On Monday, December 14, bankers from the nation’s largest financial institutions gathered at the White House to discuss how to free up capital to small businesses and consumers. President Obama set the stage for the meeting the previous evening on “60 Minutes” when he labeled them “fat cats” and blasted the bankers for excessive bonuses and salaries. I wonder if the President forgot that many of his staff and cabinet members came from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley?

There is no doubt that compensation levels for corporate executives in the United States has ballooned far past those in other industrialized countries, but it’s highly disingenuous of Obama to lay the entire blame for the financial collapse at their feet. There is perhaps no other participant more financially irresponsible than the federal government itself. The combined influence of Fannie & Freddie, an out-of-control Federal Reserve, and altruist policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act all contributed to our financial woes. Those who live in glass White Houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Perhaps the President didn’t read the USA Today report the previous week that showed federal salaries of $100,000 or more growing from 14% to 19% during the recession’s first 18 months. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had one person earning $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries over $170,000. The growth in six figure salaries has pushed the average federal workers pay to $71,206 compared with $40,331 in the private sector. President Bush started these ridiculous pay raises back in 2008 with a 3% hike and another 3.9% hike in January 2009. President Obama has recommended a 2% hike for 2010 and continues to add federal employee’s to the payroll while the private sector shed some 7.3 million jobs during the recession.

But the contradictions do not stop at salary levels. The “fat cat” bankers are told from federal regulators that they need to improve their balance sheets, increase financial reserves and tighten their lending practices, while the President goes on national television and blasts them for not issuing enough loans. All this while the threat of new financial regulation’s hang over their heads like an anvil over Wylie Coyote.

While the President plays the “class warfare” game, Nancy Pelosi lobbies to raise the debt ceiling (now at $12.1 trillion) an additional $1.9 trillion so she may continue her out of control spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government will need to borrow $3 Trillion for 2009 and 2010. By contrast, it took America 219 years (from 1789 to 2008) to amass $5.8 trillion in Federal debt. Perhaps President Obama needs to get his financial house in order before he places blame.

Once again, the real culprit here is uncertainty. Like business, bankers are uncertain about the impact of the mountain of repressive regulation rolling toward them and the overall costs of healthcare reform. They fear Obamanomics may indeed turn a good credit risk into a bad one. How do you assess the potential credit risk of a business when you cannot calculate energy costs, healthcare costs, tax rates and regulatory expenses?

Like the “pot that called the kettle black”, Obama's list of contradictions continues to grow. One of the major tenets of Objectivism is that Man is a rational being with reason being Mans only means of acquiring knowledge. Contradictions fly in the face of reason. Does President Obama believe he can impose financial institutions with repressive regulations and uncertain future costs and expect them to expand their loan portfolios? It appears the President thinks he can eat his cake….and have it too.

This is John Galt speaking!

It was an amazing feat. After only five days following a job summit where about 300 representatives from business, academia and labor unions met to discuss job creation, President Obama has outlined a new multibillion dollar stimulus and job creation proposal. The answer...”we’ll spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back to work.

The quick five day turnaround is truly amazing since it took Obama nearly three months to respond to General McChrystal’s report for additional troops for Afghanistan and nearly six months to decide what kind of dog to get. Additionally amazing since the summit excluded representation from the largest job producer in our economy…small business. Both the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business were not invited to attend the summit. It is widely accepted that small business accounts for 70% of nation’s work force. It’s no coincidence that both of these organizations have criticized Obama’s policies, especially the healthcare plan.

President Obama did not say exactly how much his proposals would cost but referenced the repaid TARP dollars which total about $200 Billon dollars. “This gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street” Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institute. The problem: it’s illegal. Written into the TARP legislation is that any repaid funds are to be returned to the Treasury to pay down the deficit.

Republicans, deciding to follow the rule of law, continued to insist that the leftover and repaid TARP money must be used exclusively for deficit reduction and not for a new jobs program.  "The president's announcement is further proof that TARP has morphed from an emergency injection of liquidity to thaw frozen credit markets into a $700 billion revolving slush fund to promote the Democrats' political, social and economic agenda," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

President Obama did throw the republicans a bone by including tax incentives for small business hiring and a one year capital gains holiday, also for small business. The administration is also eyeing ways to get money not spent in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last winter into projects more quickly. Unfortunately, the first stimulus package was supposed to hold unemployment under 8% and provide infrastructure projects for roads, bridges and water projects. The president did not elaborate on why this stimulus package will generate results while the first one did not. Currently, the unemployment rate is 10% with over 15 million Americans out of work.

