By Alan Caruba

I have this theory that every so often governments go insane. Usually they have someone who is already demented heading up the government, but it takes a majority of the elected body to enact crazy laws and it takes the government apparatchiks to engineer the systemic failures, the wars, and the crazed rush off the cliff.

The election of 2008 is a splendid example of this. The majority of voters elected a man with the thinnest possible resume for the job of President. Indeed, the man has refused to release his birth records to reassure voters he met the minimum, Constitutional standards for the job. The man, however, was a skilled orator, able to give voice to the TelePrompter speeches written for him by master manipulators.

Promising “change”, promising a government free of “lobbyists”, promising “transparency”, and generally promising a new dawn of enlightened government, Barack Obama and his majority in Congress arrived on January 20, 2009 and promptly began to bankrupt the nation, deprive Americans of access to its vast energy resources, and seek to impose an insane law predicated on the belief that carbon dioxide, vital to all life on Earth, was a “pollutant” that had to be reduced and, of course, heavily taxed.

Capping all this madness was a naïve effort to establish improved relations with the spawning ground for terrorism around the world, the Middle East. He is determined to change the fanaticism that have spawned Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and decades of Islamofascist terrorism from Bali to London, Manhattan and Madrid, to Mumbai.

And it has taken barely four months to get to this point.

In the President’s own words during a C-Span interview, “We’re out of money.”

A recent Cato Institute Tax & Budget Bulletin by Chris Edwards, its director of tax policy studies, spells it out.

“Federal spending is growing by leaps and bounds,” wrote Edwards. “The budget hit $3.9 trillion this year, double the level of spending just eight years ago.”

“The government is also increasing the scope of its activities, intervening in many areas that used to be left to state and local governments, businesses, charities, and individuals.”

To clarify what is occurring, it is necessary to know that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the government from bailing out individuals or private industry. Such bailouts violate the Equal Protection doctrine that forbids the government from selecting who shall receive the bailout and who shall not.

Moreover, it violates the General Welfare clause because such bailouts benefit a small group and not the general public. Finally, it violates that Due Process Clause because it interferes with contracts that have already been entered into and, lastly, they turn the public treasury into a public trough.

This new administration, however, has given the union virtual ownership of Chrysler and is likely to do the same with General Motors if the courts do not intervene. The losers are those who lent money to them under contractual terms that put them first in line to be compensated, but who have been left out in the cold along with their fiduciary responsibilities to their investors.

“In recent years,” wrote Edwards, “the range of federal control over society has widened as politicians of both parties have supported nationalizing many formerly state, local, and private activities.” This has led States in particular to spend well beyond the taxes they collected because they counted on the federal redistribution of funds to make up the difference. In the process, they gave up control over their education, healthcare, and transportation systems to name a few.

Edwards cited the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, a 2,205-page official compilation of all federal aid or subsidy programs, including grants, loans, insurance, scholarships, and other types of benefits.

“There has been a large increase in the number of agricultural programs due to bloated farm bills passed in 2002 and 2008. There have also been large increases in the number of homeland security and justice programs, which subsidize local activities such as firefighting and policing. While those are important activities,” said Edwards, “it would be more efficient if they were funded locally because Congress often steers such funds to projects of dubious quality and little national security relevance.”

The Founding Fathers fashioned a central, federal government with specific limitations on what it could or could not do. Most of these have been violated since the last century’s increasing governmental intrusion and acquisition of centralized power.

“It is very sad that a nation founded on individualism and limited government,” wrote Edwards, “has more people than ever suckling at the federal subsidy teat.”

“President Barack Obama has proposed a wide range of new subsidies in energy, health care, and other areas. If enacted, they would take America further away from the individual reliance, voluntary charity, and entrepreneurialism that made it so prosperous in the first place.”

We should not be living in an America where the unions own the corporations, where the banks are not free to determine their own prudent loan principles, where local schools are governed from Washington, D.C., where the kind and size of automobile you drive is decided upon by politicians and bureaucrats, and where we are denied the energy we need based on false accusations about “dirty” fuels that are, in fact, the life’s blood of the economy.

Much of what the government is doing and proposing to do is patently insane. It is most surely unconstitutional.

Visit the official site of the July 4^th “Tea Parties” that will be held to protest what is being done to our nation at http://www.teapartyday.com.

