Autopia

Washington is prepped to bail out American automakers, so if you're an American, anticipatory congratulations on purchasing your new Ford or Chevy! (Just don't ask to borrow the keys).

Much can and will be said in the coming weeks about the propriety of an auto industry bailout, especially since the American electorate may have put its imprimatur on such a move this November. But is this progress?

The new administration swept into D.C. on grand promises to immanentize the eschaton. Apparently such abstractions translate to government speculation on shares of failing companies via tax increases and unsustainable borrowing. Ignore the obvious slippery slope for a moment (why not subsidize everything that provides a marginal benefit to our economy), and ask yourself what a bailout will accomplish in the long term.

An influx of free capital, unattached to voting shareholdership, is simply license for auto executives to continue business as usual. Short-sighted, quarter-by-quarter management has informed bad production decisions for years. In the meantime, Americans have turned more and more to foreign-made vehicles for their transportation needs. Combined with a misplaced commitment to gas-guzzling pick-up trucks, a lethargic strategy for producing alternative-fueled vehicles, and corner-cutting in the worst possible ways (drive a Chevy Cobalt and you'll get my drift), the American auto industry has dug it's own grave. But instead of allowing it to die or pull itself up by producing a better car, our representatives are on the verge of vetoing the aggregate of our private choices by writing a big check for the purpose of obtaining a stake in these "toxic corporations."

Will the Yukon become the Yugo? The scary truth is that it could, especially in light of the history that shows how subsidy-seeking political entrepreneurship leads to innovation-stifling monopoly. It's common knowledge that in 1807 Robert Fulton ushered in a new era of transportation in America with the first successful run of his steamship up the Hudson. What most Americans don't know, however, is that the state of New York subsidized Fulton's steamship business by enacting a thirty-year monopoly. It wasn't until 1824 that the Supreme Court struck down the monopoly in the famous case of Gibbons v. Ogden, leading to vast improvements in steamship technology, quadrupling steamship traffic (and consumer choice) within two years, and decreasing fares. By 1830 Fulton was bankrupt, but Cornelius Vanderbilt's line, finally allowed to compete, made a $40,000 profit while carrying passengers up and down the river for free.

If this lesson teaches us anything about the outlook for the American auto industry after a bailout (which is really a state-enacted monopoly in disguise because it drains much-needed capital from the general economy and locks it into companies that cannot compete), we should expect an outcome more similar to Fulton's than Vanderbilt's, regardless of how much money we spend to prevent it.

Buy-Out Bonannza

Four words:


I
TOLD
YOU
SO

Constitutional Integrity: Part III - Obama's Respect

Above even the obvious problem that this all seems rather suspect, I'm very curious about how much respect for the Rule of Law and our Constitution the DNC and Barak Obama have. After all, we're talking about someone who demanded John McCain release all his medical records, including what color antacids he takes after a chili cookout...something McCain isn't required BY LAW to disclose or prove. But when asked to prove his basic eligibility Obama files a motion to dismiss...and it's interesting to note that more than just his birth certificate is "unavailable":

* Occidental College records - not released.
* Columbia Thesis paper - not available, locked down by faculty.
* Harvard College records - not released, locked down by faculty.
* Selective Service Registration - not released.
* Medical records - not released (only a one-page report).
* Illinois State Senate schedule - 'not available.'
* Law practice client list - not released.
* Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released.
* Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth - not released.
* Harvard Law Review articles published - None.
* University of Chicago scholarly articles - None.
* Record of Baptism-- Not released or 'not available.'
* Illinois State Senate records--'not available.'

Moreover, on an entirely unrelated (though still important) issue, further investigation led to Obama's State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record, wherein when asked for "Full Former Names" Obama put "None", even though (as shown above) he's gone by other full names. So he lied on the State government form he signed under Penalty of Perjury.