What the President fails to realize is that business will not invest or expand in these uncertain times. Hanging over the heads of US businesses is uncertainty with healthcare costs, uncertainty over energy costs, uncertainty over additional regulations and uncertainty over future taxes. Until business leaders can calculate the expenses associated with hiring new employees, they will simply focus on efficiency and productivity until the political and economic climate changes.

Like Margaret Thatcher, business can be extraordinarily patient. As they did during the Great Depression, business will simply wait it out and eventually, get their way. Unfortunately, working class Americans do not have that luxury. They need to pay their mortgage, feed their families and send their children to college. By continuing this unrestrained spending and implementing repressive regulatory policies, President Obama is strangling the free market, destroying the value of the dollar, fostering inflation and saddling our children and future generations with a mountain of debt. The year 2012 cannot come soon enough.

This is John Galt Speaking!

There have been several developments since I wrote this article last weekend.

First, Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia and author of many of the leaked e-mails, has stepped down. Michael Mann, Penn State meteorology professor and author of the "hockey stick" graph is now under acedemic investigation by a Penn State University committee which will review every e-mail in question - a total of about 300 messages.

Second, a recent Rasmussen Poll shows that fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s very likely. Additionally, most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Third, Al Gore's scheduled December 16th speech with the auspicious title "Climate Conclusion" has been canceled amid the scandal of Climategate.  About 3,000 Danes had tickets for the Berlinske Media event that was announced in August. Mr. Gore had to deal with some hard questions at a book signing this past week, and had the readers escorted away rather than discuss Climategate. See the attached video from the book signing in Chicago: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM&feature=player_embedded)

Forth and last point, sleet and snow were reported in and around the Houston Area today. Forecast calls for up to two inches of snow today. That right…..snow in Houston! Bundle up boys and girls!

This is John Galt Speaking….again!

                                                                       Thomas H. Huxley (1825 - 1895)

On December 7, 2009, representatives from over 192 countries will meet in Denmark for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It will be the largest photo-op for world leaders since the G20 meeting in Pittsburg last September. The conference will feature lots of hand shakes and group pictures. Certainly, the press will be provided plenty of memorable quotes on the necessity of reducing greenhouse gases. But that will be all the summit will likely produce as it now appears that any binding agreements will probably be postponed until next year.

All hopes for an agreement were crushed in November when the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation dropped a proposal to slash their greenhouse gas emission to half of their 1990 levels by 2050. Perhaps it was no coincidence that allegedly hacked e-mails highlighting the manipulation of global warming data had been made public at about the same time. The leaked files - which show over 2,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years - were apparently taken (or sent) from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the UK. The scandal has been dubbed “Climategate” as it may be to global warming what the Pentagon Papers were to Watergate.

Global warming skeptics have long claimed the computer climate models used to predict the warming of the planet were flawed and could not be trusted. Now the world knows the deception goes far beyond just flawed computer models and may constitute out right fraud. Recently, it was discovered the hacked e-mails were sent over six weeks ago to BBC Weather Correspondent Paul Hudson. Hudson claims this was a direct result of an article he wrote last month entitled “Whatever happened to global warming?”  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml). That essay argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. In fact, one of the leaked e-mails from a US scientist Kevin Trenberth confirms this. Trenberth writes “The fact is we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Media coverage of the leaked e-mails, with the exception of Fox News, has largely been muted in the USA. However, the UK sees this as a threat to the validity of their science. George Monbiot, a UK environmentalist, said he was convinced the emails were genuine. “'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken. There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.  The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign” Monbiot added.

The underlying question that remains unanswered is ‘Why would these respected scientists manipulate or falsify data to point to global warming’? Isn’t the fact that there has not been an increase in warming good news? Perhaps they see the goose that laid the golden egg flying away. These scientists have a personal interest in perpetuating the fear that global warming is real and that more government grants are needed to further study man’s impact on the climate. Others will point to a more sinister motive with global emission limits being the first step to a global government. Both Al Gore and Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, has called for global governance of greenhouse gasses. More on the globalist plan for world government can be found here: http://www.infowars.com/climate-gate-is-your-fight/

Regardless what you may believe about global warming, our elected officials have an obligation to make their decisions based on both facts and science…..not what is politically beneficial at the moment. These e-mails should make one step back and reconsider the impact that legislation such as Cap and Trade can have on our economy and global competitiveness. Sadly, I doubt that it will.

This is John Galt Speaking!

