, December 7, 2009; available online at: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/07/epa-declares-air-a-danger-to-human-health/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xli] Christopher Monckton, “Christopher Monckton’s Destruction of Anthropogenic Global Warming to the US House of Representatives”, Milton Conservative, April 14, 2009; available online at: http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2009/04/christopher-monctons-destruction-of_17.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xlii] Gregory Young, “Global Warming? Bring it On!”, American Thinker, November 21, 2008; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xliii] “Fred Singer and Global Warming: Everyone is out of Step but Him and His Cosmic Rays”, See Different, November 16, 2007; available online at: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/fred-singer-and-global-warming-everyone-is-out-of-step-but-him-and-his-cosmic-rays/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xliv] Ed Morrissey, “The Age of Obama: Heat for Me, but not for Thee”, Hot Air, January 29, 2010; available online at: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/29/the-age-of-obama-heat-for-me-but-not-for-thee/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xlv] Ibid.

[xlvi] David Horowitz, “Boring from Within: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part III”, FrontPageMag.com, August 18, 2009; available online at: [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xlvii] Ken Shepherd, “Network Shows Ignore Copenhagen’s Warm Reception for Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric from Chavez”, NewsBusters, December 17, 2009; available online at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/12/17/network-shows-ignore-copenhagens-warm-reception-anti-capitalist-rhetor [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xlviii] Jonah Goldberg, “Does Obama Support Largest Middle Class Tax Increase in History?”, National Review Online, March 16, 2009; available online at: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzFmODFjNjA5ODUxODE1ZDZhZWVjODBjY2M0MmM1Y2Q [accessed April 7, 2010].

[xlix] “Obama Caps Exec Pay for Bailout Firms”, US News, February 5, 2009; available online at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090205.htm [accessed April 7, 2010].

[l] Michelle Malkin, “Newsflash: Wonderboy Treasury Secretary is in over His Head”, Michelle Malkin, March 4, 2009; available online at: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/newsflash-wonderboy-treasury-secretary-is-in-over-his-head/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[li] Neal Boortz, “Charlie Rangel gets a Pass”, Boortz, October 8, 2009; available online at: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/10/charlie-rangel-gets-a-pass.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[lii] “Glenn Beck: Congressman Jason Chaffetz”, The Glenn Beck Show, December 11, 2009; available online at: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/34124/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[liii] Dr. Richard Swier, “100 Economists Say Obama Plan Wrong for Economy”, Red County, October 7, 2008; available online at: http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2008/10/100-economists-say-obama-plan/ [accessed April 7, 2010].

[liv] Ibid.

[lv] Martina Stewart, “Gregg: ‘This Country will go Bankrupt’”, Political Ticker, March 22, 2009; available online at: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/22/gregg-this-country-will-go-bankrupt/?fbid=11t4bsu2Eks [accessed April 7, 2010].

[lvi] “Millionaires Flee Maryland Taxes”, The Washington Examiner, May 27, 2009; available online at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Millionaires-flee-Maryland-taxes-46138062.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[lvii] William Ahern, “Can Income Tax Hikes Close the Deficit”, Tax Foundation, October 22, 2009; available online at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25415.html [accessed April 7, 2010].

[lviii] Juhana Rossi, “McDonald’s Deemed More Credit-Worthy than U.S. Government”, Watching America, September 26, 2008; available online at: http://watchingamerica.com/News/7016/mcdonalds-deemed-more-credit-worthy-than-the-us-government/ [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lix] Sara Goss, “Obama Said He Would Bankrupt the Coal Industry”, American Thinker, February 27, 2009; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_said_he_would_bankrupt_t.html [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lx] “New Video: Obama Vows Electricity Rates would ‘Necessarily Skyrocket’ Under His Plan”, Breitbart TV, November 3, 2008; available online at: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=211663 [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxi] “Lost in an Energy Wilderness”, National Center for Policy Analysis, April 1, 2009; available online at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17803 [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxii] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 199-200.

[lxiii] Ibid., p. 201.

[lxiv] Adam Summers, “China Worried Over the Value of the Dollar (with Good Reason)”, Reason Foundation, March 31, 2009; available online at: http://reason.org/blog/show/china-worried-over-the-value-o [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxv] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “A ‘Copper Standard’ for the World’s Currency System?”, Telegraph.co.uk, April 15, 2009; available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5160120/A-Copper-Standard-for-the-worlds-currency-system.html [accessed May 3, 2010].

