It appeared….at least for a few days….that a new climate of cooperation was beginning to emerge in Washington. First….President Obama spoke of improving transparency and fostering bipartisanship during his “State of the Union” address. That was quickly followed up by the President when he accepted an invitation to speak at the House Republican Retreat last Friday in Baltimore. While there were some heated exchanges during the President’s appearance, it seemed the President was actually holding out an olive branch to the GOP.

Unfortunately, that olive branch turned into a club on Tuesday when Obama blasted the GOP and branded them “electoral opportunists” during a Town Hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire. Citing examples, he took Republicans to task for switching positions on important issues just to score points with voters. Not surprising that he choose Nashua to get tough with Republicans. New Hampshire has two house seats and one senate seat in play come November.

While Obama may have pleased some Democrats with his tough stance on Tuesday, he runs the risk of alienating people at the same time. Obama’s tougher stance comes at a time when voters have grown tired of Washington politics of division. With Scott Brown being sworn in on Thursday afternoon, lawmakers are faced with a dilemma; either work with Republicans or face a growing list of deadlocked Democratic initiatives.

Obama’s tough talk continued on Wednesday when he met with Democratic leaders for a pep talk on the upcoming mid-term elections. His advice; get results and this year’s mid-term elections will work out fine. Let policy be our politics, Obama told the Senators, and make sure everyone knows about petty acts by the opposition. Ironically, he was speaking to Senators who have decades of election experience under their belt.

But if the Senators follow his advice, they may well find themselves on the golf course instead of in the halls of Congress. It’s Obama’s policies which turned the tide in New Jersey, Virginia and most recently, Massachusetts. Whether it’s health care, energy, taxes or card check, the American people have been rejecting Obama’s policies in the voting booth. So much so, several democrats are choosing not to run for reelection. Even Vice President Biden’s son will not run for his father’s vacant senate seat in Delaware.

The American people can also spot contradictions when they see them. After increasing discretionary spending by 60% in 2009 (total $699 Billion), Obama plans on freezing discretionary spending (not including defense, security or entitlements) beginning in 2011 to a total $447 billion.

“Obama is ”freezing” the budget only because he already has a large amount of cash floating around from the stimulus bill that he can spend on all his favorite big government projects in 2010 and beyond. In budget-speak, federal spending measured in outlays will be far from frozen” wrote Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute.

The voting public recognizes these contradictions whether they flow from policies, like the budget freeze, or from Obama’s forked tongued rhetoric on bipartisanship. Once again, Ayn Rand had it right about contradictions:  “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

This is John Galt speaking!

The way to procure insults is to submit to them: a man meets with no more respect than he exacts. 
                                                            William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

President Obama delivered his first "State of the Union" address on Wednesday night. Of course....it was not his first address to a joint session of Congress. That may have been his speech on healthcare on September 9, 2009. Remember? If you don't...here is a hint: Representative Joe Wilson became famous by shouting out "you lie".

Wilson claimed his outburst was spontaneous and he quickly regretted what many, including this writer, considered disrespectful. Shortly after Obama's speech, Wilson called the White House and issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments. Obama told reporters at a Cabinet meeting the next morning that he accepted Wilson's apology.

Well....I may have missed it, but I do not believe that President Obama has issued an apology to the Supreme Court for his disrepectful rebuke of their decision on The Citizens United case. The Citizens United case struck down a blanket ban on corporate expenditures in U.S elections (part of 2 USC441b). Actually, the president owes them two apologies. One for publically humiliating the court in front of a joint session of Congress (and a live national television audience), and another....for being factually incorrect in his criticism.

With the Court seated right in front of the President, Obama blasted their decision on lifting the corporate ban saying it "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Camera's caught Supreme Court Justice Alito mouthing the words "not true". Justice Alito was referring to the fact that the court left intact a seperate section of the law (2 USC441e) which prohibits "foreign nationals" from making expenditures or contributions. "Foreign Nationals" include corporations that are not incorporated or headquarted in the United States. The Citizens United ruling doesn't touch this prohibition and specifically notes that it makes no judgement about foreign corporations.

In short, the ruling left unchanged all the same prohibitions on foreign corporations that existed prior to lifting the ban. Additionally, there are Federal election laws which further delineate prohibitions on foreign nationals contributing to US elections or campaigns. So claiming that the Citizens United decision will allow "foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections" is entirely misleading. Certainly not what you would expect from a constitutional scholar from Harvard.

Many Presidents in the past have criticized specific ruling by the Supreme Court and rightly so. But none that I can remember have ever done so during the "State of the Union" address. It once again raises questions as to the quality of President Obama's political advisors and speech writers. During the "State of the Union", Obama mentioned the word "Washington" seven times in the pejorative as if he was still an outsider. It's been over a year since he has taken office and he still has not stepped outside the candidate role.