The death count may not be over yet. As of the writing of this article, 13 soldiers have died while some remain in critical condition. Over 30 were wounded including the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. In all, Hasan allegedly fired over 100 rounds from two handguns within a few minutes. While Hasan was the lone gunman, he had a silent accomplice which assisted him in maintaining his status as a Major in the US Army. Despite evidence of radical Muslim beliefs, the shroud of political correctness likely made investigators hesitate to act while most of his fellow officers simply turned their heads.

Following the shooting, the “PC” media immediately avoided any references to terrorism, insisting that Hasan’s motive was unknown. The New York Times reported that he “snapped” while Gerardo Rivera on Fox News called him a sociopath and a criminal. The most ludicrous excuse for Hasan’s rampage came from NPR where Tom Gjelten attributed the shooting to “PRE-traumatic stress disorder”. Early media reports focused on Hasan’s emotional struggle regarding his deployment to Afghanistan while others interviewed his family and neighbors. I guess reports of Hasan yelling “Allahu Akbar” prior to his shooting rampage was insufficient evidence to label his motives terrorism.

We now know much more about Major Hasan’s activities leading up to the tragedy at Ft. Hood. The Associated Press reported that a Pentagon worker on a terrorism task force had looked into Hasan’s background and concluded he did not merit further investigation. The investigation concerned his communication with a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen.

We have also learned that class members in Hasan’s “Masters” program had complained about his comments that the war on terror was a “war on Islam”. Another Army classmate claimed to have written to the pentagon complaining that “political correctness” prevented an intellectual honest discussion of Islamic ideology in the ranks.

But that is exactly what political correctness is intended to do, to suppress the open discussion of a sensitive subject because it may cause harm to a cause or a group. According to Jonathon Katz of Washington University, this is a totalitarian impulse and it is the root of political correctness. So what exactly is “Political Correctness”?

Katz defines PC as the narrowing of the range of acceptable opinion to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinion of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion and making independent thought unacceptable. It generally has a practical motivation, it wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.

The origins of political correctness are found in Europe during the 1930’s at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt Germany. Attempting to find out why Communism was not spreading throughout the world, the institute blamed western society and the protection of individual rights as the culprit. They also believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.  They began spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past injustices.

Today, political correctness is well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government. It may very well be a contributing cause of the tragedy at Ft. Hood. Had the Army conducted an open and honest discussion of Islamic ideology in its ranks, it may have honorably discharged Hasan and this whole tragedy averted. Today, more than ever, we need to demand an open and honest discussion on all sensitive issues or risk the continuing erosion of our individual rights and liberty.

This is John Galt Speaking!

Presidential administrations have long touted volunteerism as a way to serve your community. However, Obama’s idea of volunteerism is not delivering “meals on wheels” or working at a food bank. It’s not about tutoring troubled kids or cleaning up the garbage in the bay. Obama’s idea of volunteerism is to encourage young viewer to serve their communities by becoming left wing advocates of such issue as healthcare reform, environmentalism and Planned Parenthood.

Obama has enlisted the help of the same network executives who helped him get elected. Partnering with the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) and AARP along with the White House Office of Public Engagement and The Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation), the Obama administration has all its ducks in a row to indoctrinate our children with a menu of far left agenda issues. If you have kids, I would stock up on Disney DVD’s and video games until the campaign ends on October 25.

Parents may also wish to block the two web pages that will drive TV viewers to the so called “Volunteer Opportunities”, EIF’s “Iparticipate.org” and AARP’s “createthegood.com” along with “serve.gov”. Searches conducted on these sites by “bighollywood.com” displayed such volunteer opportunities as “Global Warming Ambassador”, or the “Secular Student Alliance” which promotes atheism to school age children. Other results were not volunteer opportunities at all….just plain political advocacy. On the AARP site, if you type “health care” as the subject you want to volunteer for, a video called: “How To Spread The Truth About Health Care Reform” pops up for your viewing pleasure. On Serve.gov, if you put in the search word “Iraq” you could be an assistant organizer for CodePink. But my favorite is “Truther” Charlie Sheen’s message on 911dayofservice.org.  All this on a government website paid for by our tax dollars!

Well….it just one week you might say. How much harm can be done in one week? No…this is just the start of a huge expansion of Obama’s propaganda machine. Sometime this month, Congress will reconcile two bills that will expand the funding of The Corporation of National and Community Service (parent company of AmeriCorp) to include tripling the number of volunteers to 250,000 and the creation of an ArtistCorps and MusicianCorps. The Corporation is the nation’s largest grant provider supporting volunteering. You might remember that “The Corporation” was shrouded in controversy when Obama fired their Inspector General, Gerald Walpin. Walpin blew the whistle on massive fraud and abuse of grant dollars by Sacramento Mayor and Obama crony Kevin Johnson.