[lxvi] Hemant Parikh, “US Greenback is Doomed! – Now or Never”, Mudraa.com, December 7, 2009; available online at: http://www.mudraa.com/trading/31456/0/us-greenback-is-doomed-now-or-never--hemant-.html [accessed May 3, 2010].

[lxvii] Clarice Feldman, “Chavez and Fidel to Obama’s Right?”, American Thinker, June 3, 2009; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/chavez_and_fidel_to_obamas_rig.html [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxviii] “Treasury Limits Pay at Five Companies”, Celebrifi, March 23, 2010; available online at: http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Treasury-limits-pay-at-five-companies-1944546.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[lxix] Stuart Varney, “Obama Wants to Control the Banks”, Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2009; available online at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxx] “Fascism/Nazism”, Ayn Rand Lexicon, copyright 1986, available online at: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism-nazism.html [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxxi] Larry Kudlow, “A ‘Truly Breathtaking’ Departure”, National Review Online, March 30, 2009; available online at: http://article.nationalreview.com/390040/a-truly-breathtaking-departure/larry-kudlow [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxxii] Montopoli, “Obama: Only Government Can Save the Economy”, op. cit.

[lxxiii] Phil Izzo, “Secondary Sources: Taxpayer Robbery, Corporate Taxes, Geithner Notes”, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2009; available online at: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/25/secondary-sources-taxpayer-robbery-corporate-taxes-geithner-notes/tab/article/ [accessed April 8, 2010].

[lxxiv] Warner Todd Houston, “Obama’s Faith-Based Programs Pushing Global Warming, Climate Change, Green Issues”, Big Government, May 16, 2010; available online at: http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/05/16/obamas-faith-based-programs-pushing-global-warming-climate-change-green-issues/ [accessed June 1, 2010].

[lxxv] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 142.

[lxxvi] William Tate, “Obama, the PAC-Man”, American Thinker, July 10, 2008; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_the_pacman.html [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxvii] Brian Johnson, “A Lobbyist by any Other Name: SEUI and the Obama White House”, Big Government, December 3, 2009; available online at: http://biggovernment.com/brjohnson/2009/12/03/a-lobbyist-by-any-other-name-seiu-and-the-obama-white-house/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxviii] Neal Boortz, “Here They Come for Your Retirement!”, Boortz, March 24, 2010; available online at: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/03/here-they-come-for-your-retire.html [accessed June 1, 2010].

[lxxix] Malkin, Culture of Corruption, p. 197.

[lxxx] “National Council of La Raza, Miami, FL”, Ask Sam, July 22, 2007; available online at: http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Obama-Speeches.ask&dn=National%20Council%20of%20La%20Raza [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxi] “Senator Barack Obama’s Remarks at the 2008 Annual Conference”, National Council of La Raza, copyright 2010; available online at: http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/52978/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxii] Don Fredrick, The Obama Timeline, p. 531.

[lxxxiii] Associated Press, “Obama: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Must do More than Kill Civilians”, FoxNews.com, August 14, 2007; available online at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293187,00.html [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxiv] Jim Meyers, “Obama Bow to Saudi King Labeled ‘Shocking’”, Newsmax, April 8, 2009; available online at: http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-bow-king/2009/04/08/id/329349 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxv] Clifford Bryan, “Barack Obama Bows to Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko”, Examiner, November 14, 2009; available online at: http://www.examiner.com/x-19673-Michelle-Obama-Examiner~y2009m11d14-Barack-Obama-bows-to-Emperor-Akihito-and-Empress-Michiko [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxvi] Byron York, “Obama’s Bad Night”, National Review Online, July 24, 2007; available online at: http://article.nationalreview.com/322555/obamas-bad-night/byron-york [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxvii] Michelle Malkin, “Yes! The Ultimate Obama Endorsement! (Updated)”, Michelle Malkin, June 22, 2008; available online at: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/22/yes-the-ultimate-obama-endorsement/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[lxxxviii] Ed Morrissey, “Sarkozy: Obama an Empty Suit on Foreign Policy”, October 28, 2008; available online at: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/28/sarkozy-obama-an-empty-suit-on-foreign-policy/ [accessed April, 9, 2010].

[lxxxix] Pamela Gellar, “French President Sarkozy Calls Obama Insane”, Atlas Shrugs, April 11, 2010; available online at: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/french-president-sarkozy-calls-obama-insane.html [accessed May 3, 2010].