You'd think that someone who advocated national unity and bipartisanship, and claimed to want to bring America to new heights would actually just show his birth certificate, so it would all be over. Instead, Obama and the DNC, and the FEC chose to hide behind procedurals. Allow me to explain. In Obama et. all's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, there is an assertion that the allegations are "patently false." But, the team made a choice to spend all that money to get the lawsuit dismissed on procedural grounds before a trial on the merits. Maybe they did it so there would be precedent. But why would anyone WANT to set such a precendent? Why would anyone WANT to waste the time and money involved to prove that ordinary citizens don't have the right to sue to ask a court to enforce Article II's requirements for someone who wants to be president??? MOREOVER, why would the DNC not want to protect its reputation? Here's the thing, if Obama et. all got their way, the lawsuit would be dismissed. So they "technically" win without having proven that (1) Obama can be president; (2) that the DNC did nothing wrong; (3) the FEC did nothing wrong. It's obvious from the complaint that if Obama could show his birth certificate and it could be verified, the lawsuit would be dropped...

It makes me sad.

Constitutional Integrity: Part II - The Media's Role

In late October when I posted stories about this on my blog and facebook pages, a girl I know who works for the New York Times Company as a jounalist asked "if this story had merit don't you think the major news outlets would be reporting it?" Sadly no. And it's STILL sadly, no. This isn't on CNN; ABC, NBC; or in the NYT. FOX was there though.

Have you any of you ever seen the Denzel Washington movie Ricochet? It's really quite good. Denzel Washington plays Nicholas Styles, a cop turned ADA. The film starts out with Denzel as a young cop who goes to lawschool at night. He and his partner are out on patrol and happen to pass by a local carnival as a known mafia hitman, Earl Blake, rushes out, after having just murdered a number of drug runners. Blake tries to use a child as a body shield but to no avail; fast-forward through heroics and Styles and his partner get their man.

The movie then fast-forwards to about seven years later, when Styles is married and a prominet ADA in Los Angeles County, with political ambitions, and a media darling (after all, he's a hero right?). But Blake has thoughts of bloody revenge. Blake orchestrates an incredible complex escape and fakes his own death. Once the media believes he's dead, Blake is free to destroy Style's life. And when Style's cries frame-job, the media is only all too quick to latch onto the gore and fascinating twists and turns of such a tabloid-perfect tale. Even though Styles is an upstanding citizen one second, the media is all for painting him as a child-molesting, phillandering, murdering fiend.

But since this is a good movie, Styles wins in the end of course - and the final scene involves one pretty cool duel-to-the-death on the top of a building between Blake and Styles (facilitated by Style's old friend-turned-drug lord), wherein Blake confesses to everything he's done and ends up electrocuted and impaled on a large spike protuding from the structure. Oh yah, the media was there and got it all on tape.

Suddenly faced with "the truth" as it is instead of the truth as they wanted it to be, reportorters have no choice but to verify Styles' innocence. They do so however, without apology, as if they were always objective, and played no role by way of their failure to investigate et. all, in Styles' fall from grace.

So what I'm wondering is, when will I get my media apology? Better yet, when will AMERICA get it's media apology? Obviously 9 men and women in black robes think it's got merit though - or at least four of them of them do. There's no telling how many of them will if Obama follows his present trend of refusing to present the requested documents. And at the end of the day, it looks like these 9 people's opinions are the only ones who count.

Constitutional Integrity: Part I

A couple of weeks before the election, the blogosphere and internet media outlets started reporting that there was a bit of a controversy surrounding Barak Obama's qualifications to be president. Specifically at issue - Article II of the US Constitution, which states in part that

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States...

So what's the problem? We haven't seen Barak Obama's birth certificate. It all started on August 21, 2008, when Phillidelphia Lawyer, Philip Berg filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania's Eastern District court challenging Obama's "qualifications" to be president. Berg, a life-long democrat and contributer to the DNC, named as defendants Obama, the Federal Election Committee, the DNC, and unknown co-defendants 1-50. The complaint asserts, that

• Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 but has failed to provide the name of the hospital he was born in. Upon investigation into the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama's birth is reported as occuring at (2) seperate hospitals: Kapiolani Hospital and Queen's Hospital.
  
• Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya.
  