The defeat in Massachusetts amplified a growing dissatisfaction with President Obama and Congress. But rather than move to the center, as President Clinton did, Obama made clear in his "State of the Union" speech that he will continue his policies of big government and big spending. It almost appeared as if he was angry with the rest of the nation for not getting onboard. But in the words of Laurence J. Peter.."speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret".

This is John Galt speaking!

Still reeling from the devastating loss of Martha Coakley’s Senate race in Massachusetts, the Obama Administration has escalated its populist strategy by implementing new restrictive regulations on the nation’s largest banks. President Obama said the Government should have the power to limit the size and complexity of large financial institution as well as the ability to make high-risk trades.

This is actually the second shot across the bow of the banking industry as last week, President Obama proposed a new “Bank Tax” targeted at the largest financial and insurance institutions in the country. The intent - to insure the government recovers the estimated $117 Billion dollar loss expected in the $700 billion loan program. Big banks object in that most of them already have repaid the government with interest. In fact, the Federal Reserve recently posted a record profit of $50.2 Billion dollars. In essence, the big banks will be forced to pay for the bail out of General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The proposed tax, subject to Congressional approval, would apply to about 50 banks, thrifts or insurance companies with more than $50 billion in assets. “The irony is it hurts the weaker banks more than the stronger banks” said Meridith Whitney, a prominent Financial Analyst. “To think that it won’t come out of [the pockets] of consumers and businesses is mistaken.”

If approved, Citigroup would face a $2.2 Billion annual assessment. JPMorgan and Bank of America might each pay close to $2 billion a year. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would pay similar assessments. While this will not have a huge impact on these firms bottom line, it will result in higher fees and expenses for their customers. How this will help to get credit flowing and investment stimulated was not mentioned.

At this time, not much is really known about Obama’s new banking regulation other than what was said in his speech on Thursday, January 21. What little is known is that it does not seem to address the root causes of the financial collapse…. making bad loans and then securitizing (and manipulating) them on a global basis. Instead, it appears to be more of a punitive attack against Wall Street and the large banks in general. Once again, the contribution of Fannie & Freddie and the Federal Reserve on the financial collapse are neither mentioned nor addressed. The populist rhetoric seems focused on big banks, big money and big business.

Apparently, Obama is not going to abandon this populist strategy even when it failed in the land of the left, Massachusetts. It seems President Obama will utilize an “Us against Them” strategy in the upcoming mid term elections.

"That's a lot of what 2010 is going to be about," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "People are going to have to decide whether the people they have in Washington are on the side of protecting the big banks, whether they're on the side of protecting the big oil companies, whether they're on the side of protecting insurance companies, or whether they're on the people's side."

While I consider myself an “objectivist”, I do not believe that ALL financial regulation is bad. I consider it both “rational” and “reasonable” to have legislative protection against the influence of greed in our financial markets. However, Obama’s populist strategy of vilifying Wall Street rather then focusing on the behavior that brought down the system is flawed. This mentality does nothing to stimulate job growth or get the economy back on track. Rather, it elevates mid-term election politics over sound rational solutions to the economic problems facing this nation.

Beware of the “Class War Fare” rhetoric of the Obama Administration. Consider this passage from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged;

“Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.”

This is John Galt Speaking!

Or perhaps in the case of the upcoming Massachusetts’s senate race, people will vote against a particular issue…..healthcare. The race to succeed the late Senator Edward Kennedy has turned into a proxy battle over the fate of President Obama’s health care overhaul. The republican contender, Scott Brown, is now just two points behind the front runner, democrat Martha Coakley, in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Just days away from the election on Tuesday, January 19, things are getting pretty heated. Just ask John McCormack of the Weekly Standard. McCormack was attempting to ask Coakley a question on what she was doing in Washington DC when he was shoved into a freestanding metal railing by longtime Democratic strategist Michael Meehan. Coakley, the top law enforcement officer in the state of Massachusetts, clearly saw the assault but continued walking down the street as if nothing had happened. Meehan has apologized and claims that it was all an accident but the video shows it was much more than that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8CdfQGlgVw&feature=player_embedded

And what was the answer to McCormack’s question? Coakley was in Washington DC on a fundraiser, raising a glass with healthcare industry lobbyists who have a vested interest in her winning the vacant Senate seat. She also participated in a conference call to get the Democratic Party’s top donors to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaign.

Coakley not only has the physical muscle of Michael Meehan on her side, she has called in some major political muscle as well. Former President Bill Clinton and Senator John Kerry will be stumping for Coakley at a rally on Friday. The heavy hitters from the Democratic Party illustrate just how crucial this election is to passing the Obama healthcare bill. If Scott Brown pulls off an upset victory, he will be the 41st Republican Senator and possible the breakthrough vote that upholds a GOP filibuster. Ironically, Brown voted for the Massachusetts’s Universal health care bill back in 2006.