[xc] Reverend Amy, “‘He’s Done Everything Wrong’ – Hell hath no Fury”, No Quarters, January 22, 2010; available online at: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2010/01/22/hes-done-everything-wrong-hell-hath-no-fury/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xci] John Noonan, “Lech Walesa Slams Obama’s Foreign Policy”, WeeklyStandard.com, February 5, 2010; available online at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lech-walesa-slams-obamas-foreign-policy [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xcii] Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, “Asking the Bombers to Try Again”, DickMorris.com, June 19, 2008; available online at: http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/06/23/asking-the-bombers-to-try-again/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xciii] Ed Morrissey, “Webb: Criminal Trials for 9/11 Terrorists a Bad Idea”, Hot Air, November 13, 2009; available online at: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/13/webb-criminal-trials-for-911-terrorists-a-bad-idea/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xciv] Neo-neocon, “Obama on Afghanistan: Victory is a Four-Letter Word”, American Thinker, July 25, 2009; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/post_23.html [accessed June 3, 2010].

[xcv] “Senate Confirms Sonia Sotomayor to U.S. Supreme Court”, FoxNews.com, August 6, 2009; available online at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/06/senate-confirms-sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xcvi] Michelle Malkin, “SCOTUS Pick: Sonia Sotomayor”, Michelle Malkin, May 26, 2009; available online at: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/26/scotus-pick-sonia-sotomayor/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[xcvii] Aaron Klein, “Obama’s Supreme Pick has Love Affair with Socialism”, World Net Daily, May 10, 2010; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152133 [accessed June 3, 2010].

[xcviii] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 109-110.

[xcix] Ibid., p. 108.

[c] John Perazzo, “Obama’s ‘Diversity Chief’ and the End of Talk Radio”, FrontPageMag.com, September 16, 2009; available online at: [accessed April 9, 2010].

[ci] Matt Cover, “Acting FCC Chair Sees Government Role in Pushing ‘Media Diversity’”, CNSNews.com, February 12, 2009; available online at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/43414 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cii] Ibid.

[ciii] Lowell Ponte, “Obama may Consider Nonprofit Status for Newspapers”, Newsmax.com, September 22, 2009; available online at: http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/nonprofit-pbs-npr-obama/2009/09/22/id/335153 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[civ] Pamela Geller, “Obama Open to State Run Media: Newspaper Bail-out”, Atlas Shrugs, September 20, 2009; available online at: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/obama-open-to-state-run-media-newspaper-bailout.html [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cv] Brad O’Leary, “U.S. Regulatory Czar Nominee Wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’”, World Net Daily, April 27, 2009; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=96301 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cvi] Ibid.

[cvii] Malcolm Kline, “Anatomy of an Activist”, Canada Free Press, May 13, 2010; available online at: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23128 [accessed May 31, 2010].

[cviii] “Upton Sinclair”, Wikiquote, modified March 10, 2010; available online at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cix] “Fact Sheet Regarding President Obama’s Education Investments”, Democratic Policy Committee, n.d.; available online at: http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-1-70.html [accessed April 11, 2010].

[cx] Bob Unruh, “New Law to ‘Manage’ 8 Million ‘Volunteers’”, World Net Daily, April 21, 2009; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95674 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxi] Jerome R. Corsi, “‘Mandatory Youth Service’ Bill Advances”, World Net Daily, March 25, 2009; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=92902 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxii] Robert Farley, “‘Mandatory Volunteerism’?’ Not in this Bill”, PolitiFact.com, March 31, 2009; available online at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/31/mandatory-volunteerism-nope/ [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxiii] Nice Deb, “A Version of Obama’s Civilian Service Corps Approved by House”, Nice Deb, March 21, 2009; available online at: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/a-version-of-obamas-civilian-service-corps-approved-by-house/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxiv] “Glenn Beck: Obama’s Radical Followers”, The Glenn Beck Program, September 5, 2008; available online at: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/14846/ [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxv] Ibid.

[cxvi] Ibid.

[cxvii] “Obama Wants You”, Investors.com, July 31, 2008; available online at: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=495249 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxviii] David Boaz, “Our Collectivist Candidates”, Cato Institute, May 28, 2008; available online at: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9429 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxix] Pamela Geller, “Atlas Exclusive: Obama Organizing in High School”, Atlas Shrugs, January 30, 2010; available online at: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/atlas-exclusive-obama-organizing-for-communism-and-youth-corps-in-the-public-school-1.html [accessed April 11, 2010].

[cxx] Ibid.

[cxxi] Ibid.

[cxxii] Berit Kjos, “The Mind-Changing Dialectic Process”, Kjos Ministries, n.d.; available online at: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/Reinventing2.htm [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxxiii] “Quote from Aldous Huxley”, Liberty-Tree.ca, copyright 1998-2005; available online at: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/aldous_huxley_quote_57b0 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxxiv] Berit Kjos, “Mind Change and Collective Service”, Kjos Ministries, October 2008; available online at: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/2-service.htm [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxxv] Ibid.