• Wayne Madsen, Journalist with an Online Journal was a contributing writer for a published article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team sent to Mombasa, Kenya, located a Certificate Registering the birth of a Barak Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen.
• At the time of Obama's Birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony and there is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., although the date of birth is August 23, 1961.
• There is evidence that Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy, and evidence that she was prevented from boarding a flight in Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (airline policy to avoid births during a flight).
  
• Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a citizen of Kenya on December 12, 1963. Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship either.
  
• There is evidence to suggest that Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered his birth. There are records of a "registry of birth" for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961, in the public records office Hawaii.
• Under Section 301(a)(7) of the INA, the law in effect at the time of Obama's birth stated that if a child is born abroad and one parent is a U.S. citizen (Obama's mother), in order the the child to take that parent's nationality at birth, that parent would have to have live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so Obama can not be a natural born U.S. citizen under this provision.
  
• As a matter of law, Obama lost any U.S. citizenship he may have tentatively had when he was expatriated (Naturalization Act of 1940). His mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro and relocated both him and her to Indonesia, wherein Obama's mother naturalized there. Obama, as a minor in the custody of his mother, as a matter of law, followed her naturalization.
  
• Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Copies of the school registration show Obama's name as Barry Soetoro, his father as Lolo Soetoro, and his citizenship as Indonesian. Inside Edition has verified this document.
• Obama's mother sent him, at age 10, back to Hawaii, and she followed him shortly after. She divorced her Indonesian husband, and had the option to regain her citizenship. In order to do so, Stanley Ann Dunham need only to take the oath of allegiance either abroad before a diplomatic or conuslar officer on the United States, or in the United States before the Attorney General or the judge of a clerk of a Court. Had she taken this oath, a record of such would've been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court, or with the Attorny General, including a copy of the oath administered under the seal of whomeever. Under Chapter 8 of the U.S.C., section 1435, the certified copy shall be evidence of facts stated therin before any court of record or judicial tribunal etc. No such record exists, and Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship.
  
• Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned (18) years to regain his US citizenship status.
• Obama still maintains multiple citizenships with various foreign nations, still making him ineligible under Article II.
  
• In 1981, Obama taveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport, thus being fully aware of his Indonesian citizenship.
• Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
• Obama and his Campaign Office have been asked for the Certificate of Birth to prove he is a natural born citizen. After many requests, Obama's campaign posted a digital copy online. Three independent forensic experts have tested the certificate as presented online, and have each determined it to be a forgery.
• It was further discovered that this original certificate of live birth was an altered and forged copy of one issued to Obama's half sister, Maya Kasandra Soetoro, who was born in Indonesia in 1970.

On the same day, Berg also filed a motion requesting a temporary restraining order to prevent Obama from running for President; to enjoin the DNC from nominating him. Berg's motion was denied. On September 9, 2008, no named (or unnamed) defendant had yet to file a response of any kind, or produce the birth certificate, Berg filed MOTION to Expedite Discovery, Extensive Discovery and Appoint A Special Master. Still no answer. Wait Wait Wait..it's going to get EVEN BETTER!! On September 15th, 2008, Obama and the DNC were served with discovery by Berg. Among this discovery request was a Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents. A request for admissions is just what it sounds like: it's a request sent from one party to another in a lawsuit requesting that they either admit or deny basic facts are true. If the parties can agree on a few things, it can make litigation easier. By law, the Defendants have 30 days to respond, and if the Defendants don't respond, all the statements/facts that are listed in the Request for Admissions are deemed true as a matter of law. Obama and his lawyers and the DNC didn't answer the complaint or the the Request for Admissions, but instead filed that Motion To Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court asked Berg to file his Response to the Motion To Dismiss and he did so in a timely fashion on September 29th. On October 6, Obama and the DNC's attorney(s) called Berg and asked him to agree to staying discovery till the election was over - in otherwords asking him to agree that they didn't have to turn over any documents or the birth certificate or answer any of the questions in the Request for Admissons until after the election had already taken place. Since Berk is not an idiot, he said no "declined as Obama’s citizenship status is of National security as he is running for President of the United States."