So the Obama propaganda machine rolls on and on. When you combine the co-opting of the National Endowment for the Art’s, the war on Fox News and this latest abuse of the network airwaves, you see a definitive trend developing. What a shame that Obama would tarnish the idealistic premise of volunteerism. However, idealism has always clouded his judgment. As M.L. Mencken said; “An Idealist is one who, on noticing a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes it will also make better soup”.

This is John Galt Speaking!

Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher known for examining the fundamental question of whether reason alone can unlock answers about the world. His quote on “truth” is as applicable today as it was then. Point in case…the recent labeling of Fox news as an “Opponent” by the Obama administration. Rather than address any false claims that Fox News may have made, the Obama machine has opted to launch a smear campaign against the biggest cable news network in the United States.

While there is no doubt that Fox News caters to a conservative audience, the White House went overboard by labeling Fox as an “Opponent” and an arm of the Republican Party. White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, told Time Magazine that she thinks Fox offers “opinion journalism masquerading as news” and kept up the criticism on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday and in the New York Times Monday.

Early on in his Presidency, Obama and his press secretary Robert Gibbs either ignored Fox News or ridiculed the reporting of opinion broadcasters such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Riley. The riff between the White House and Fox widened in August after Fox correspondent Major Garrett asked questions about unsolicited e-mails on Healthcare being sent by David Axelrod. Following the success of both the Tea Parties (covered only by Fox News) and the vocal Town Hall Meeting on healthcare, the Obama Administration (joined by far left democrats in Congress) continued its ridicule by labeling anyone who opposed Healthcare reform as an “angry mob” and Tea Party attendees as “Tea Baggers”.

Last weekend, the gloves came off as Anita Dunn took direct aim at Fox News and launched into the “opposition” stage. Many seasoned broadcast journalist thought the new opposition strategy will backfire. David Gergen seems to think so. Speaking with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer over the weekend, he said that he “would not advocate” the Obama administration’s fire-with-fire strategy: “If you are going to get very personal against the media, you’re going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you’re going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up in some ways, you give them stature.”  In fact, Fox Senior Vice President for programming, Bill Shine, told the New York Times every time the White House criticizes the network, our ratings go up.” Fox News continues to rise in the rating with more viewers than both CNN and MSNBC combined.

It’s hard to understand just what the White House expected to gain by this open attack on Fox News. Did they expect this to change the editorial direction of Fox News? Did they expect Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity to ignore this open declaration of war? What has become apparent is that Obama is surrounded by advisors who continue to misjudge the political implications of alienating those with opposing viewpoints. They should have listened to the old adage about newspapers often quoted by Bill Clinton when he was president: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."

So what will be the next volley in this war of words? We will just have to “stay tuned” and find out. This could have been a parting shot by Anita Dunn who is expected to leave her position by the end of the year. Perhaps her replacement will understand that engaging in a war of words with Fox News not only is futile but alienates over 2.1 million citizens who Obama is suppose to represent.

Better yet, they should heed the words of another democratic president, Harry Truman, who said “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

This is John Galt speaking!

                                                                     Homer The Iliad         

            Indeed, the outcome of the Afghanistan war is in our hands, or rather, in our elected representatives hands. Unfortunately, President Obama appears to be sitting on his. While the President’s hand picked commander waits for a response to his request for additional troops, President Obama will climb aboard Air Force One and fly to Denmark in a failed attempt to lobby for the Olympics for his home city of Chicago. Apparently, political payback trumps the needs of our young men and women in uniform.

            During his campaign, Obama hammered home that the real war we should be fighting was in Afghanistan. During a town hall meeting in Cape Girardeau, Miss., Senator Obama talked about the need to focus on and provide more troops in Afghanistan.  "If we're going to catch Bin Laden, or most importantly, break down al-Qaida ... we've got to have the capacity to put more troops in Afghanistan ... both our troops and NATO troops. While he did fulfill his promise to send more troops to Afghanistan, he sent far fewer troops than the commanders requested.