——————————————————-

Originally posted at WesternFront America

Today’s Bloglines on RFC Radio features an interview I had with Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain of Q and O.  The show starts at 5 pm Eastern.

Never one to consider spending to be the problem, there are rumors the federal government is considering a 10 percent consumption tax, or value added tax, to help pay for all the spending and possibly the federal takeover of health care. The Washington Post writes:

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax — called a value-added tax, or VAT — has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government’s budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama’s policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

“There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. “I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.”

First of all, this would not be “tax reform,” Sen. Conrad. This would simply be adding more taxes. A lot more taxes:

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

So, in another way, to pay for everything the government wants, we have to do with less. Honestly, if the price of everything goes up, it only stands to reason that you will be able to afford less of it. But you get really great access to a health care waiting list, so just because you are eating beans and rice for every meal because that’s all that you can afford now is no reason not to be a patriot.

Also, consider the fact that they have no idea how much their new “free” health care system is going to cost. They are modeling it off of the Massachusetts plan, and their costs are through the roof. In two years, the cost for the program has doubled, “from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.”

You know, it reminds me of the type of stuff I used to do. When I would get a windfall, rather than pay the bills I knew I had, I would go get a new Playstation game or a pile of DVDs. It’s the same thing here. They want to add this HUGE tax to pay for a new program, when the country is already $11 trillion in debt! Next year, the budget deficit is projected to be over a trillion. In one year!

The White House is saying the VAT is “unlikely to be in the mix” to pay for health care, but there are a lot of leftist advocates out there pushing for it. Is it really unlikely to see it instituted, then later used to help pay for the ballooning costs of government run health care?

I have written before that I think a consumption tax, aka the Fair Tax, is a great way to stimulate the economy, but the Fair Tax eliminates all other taxes. This idea just piles more burden on the American taxpayer.

Mancow Muller, the guy that opened my eyes to my own conservative/libertarian beliefs, submitted himself to be waterboarded. After six seconds, he found it to be more than he could handle and called it “absolutely torture.”

Here is the video if you have not seen it:

Following that, he made an appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

He also talked about it on the Curtis Sliwa Show:

Back in April, I wrote about the Obama administration’s efforts to weaken defendant’s rights by allowing police to question suspects without their lawyers present, even after they requested to speak with their lawyers.

Personally, I think stopping the questioning until a lawyer is present is a good thing.  There are some folks who just don’t understand what is going on and need someone educated in legal issues to help guide them through the whole thing.

Well, the Supreme Court did it.  They “overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding,” and for the first time, I find myself siding with the liberals over the conservatives:

That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free. Justice Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 1986 decision, said that contrary to the majority’s assertion, that decision protected “a fundamental right that the court now dishonors.”

I am really at a loss. I understand the point that if they don’t want to talk, they don’t have to talk, but what about the folks who don’t understand what is going on? What about the people who are slow, or uneducated?

I would love for someone to explain this to me. How is this a good thing?

This happened just prior to Memorial Day.  Debbie McLucas, one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, hung up an American flag in her office in honor of the fallen military men and women.  It was a 3 x 5 foot flag, nothing outrageous, nothing in your face.

She was ordered to take it down.  One of the other supervisors found it offensive:

When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,’” McLucas said.

McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.

Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”

McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said the supervisor took down Debbie’s flag herself.

Behold the tyranny of political correctness. Because one person complained, this woman is not allowed to show her patriotism. I know the story says that some of the patients complained, but is also says that if just one person had, the flag would still have to come down.

Charlton Heston said it best when he quipped, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.”

I think I would have backed her. This is a tough choice in today’s business environment, because everyone is so sue happy, but honestly, what would this guy have to sue for? The hospital has the flag flying out in front of the building. Everyday this moron sees it when he comes to work.

How can he suddenly claim the flag this woman puts up is offensive, when he has never complained about the one out front?

I think I would have told the offended anti-American to deal with it for a day, and point him in the direction of Human Resources if he really wanted to push the issue. I would have backed the men and women who died backing me.

I know it’s easy to say, but honestly, what would you have done?

My column is up over at American Issues Project.  Today I look at what Obama told C-Span, and give a bit of the reason why we are out of money.