So, on October 6th, Berg also filed a MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint on October 6, 2008. In response, Obama et. all filed MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision (on their Motion to Dismiss), but in their motion they acknowledged that they had received the requests for admissions.

Berg filed his Response to the Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery on October 9th. Obama et all filed a new motion to dismiss, directed at the First Amendeded Complaint on October 20th. The basic arguments of the Motion to Dismiss are that: (1) the plaintiff lacks standing to sue; and (2) that there is no federal cause of action for enforcement of Article II of the Constitution.

On October 21, Berg filed a MOTION for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions. In plain English here's what that means: the 30 day time period had ellapsed. The Defendants had admitted that they had the Request for Admissions and still hadn't responded in 30 days, and the Court had issued no order protecting them from the deadline. Thus, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) [along with relevant case law), Obama and the DNC are deemed to have admitted as a matter of law that Obama is ineligible to be President. PERIOD. It should be over. That should've been the end of it. But NO. Even though Berg filed all his responses on time, followed the rules of the court and the law of the land, he didn't get his order deeming all the requests for admissions admitted by the defendants. Instead, the Honorable R. BARCLAY SURRICK ordered on October 24 that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted. Then, he ordered on October 27 that since the Motion to Dismiss was granted, ALL pending motions by the Plaintiff, Berg, were deemed Moot. Swept under the rug.


Don't lose hope though fellow defendants of the constitution. On October 30, Berg filed his notice of intent to appeal. The third circuit affirmed, but Berg filed Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has reserved judgement about whether or not to grant cert (it takes at least four concurring justices). Thus, under Supreme Court Rule 15.3, Obama and FEC and DNC have until December 1st (30 days) to file a brief as to why cert should not be granted. The brief is not mandatory, except in a capital case, which Berg v. Obama clearly is not. Whether Obama and the DNC choose to file an opposition brief remains to be seen — most likely they will, or else produce for the plaintiffs the birth certificate etc. The entry of an appearance by the Solicitor General is a pretty clear indication that the FEC will oppose certiorari. Then Berg gets a chance to respond.

Remember, as much as Obama would like to think he's already the head of the The Office of The President-Elect, he's not even that yet. The Electoral College doesn't meet to cast its' votes until December 13th. The Court will have plenty of time to enforce the Constitution, should it come to that.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, and they shall make a profit!": The Glory of Capitalism Part I

Opportunity without restraint is what rescues people. The measure of humanity is opportunity. A dog can love you, a new pair of heels can make you feel better, but only another human being can provide and share in opportunity.

I am a supporter of the free market, the market is the best arbiter of them all. The market is color-blind and user friendly; the market is equal opportunity. But it has a bad reputation - some of the other economic systems have been spreading rumors and lies about her. I mean, just the other day I caught socialism scribbling "Free Market is a Heartless Gold Digger" on a bathroom stall. She ran away when I saw her, but it was too late - the words were already out there. So sad - they are all just jealous...

I had someone tell me today that they believe that capitalism is good, and that the free market is a good idea in theory, but that it negatively affects (and effects) the way we view poor people. I needed no less than 2 seconds to know that I thourghly disagree with that sentiment. Over this five part series, I intend to examine these misconceptions about poverty and the market, and will answer any and all objections tossed my way.

Let's examine for one second, how we view the poor in a vacuum - objectively. What makes someone "poor" anyway? Do we all even mean the same thing when we talk about "the poor"? Are we talking about the inability to afford basic material necessities? Or, does the fact that America's "poor" have been known to possess TV's and computers mean we are talking about more than that - maybe about a general social frustration. I'm sure that everyone would agree that people without food, shelter, or access to clean water are indeed poor. We call this subsistene poverty. The difficult part is defining the rest of the strata. If you live in Hell's Kitchen, NYC are you poor? If you have a job and an apartment but are overburdened by medical bills are you poor?