            In February, President Obama approved 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. General David McKiernan, commander of U.S. and NATO troops, had requested up to 30,000 troops. Since that time, Obama sent another 4,000 troops to bring the total to 21,000 additional troops. It took over six months to deploy these additional troops while the conditions in Afghanistan worsened. August was the deadliest month since the war started eight years ago. McKiernan warned that if he did not receive these troops quickly, the situation would deteriorate. Less than three months after requesting these troops, McKiernan was fired and replaced by Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal. Obama asked General McChrystal to provide a report of his assessment of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

            McChrystal released his report August 30 and it was quickly leaked to the media by the Obama administration. His assessment was the same if not more urgent than his predecessor. McChrystal pressured the administration for a swift commitment by warning that if the Taliban is not driven back by coalition forces within a year then the war will not be winnable. McChrystal did not specify the amount of troops required but analysts have estimated up to 40,000 more troops will be needed.

            Last Sunday, while speaking to CBS’s David Martin, McChrystal said that he had only spoken to the commander in chief one time in the last 70 days. One has to wonder if Obama’s blatant disregard for his responsibilities should be considered “dereliction of duty”. Newsweek magazine called Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan war “amateurish”. Unfortunately, this is but one example of Obama failure in the foreign policy arena. With both Iran and North Korea thumbing their nose at the United States, Obama’s "new era of engagement" has thus far failed to enlist additional support from either our allies or the Soviet Union and China. After blindsiding Poland and the Czech Republic with his removal of a missile defense system, he delivered what is considered the most anti-Israel speech ever by a sitting US President at the United Nations. Obama continues his campaign style foreign policy rhetoric while Iran defies international pressure to dismantle their nuclear weapons program.

            As Homer said “the outcome of words is in the council”. However, words are no substitute for action when dealing with such renegade countries as Iran and North Korea. By failing to take direct and conclusive action in the area of foreign policy, President Obama has sent a message that America’s role as the defender of freedom throughout the world is over. As a result, the world is a far more dangerous place than ever before and our men and women in uniform are caught in the middle of it.

            In one of his numerous appearances on the Sunday morning news programs, President Obama touched on a very important topic when responding to a question on healthcare from NBC’s David Gregory. When asked if the debate on healthcare was about a bigger issue, Obama replied “But I think you actually put your finger on what this argument's really about.  And it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic.  And that is; what's the right role of government?  How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another"?

            Two centuries ago, our founding fathers established a nation based on the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the selfish pursuit of his or her own happiness. The constitution provided the structure and role of our federal government quite succinctly.  It also placed limits on the conduct of government, providing a charter of the citizen’s protection from the government. These facts are evident, so perhaps the president meant to ask; how do I side step the constitution to provide social justice and equality to all?

            One gets the impression that President Obama feels the role of the government as laid out in the constitution is “wrong” and his vision of government is “correct”. He is right that the role of government has long been debated especially since the progressive movement began in the early 1900’s. Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, the battle between liberty-center democracies verses equality-center democracies has raged. The difference being, liberty-centered democracies emphasized the individual over the collective while the equality-centered democracies focused on maintaining some degree of social and financial equality among the people. In other words, capitalism verses socialism.

            This brings us to the other question the president asked; how do we balance freedom while looking after one another? While this may sound like a compassionate question, it is actually an attempt to justify limitations on our freedom in support of an altruist policy of the redistribution of wealth. The premise of “looking after one another” is a veiled threat to seize the productive gains from one group of individuals so it may be given to another group of individuals. How do you justify the violation of rights of one group of individuals in order to provide seized gains to another group of individuals? Or do you call this “balancing freedom”? The concept of freedom is in grave danger when the governments believes it is proper to loot property at the point of a gun and redistribute it to a group of parasites.

            Another premise of Obama’s question is that only through the process of government can America actually “look after one another.” Private charity has always done a better job of taking care of those in needs. Whether it is a private charitable organization, individuals, churches, synagogues or mosques, they have demonstrated far more efficiencies in aiding poverty than government run welfare. Unfortunately, President Obama dealt a lethal blow to these efforts when he reduced the tax write offs for charitable contributions for wealthy individuals.

            So let’s review the answers to the questions that President Obama raised. What is the right role of government? The “right” role of government is clearly laid out in the constitution. You gave an oath to uphold the constitution Mr. President. Please read it and follow it. As far as how do you balance freedom while "looking after one another"? You do not balance freedom Mr. President. You defend it, encourage it and practice it. Freedom is everything. The government can look out for everyone by protecting individual rights and securing our national defense. Other than that, please leave the rest to those more capable: the individual.

This is John Galt speaking!

Ayn Rand called racism the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. She believed it was the notion of ascribing moral, social and political significance to man’s genetic lineage. However, the definition of racism has been expanded to include not only genetic lineage but political belief as well. This became evident when former President Jimmy Carter claimed Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at President Obama during a joint session of congress was racially motivated. He went on to say that Americans are not comfortable with a black president.