One problem Massachusetts has faced is that it failed to accurately anticipate the true cost of their healthcare program. At the time the program was signed into law, estimates indicated that the cost would be $725 million per year. But by 2008, those projections had been revised. New estimates indicated the plan was to cost $869 million in 2009 and $880 million in 2010, an upwards increase of nearly 20 percent. Massachusetts now has the highest healthcare insurance premiums in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010. The Obama healthcare plan is largely modeled after the Massachusetts’s plan.

Scott Brown maintains that if Obama care passes, yet more cost will be transferred to the states further straining Massachusetts troubled state budget. On Fox News, Brown said the following on Obama care: “Well, it's not good for Massachusetts. We already have 98 percent of the people insured and we're going to cut half a trillion for Medicare and then cut tri-care for military people and then have higher taxation about $1 trillion plus to pay for it.”

So, strangely enough, Republican’s must depend on a candidate who has already voted for universal healthcare to vote down Obama care. But don’t think the Democratic leadership will sit still for this. Brown believes that if he does upset Coakley, Democrats will stall the certification process so that the U.S. Senate can approve the health care reform bill before he gets there. 

If allowed, Brown would post his “no” vote on Obama care for all the wrong reasons. Healthcare is not a right….it is a tradable product. The people of Massachusetts are learning that when you artificially limit supply, and artificially increase demand, prices skyrocket. Our national healthcare discussion should focus not on how government controls can solve our problems, but on how government controls have caused our problems.

This is John Galt Speaking!

Following a rather spirited debate on government run healthcare on a stock message board, I began writing the “John Galt Speaking” blog. I was motivated by what I considered a fundamental shift in our Government towards embracing a collectivist agenda and ignoring constitutional provisions. Some 15 articles later, I thought it would be appropriate to look back on some of the issues and people who provided so much fodder for my articles.

My first article “Bypassing Checks and Balances: The growing threat from our own executive branch (August 21, 2009)” discussed the growing list of presidential “czars” and their radical leanings. One of the most radical czars featured was Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar. After months of escaping the attention of the press, Van Jones resigned on Labor Day weekend after it was discovered he had signed a petition supporting the "9/11 truther" movement. Other czars to bite the dust include Rod Beckstrom, Cyber Security Czar and Steve Rattner, the Car Czar.

On September 10, I published “Natl. Endowment for the Arts: The Obama Propaganda Machine” which discussed the use of the NEA to advance President Obama’s political agenda. Yosi Sergant, Director of Communications for the NEA, resigned September 24 following the controversy surrounding a conference call to 75 artists enlisting their support for Obama’s position on healthcare, energy and the environment. Sergant had a long history with the Obama campaign, having led the media effort for Shepard Fairey, the plagiarist artist behind the iconic "Hope" portrait that Obama has credited with helping him win.  Later…Fairey had to admit that his poster was actually a photo attributed to the Associated Press.

Onward to October, I penned “Obama Declares War on Fox News”. Front and center in this controversy was White House Director of Communications, Anita Dunn. Dunn declared war on Fox News during a Time magazine interview where she called Fox News “opinion journalism masquerading as news." Fox responded by broadcasting video of a Dunn speech in which she referenced Mao-Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa as two of her "favorite political philosophers." Dunn left the White House in November and was replaced by her deputy Dan Pfeiffer. Don’t worry…she still has close ties to the White House. Her husband, Robert Bauer, is President Obama personal attorney.

One week later, I posted “How Do You Make Television Even Worse? Inject Political Advocacy.” Included in this article was Gerald Walpin. Walpin was the Inspector General of Americorp who was fired after he released a report detailing financial misconduct by Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento and friend to President Obama. A GOP report asserts the White House's "failure to use a transparent process to effectuate Walpin's removal deprived the President of an opportunity to explain his action in an appropriate way." While the GOP failed to show that Walpin’s firing was political, Walpin continues to pursue a law suit against Americorp.

Following up on the article “The Ft Hood Tragedy: Death by Political Correctness”, the white house requested the Armed Services Committee postpone a hearing on November 17 until the military and civilian investigations were completed. In the mean time, a known terrorist who was on a terrorist watch list, trained in Yemen by Al Qaeda, boarded a Delta jet in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn into his underwear. Had it not been for a faulty detonator, nearly 300 people would have perished.

As we approach the first anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, we need to reflect on the promises and commitments made during his campaign. Obama ran on the theme of hope and change. Well….the change is obvious. With out-of-control government spending, 10% unemployment and terrorism on the rise, no one can contest the change. The hope, however, remains the same!

This is John Galt speaking!

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!