To guide us through the rhetorical maze that the povery dialogue has created in the modern era, John Friedman has suggested in his watershed article has classified modern dialogue on poverty and the poor into four basic categories: burecratic; moralizing; democratic; and academic. The burecratic approach focuses on defining a poverty line with families/households falling either above or below. This "poverty line" is used (both in the US and in many European countries) as the threshold for qualifing for state aid. The academic approach is similar, although it is more likely to include in its dialogue the underlying causes of poverty. Moralizing language is to be avoided, associating poverty with negative personal characteristics such as laziness or irresponsibility, or other moral shortcomings. Dramatic language is possibly the least objective of all, describes and identifies poverty through the use of complex and dramatic narratives about "a day in the life" of someone with less money or access to society.

The very fact that we have trouble agreeing on what "poor" is is demonstrative of the evolution of social structures over time. Jesus said that the poor would always be with us, and it seems at least that much is true. It's worth mentioning though, that some of that is our own doing: as long as we define poverty in relative terms, such as the bottom 10% or 20% income bracket, we will always have poor people. But the bottom 10% income bracket in the United States still has more than the the majority of the third world, and some countries' "poor" do even better. Europe and Japan have the richest poor people in the world.

We could argue that poverty means the inability to participate fully in society. But in America, is everyone without an iPod, cell phone, and Guitar Hero World Tour "poor"? At the end of the day, defining poverty to everyone's satisfacation is nearly impossible. One thing is certian though - h istory has no better lesson than cause and effect. In his book, From Lenin to Khrushchev: The History of World Communism, Seton-Watson reminds us that "The social causes of communism are frustrtion of the intelligentsia an poverty of the masses."

So whatever poverty is, we'd better figure it out quicky, before the masses decide for us.

Obama's Chief of Staff Was on the Board of Freddie Mac - and Did Just a Bang-Up Job!

WAIT WAIT WAIT!! He's not even technically president yet (Sorry guys, there's no such thing as "Office of the President Elect") and we have a scandal!! I don't believe it - oh wait I do. I'm going to file this under "I" for IT'S ABOUT TIME: ABC reports that Obama's choice for Chief of Staff was on the Board at Freddie Mac when the disaster formally known as the 2008 Economic Meltdown was born...but he let it slide...

wow...I hope he pays more attention to his job in the White House...

(and I wonder why this wasn't reported before the election...it just conveniently was "discovered" post-victory?? wow)

Check out Right Voices page for an interesting conversation...oh amazing...

Forgive And Forget - It's Economical

I recently got into a heated discussion with an Obama supporter (I won't call him a "Liberal" or a "Democrat" because this person does not believe in these labels) wherein he called me unchristian, hateful, and a slew of other words for intimating that the recent stock market crash could be connected with Obama's election. So we'll just call him an "Obama supporter" herein defined as one who voted for Obama.

To begin with, a brief examination at some of the facts which upset my (former?) friend and collègue. First off, the market has been less volitile in the past two weeks than at any point since the Sept 15 crash. Secondly, as McCain's numbers increased in the polls over the past month, the DOW Jones, especially these past two weeks, has outperformed itself compared with it's performance this quarter since the crash, and it has stabalized.

This brings us to election night.

Then we are faced with a whole new slew of facts: the stock market hates itself more than a teenage girl with bad skin and no friends. Even though October is the moth for slumps and slopes, and the market always squirms after an election, this post - election drop is worse than any post-election drop in the past 100 years. In fact, the stock market has not such a bad two-day slum since 1987. The market immediately began its downward spiral Wednesday morning as soon as the bell on the floor tolled. In fact, DOW overnight futures tanked Tuesday evening post-election projections in Obama's favour (only minutes after pundits declared McCain had lost Ohio). I think it's safe to say, the honeymoon is OVER.

This is the magic place where pundits and personalities on both sides of the aisle get distracted. It's really easy to start playing the blame game. The market's fall is of course connected to other market indicators like employment and interest rates to be sure or the impacts of the bailout plan. We could point to the housing market's crash as the reason for crash. Although Democrats and the Left were able to fool most of America, once again let me point out you can't fool the invisible hand.Well, who's fault was that?? While the left is quick to blame the Bush administration, I would like to humbly submit for consideration the FACTS surrouding the creation and indemnification of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac - just in case you weren't watching the one foreign news outlet that reported on it. It was Pelosi and Company who first decided it would be a grand idea to give loans to people who can't even afford the landscaping costs on the houses they wanted to buy (see other posts about the Housing Collapse for more). But, it would also have to be admitted that some Republicans who apparently show no concern for the concepts of fiscal conservatism were all on board for the buy-out. And, instead of letting the companies go bankrupt and letting the market self-correct, Bush also, didn't veto it.