The liberal left media echoed the sentiment. Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times wrote “Surrounded by middle-aged white guys... Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. Fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”  Georgia Democratic Representative Henry Johnson fanned the flames some more. "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people” he told the press.

With President Obama poll number slipping, both the liberal media and some members of the Democratic Party are now categorizing those who disagree with the president policies as “racist”. Such tactics may divert attention away from Obama’s troubled healthcare reform or the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. However, it threatens to further alienate the conservative democrats and independents that helped elect Obama in the first place.

The White House did it’s best to distance itself from such comments. “I don’t think the President believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin” said Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman. Ben Smith of Politico believes that Carter crying racism will not serve Obama well. “He's succeeded, now, in making that [racism] the nation's central conversation. And regardless of its merits, it's hard to overstate what bad politics that is for the White House. There's a reason that candidate Obama virtually never cried racism, and it wasn't because he doesn't believe it exists” said Smith

In fact, the issue of racism has reared its ugly head numerous times since President Obama has been elected. Early on, Attorney General Eric Holder called America “a nation of cowards” on racial matters. Who can forget when Obama labeled the Cambridge police “stupid” and guilty of racial profiling when they responded to a burglary call at the residence of Professor Henry Louis Gates. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor raised issues of “reverse racism” with her comments on a “wise Latino women.” And of course, before Obama was even elected, there was the Revered Jeremiah Wright. Recently, Reverend Wright said the following about healthcare reform, “I think the racist right-wing are upset because the poor people are about to be helped.” 

Perhaps what is required is a second beer summit with Obama hosting Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd and Representative Johnson. He can remind them all that without white America, Obama would never have been elected. He can then reminisce on those difficult months when he had to distance himself from the racist comments of Reverend Wright.

By segregating as “racist” those who politically disagree with Obama, we risk any further progress in race relations in America. Such behavior raises the question; “Was America really ready for an African-American president?” Does the concept of diversity include political thought as well as race and religion? Or will the liberal left continue to play the race card as a smoke screen to cover failed policies or unpopular political positions.

The rational alternative to racial diversity is to focus on the individual, to treat each person according to their own abilities. The antidote for racism is the philosophy of Individualism. "Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being” said Ayn Rand. Clearly there is no room for racism in these words.

This is John Galt Speaking!

When John F. Kennedy spoke these words, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) did not exist. Two years later, Lyndon Johnson signed the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, creating the NEA. Over the years, the NEA has had its share of controversy, usually involving the social appropriateness of a particular sponsored art exhibit or event.  But the event it sponsored on August 10, 2009 ushered in a new role for the NEA. The NEA dismissed Kennedy’s statement above and took on the role of National Endowment for Propaganda for the Obama Administration.

The NEA initiated a “call to action” in August by encouraging some 75 different artists to generate works focusing on three of Obama’s pressing agenda items, healthcare, energy and the environment. Patrick Courrielche, a film producer, said he was one of those 75 artists invited to join a conference call hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement and United We Stand, an organization launched by Obama to increase volunteerism.

The call was hosted by NEA Director of Communications, Yosi Sergant along with Michael Skolnik, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons. Both men encourage the listeners to create works of art in their specific fields related to healthcare, energy and the environment. “What I heard was a well thought out pitch to encourage artist to create art on these issues” Courrielche told Fox News. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what they’re attempting to do.”

“The issue that troubles me the most is that the NEA was set up to promote the arts” he said. “If you have a meeting where you’re trying to set up a machine that does your bidding, a propaganda machine, that’s not what the NEA is for.” Courrielche tape recorded the conference call and played excerpts on the Glenn Beck show on the Fox News Channel.

Of course the NEA receives the vast majority of their funding from the Government so the conflict of interest is evident. This was not lost on Yosi Sergant, who denied that he sent out the email invitation to participate in the conference call. He referred the Washington Times to both Michael Skolnik and the Corporation of National Service as the third party who sent out the invitation. Fox News obtained a copy of the actual e-mail invitation from Patrick Courrielche which clearly showed it came from Yosi Sergant and the NEA. Follow up inquiries to the NEA regarding this open deception have gone unanswered as of September 3, 2009.