[cxxvi] Ibid.

[cxxvii] Duane Lester, “HR 1388 or the Obama Youth Brigade Bill – Update”, All-American Blogger, March 26, 2009; available online at: http://www.allamericanblogger.com/6886/hr-1388-or-the-obama-youth-brigade-bill-update/ [accessed June 5, 2010].

[cxxviii] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 188.

[cxxix] Ibid., p. 210-213.

[cxxx] Ken Watts, “The Closing Gap between the Right and Left”, The Daily Mull, January 14, 2009; available online at: http://dailymull.com/1284/The-Closing-Gap-Between-Right-and-Left [accessed April 20, 2010].

[cxxxi] P.J. O’Rourke, “The Liberty Manifesto”, Cato Institute, May 6, 1993; available online at: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6857 [accessed April 9, 2010].

[cxxxii] “Marxist Quotes”, New England Freedom, copyright 2010; available online at: http://nefreedom.ning.com/page/marxist-quotes [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxxxiii] Ibid.

[cxxxiv] Kyle-Anne Shiver, “Obama’s Politics of Collective Redemption”, American Thinker, February 11, 2008; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/obamas_politics_of_collective.html [accessed April 10, 2009].

[cxxxv] Lee Cary, “Obama’s Civilian National Security Force”, American Thinker, July 20, 2008; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxxxvi] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 375.

[cxxxvii] “About Barack Obama”, Global News Daily, copyright 2008-2010; available online at: http://www.globalnewsdaily.com/ [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxxxviii] “Agenda – Service”, Change.gov, n.d.; available online at: http://change.gov/agenda/service_agenda/ [accessed June 5, 2010].

[cxxxix] “Gun Quotations”, Brainy Quote, copyright 2010; available online at: http://www.brainyquote.com/words/gu/gun171055.html [accessed June 5, 2010].

[cxl] Malkin, Culture of Corruption, p. 141.

[cxli] Chelsea Schilling, “Obama Czar Pick: ‘Raving Animal Rights Nut’”, World Net Daily, July 24, 2009; available online at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104820 [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxlii] Joseph Abrams, “Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions”, FoxNews.com, July 21, 2009; available online at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/ [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxliii] Michael Zak, “The Healthcare Bill would be Obama’s ‘Enabling Act’”, Big Government, March 13, 2010; available online at: http://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/03/13/the-healthcare-bill-would-be-obamas-enabling-act/#more-88118 [accessed April 11, 2010].

[cxliv] Tarpley, Obama: The Postmodern Coup, p. 315.

[cxlv] Shiver, “Obama’s Politics of Collective Redemption”, op. cit.

[cxlvi] Huntwork, “The 99 Most Memorable, Interesting and Outrageous Political Quotes of 2008”, op. cit.

[cxlvii] John Marini, “Our Enemy, the State?”, Claremont Institute, Winter 2002; available online at: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1151/article_detail.asp [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxlviii] “Abraham Lincoln Quotes”, ThinkExist.com, copyright 1999-2010; available online at: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_the_people_are_the_rightful_masters_of_both/221236.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cxlix] James A. Leggette and Michael W. Funk, “Ronald Reagan and the Opening Salvos in the War on Terror”, American Thinker, June 7, 2005; available online at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/06/ronald_reagan_and_the_opening.html [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cl] M. More, “House Joint Resolution No. 26”, February 17, 2009; available online at: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/BillHtml/HJ0026.htm [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cli] Jim O’Neill, “Scott Brown: ‘It’s the People’s Seat!’”, Canada Free Press, January 13, 2010; available online at: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18942 [accessed April 10, 2010].

[clii] Muckabin Thomas Owens, “The Case against Secession”, Claremont Institute, copyright 2002-2009; available online at: http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.171/pub_detail.asp [accessed April 10, 2010].

[cliii] “Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes”, Brainy Quote, copyright 2010; available online at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth134767.html [accessed April 11, 2010].

[cliv] “Edmund Burke”, Wikiquote, modified March 23, 2010; available online at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke [accessed April 10, 2010].

References (5)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    James R. Keena - We've Been Had - Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)
  • Response
    Response: feel healthier
    James R. Keena - We've Been Had - Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)
  • Response
    Response: enhancement pills
    James R. Keena - We've Been Had - Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)
  • Response
    James R. Keena - We've Been Had - Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)
  • Response
    James R. Keena - We've Been Had - Meet Your Future (Chapter 10)

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>