Here’s a hint:  it’s not the free market’s fault.

I remember it as a typical day at sea.  I recall that I was walking across the middle hangar bay towards television control on the 01 level.  Flight ops were going on overheard, the galley was cooking below and the ship was busy everywhere else. 

Then, “AIRCRAFT IN THE WATER!”

Never the words you want to hear aboard an aircraft carrier at sea.  Everyone wondered in unity, “What happened?” 

The worst thing possible…another sailor just died.

Lt. Kara Hultgreen was the pilot of that aircraft, the first female, carrier based fighter pilot. Her call sign was “Revlon.” She received it after a television interview where she wore noticeable make-up. She was killed on October 25, 1994.

Upon approach, she found that she was overshooting the centerline. She attempted to correct this by yawing the aircraft, which lead to the left hand engine to lose power because of a compressor stall. She aborted the approach, and hit the afterburner on the right engine. This caused the jet to roll.

The radar intercept officer (RIO) ejected when he saw the aircraft was becoming uncontrollable. Hultgreen was ejected less than half a second later. While the RIO survived the ejection, Hultgreen didn’t. In less than half a second, the plane rolled enough to point Hultgreen below the horizon. She was only 150 feet above the ocean, and was ejected into it at “nearly three times highway speeds.“

There are many people on both sides of this incident pointing fingers at each other. All that politics is lost here. This isn’t about that. This is about remembering a sailor who wanted to serve her country. And she paid the ultimate sacrifice for it.

She’s one of the chosen ones. She was buried in Arlington National Cometary with full honors, as so many before her who gave all they had:

As I write this, I am listening to the video above, and hearing the words of Trace Adkins, it brings tears to my eyes. I remember so many memorial services in just a small five year span of service. I remember crying at a memorial service in the ship’s forecastle, for an aviator I didn’t know.

I wasn’t alone.

I remember seeing the missing man formation flown over Alameda Naval Air Station for another aviator who gave all. Again, the sacrifice, and the loss brought tears to all our eyes.  Too many, too soon.

They give so much, and ask so little. Remember her, and all the others, who show their love of country with their lives, not only in combat, but in routine, everyday activities.  Don’t just do it on Memorial Day.  Do it everyday.  They deserve it.  They earned it.

God bless the American military, and God bless America.

Update:

Gateway Pundit linked here. Thanks Jim.
And Jimmie Bise, Jr. of the Sundries Shack linked here from the American Issues Project blog.

Thanks guys.

Every time I go to Wal-Mart, or Hy-Vee (a Midwest grocery store,) I see these reusable bags for a dollar. I don’t buy them because a) the other bags are free and b) I would never remember to bring it to the store anyway.

However, in some states, there is no such thing as free grocery bags. For example, in Seattle, you have to pay a twenty cents per bag tax. Other cities are still considering it.

There is a down side to using your handy “green” grocery bag. It can make you very sick:

A microbiological study — a first in North America — of the popular, eco-friendly bags has uncovered some unsettling facts. Swab-testing by two independent laboratories found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags.

“The main risk is food poisoning,” Dr. Richard Summerbell, research director at Toronto-based Sporometrics and former chief of medical mycology for the Ontario Ministry of Health, stated in a news release. Dr. Summerbell evaluated the study results.

“But other significant risks include skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections,” he stated.

Bacterial boils. That sounds really nice. Almost as nice as fecal matter. Oh yeah, the bags had fecal matter in them.

So, the unintended consequences of pimping these reusable bags is an increase of food poisoning and skin irritation.  Personally, I’ll take plastic.

By the way, The simple solution is to wash your bags. With bleach.

Hat Tip:  Rick Moore

The White House Press Secretary will be, if he already isn’t, a few pounds lighter after the President gets done chewing his butt for what he said today.  Under fire for Congress’s decision not to fund the closing of Gitmo, he said that the decision to close the island prison was “a hasty decision.”  Yeah, it’s like that:

“I don’t doubt that the President–and I think he’ll say this tomorrow–that we’ve made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind. And closing Guantanamo Bay obviously is one of those decisions,” he added.

He tried to spin it later, I’m guessing after being corrected by Obama. Now he’s dragging the Bush administration into it.

How long will they be able to drag him out and use him as a punching bag before the press says, enough is enough?