When is propaganda considered indoctrination? When directed toward children.  The same week that the NEA propaganda campaign surfaced, the Obama administration plan to address the nations school children via a video broadcast had to be radically changed. The Obama address, scheduled for September 8 is timed to coincide with the first week of school across the country and was intended to discuss the importance of education and hard work.  There is certainly nothing wrong with a President encouraging students to work hard and stay in school. However, the White House soon found itself in a growing controversy regarding the accompanying coursework that was sent to schools by the Dept. of Education. Founded in 1980, the Department of Education has always avoided establishing curriculum for our nations schools and focused on financial assistance, data gathering and equal opportunity in education. So what made the Dept. of Education suggest specific coursework for Obama’s speech? Could it be they were pressured from the White House?

Among the coursework the government suggested for PK-6 grades included writing a letter to them selves about what they can do to help the President. Another task recommended that students hold discussion groups about what “the President wants us to do.”  The White House scrambled to rewrite the coursework but the damage had already been done. The revised coursework asked students to "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals." Some parents kept their children home on the day the event was scheduled. 

Schools all over the country debated if they should cover the broadcast live or make it available later. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said he understood where the criticism was coming from. "Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"

What is lost in the discussion of both the NEA controversy and the Obama speech is the overt attempt of the White House staff to promote an almost cultist image of President Obama. Will bigger than life images of Obama begin to appear in public courtyards and government building. Will we start referring to him as “the dear leader”?   Perhaps the Obama White House needs to do some studying on world history and the role that propaganda and indoctrination has played within repressive regimes such as North Korea, Iraq and the former Soviet Union.

Does Obama realize the backlash of utilizing propaganda and indoctrination to further his political agendas?  Does he care? Does he actually believe that utilizing tactics from Marxist regimes such as North Korea and Cuba will go unnoticed in the United States? The answers to these questions from the Obama White House may well hold the future of democracy in the United States and how quickly we slide into Marxism.

This is John Galt Speaking!

There is no doubt that conservative talk radio has been an “inconvenience” to the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, Obama does not feel “obligated” to tolerate free speech. Instead, he’s taken radical steps to silence both conservative and Christian messages.  Hiding behind the curtain of Cyber Security, Obama has included special “Emergency” powers in Senate Bill #773 which allows the President to take control of the internet.  Combined with the new FCC diversity rules, he now has the ability to excessively tax conservative radio stations into bankruptcy.

Considering that the far left already owns the television broadcast media (with the exception of Fox), it’s not surprising that they are using legislation and regulatory power to take control of radio and the internet.  The left failed miserably with “Air America” and conservative blogs have been very effective in the battle against Obama-care. So if you can’t beat them, close them down.

So how can the FCC use diversity as a method to control conservative speech? On the FCC website, they state the purpose of the Diversity Committee is to explore policies and practices that will enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries. Wait…isn’t this the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? In actuality, the real purpose is to provide “diversity” in messages not employment. And to do this….they will tax or fine commercial broadcasters and give the funds to liberal slanted public broadcasters. How much of a tax? Well, the new “Diversity” czar at the FCC has some ideas.

The new “Diversity” Czar is a Mark Lloyd. Lloyd was previously with Center for American Progress (funded by George Soros) and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, racially fixated (he is African-American) and radically pro-regulation. Lloyd’s actual title is “FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer”. Lloyd’s unwritten agenda is to use the issue of diversity as a backdoor to reinstating the principles in the Fairness Doctrine all while driving conservative broadcasters off the air.

While at the Center for American Progress, Lloyd wrote a book titled “Prologue to a Farce“.   “Federal and regional broadcast (i.e. public broadcasting) operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters.”  If Mr. Lloyd has his way, the fee (tax) on commercial broadcasters will be 100% of their operating budget!  Shouldn’t this be considered a “Bill of Attainder” and therefore unconstitutional?

Lloyd also co-authored a 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”  The report argued that large corporate broadcast networks had driven liberals off the radio and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.  The fact that liberal radio stations such as “Air America” failed to retain listeners and compete in the marketplace is lost on Mr. Lloyd.

This is John Galt speaking!

Upon return from their recess, legislators will get back to work on three of the most destructive pieces of legislation any Congress has ever considered. In addition to Healthcare Reform and Cap & Trade, Congress will resume their push to pass H.R 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. If passed, the bill would all but eliminate a secret ballot for businesses considering Unionization. The result: Government sanctioned threats and intimidation in the workplace along with the loss of thousands of jobs.

The “Employee Free Choice” Act would replace secret ballots with a process called “card check”. Union organizers would establish campaigns where employees are openly approached and asked to sign a Union card. If a majority of employees sign these cards, the National Labor Relations Board would be required to certify the labor organization without a formal vote and without any oversight. The bill also forces the company and Union into binding arbitration if they don’t reach an agreement on a contract in 90 days.

The bill would also increase penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organizing drive--chilling employers' free speech and depriving workers of the ability to make an informed choice on union membership. It’s obvious why the Unions want the “Employee FREE CHOICE Act” passed. What’s not obvious is how they could possibly call this act “Free Choice”.

Many will point to the millions of dollars that Unions gave to the Obama campaign and conclude that the Employee Free Choice Act is simply payback. They may be right but once passed, Obama’s armies at SEIU, Apollo and AmeriCorp will hit the streets to convert hundreds of small and medium businesses to union shops.

The new rules that HR 800 would impose puts small and medium business under threat of Union thugs and government scrutiny.  Ayn Rand wrote:

The black panthers that were arrested for intimidating voters during the election were not prosecuted after the Justice Dept. dismissed their charges.

Obama threatened to rescind billions in federal stimulus money if California state lawmakers did not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved as part of the budget.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a group at the National Press Club that he wants to “coerce people out of their cars.” Let’s not forget Obama fired the CEO of General Motors!

If threats and intimidation in the workplace is not enough to oppose this legislation, consider the impact on our fragile economy. With an increase in unionized businesses, wages and benefits will rise beyond the ability of small and medium business to pay. Many businesses will shrink, close down, or move off-shore. Again, this administration seems determined to introduce legislation that will kill the economic recovery we need so badly.

The Obama administration is once again supporting the restriction of individual rights over that of a collectivist agenda determined to tear down constitutional protections and destroy capitalism. The march to socialism in America continues.

This is John Galt speaking!

I sleep best in August, knowing that our elected representatives are in recess.  My slumber is occasionally disturbed from the irrational regulatory disasters known as Cap & Trade and Healthcare reform. Cap & Trade and Healthcare reform are linked as both, if passed, will combine to destroy production, increase unemployment and continue the downward spiral of our economy.

Come September Congress returns and this restful feeling will be replaced with apprehension and uncertainty. Several different bills are poised to radically change the face of Energy, Healthcare and labor relations. The townhall out cries may have killed a “public option” but the focus on healthcare has diverted attention away from “Cap & Trade”

The Clean Energy & Security Act narrowly passed the house on June 26 with a vote of 219-212. The act is intended to reduce US emissions of CO2, Methane and other gasses 17% (of 2005 levels) by the year 2020.

So…how are these Energy companies expected to do this? The bill requires these companies to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable resources such as wind and solar. The Govt. will sell permits (i.e. tax) to Energy companies to comply with an ever increasing scale of carbon reductions beginning in 2012.  Companies will need to buy additional permits if it fails to meet the caps.  Interesting that two established, clean sources of energy are not even covered in the Clean Energy and Security Act: Nuclear and Hydro-electric.

The intent is to save the world from “global warming” while reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Unfortunately, China, India and other industrialized nations will not be bound by such restrictions giving them a distinct cost advantage in a growing global economy as well as wiping out any meaningful impact on global environmental change (let’s leave the issue of the validity of global warming for another time). The result for US citizens: increased electrical rates (some estimates up to 42%) for both businesses and consumers with little to no impact on either the environment or our need for foreign oil.

This bill comes at a precarious time for our economy. You do not climb yourself out of a recession with 9.5% unemployment by adding additional costs for both businesses and consumers.

“This recession, with all its grim news of job loss and economic hardship, should be seen as a cautionary tale against coercive energy and climate policies,” said Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

“Those who claim that we could avoid economic hardship by running a green economy on windmills and solar cells are seriously out of touch with reality. None of the so-called alternative energies that are supposedly going to power the ‘green energy revolution’ have proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. And this despite decades of research and billions of dollars in subsidies.”

No…a rational alternative to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 would be an expansion of both Nuclear Energy and domestic drilling for oil. An expansion of both Natural Gas vehicles as well as electric vehicles would greatly reduce emissions and Greenhouse gasses. All of these “rational” alternatives would generate real jobs in the US that are both sustainable and should encourage American companies to remain in the US. They would also reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we continue to explore new alternative fuels, clean coal and implement Solar and Wind when and where feasible to do so.

However, this administration is not interested in “rational” alternatives to our energy requirements. The “Cap and Trade” bill is yet another attack on Capitalism. Its intent is to penalize US industries, impose fines, and redistribute this wealth to “low income” households. The overall goal of the Obama administration is the destruction of capitalism. It has nothing to do with “rationality”. 

"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason – not by his feelings and desires."  Ayn Rand.

This is John Galt Speaking.