At the end of the day though, I'm not sure it really matters who's fault it is now that the election is OVER. What DOES matter is what we are going to do about it. The undeniable facts are the market is unhappy with the results. The market isn't rascist and certainly isn't careless. So what are we to draw from such actions? Well, the market is a forward-looking entity based on the perceptions of investors and the financial sector. So, in looking at a possible (albiet far-fetched) McCain victory, it goes up. Now, looking at a sure Obama Presidency, it plummets with no end in sight. If Obama and his supporters truly mean what they touted in the streets of Chicago and the airwaves of LA, and on the facebook walls of millions, then CHANGE is the answer - bipartisanship is key. How might such a change play out? Well, for starters, it might begin by recognizing that it is at this point irrelevant if McCain's ideas were better or worse for the economy or if Bush did or did not support the bailout or even the original idea that led to the housing crisis. Maybe the best we can come up with is to agree that Obama will be no better for the economy (but no worse) than John McCain.

This economic crisis is clearly linkd to more government intervention in the economy than we've had since the Great Depression. Democrats had the idea, Republicans got greedy and abandoned their principles: it's everyone's fault. What matters now is what are we going to do about it? We have to recognize, for better or for worse, that the market is not responding well to what it forsees as the most probably outcome of Obama's election. I think it's a reasonable to request as an American that Obama and his proponents consider the impact that just the anticipation of his economic policies are having on our market place. If party affiliation truly doesn't matter (although I can't help but point out that historically the stock market loses 1% when a Dem wins, but gains 4% when a Republican wins), than it shouldn't matter who sided with Adam Smith first, it only matters that the facts are showing "share the wealth" isn't jiving well with the invisible hand.

To paraphrase Lewis Black, we have to get to a point in the country where we can all see something happen, and agree on what we just saw. If we watch a videotape where Bush is being told about Hurricane Katrina, we are all going to have to agree that the FACTS show Bush was told about Hurricane Katrina. Similarly, we cannot watch the market crash and pretend it didn't. And certainly we cannot think that name calling will make it not be true.

It crashed. That's not offensive - terrifying maybe, but not offensive. What is offensive is a disregard for the integrity of the rational.

A Eulogy for the Free Market

So I voted for McCain, but America apparently, is far too fascinated with Obama's sense of "destiny" and "progress" to see that the only hope he offers them is the hope of socialism's failures in what amounts to a rejection of free market economics.

And while I never thought I'd advocate anything that anyone from Berkley believes in, Anthony Gregory has the right idea (though he may take it to the least logical conclusion): the only true way to regulate life and liberty is the market. The market is the ultimate tool and device to arbitrate between different values for everything from the most mundane toaster to our most precious comodity: time.

But in overwhelming numbers, the American people have spoken, so we are to believe. And their mandate (at least that of those who voted) seems clear: rid us of the oppression of the free market ! Deliver us from the hands of hard work and lead us from the Valley of Self Reliance and Personal Responsibility. Certainly Peggy Joseph and those like her fear no bill collectors now that their messiah has arrived with a Harvard Law Degree and meticulously tailored suit.

Economic instability caused by further government tampering in what is already a mixed economy has made people desperate. The most popular scapegoat? - the free market. The can't afford health care, so it's the market's fault. Instead of addressing the problem head on, and admitting that healthcare hasn't been free market since WWII, and that a restoration of the market would undoubtedly correct these problems, Obama appeals to their fears to gain trust.

Then he appeals to their sense of entitlement to gain support. He tells them of a world where all Americans are united, because we're all already the same anyway:

[T]he struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; . . . the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation. [Yes We Can" speech in New Hampshire]

I'm sure what Obama failed to ask his new constituency was if they wanted to live in a world where the dreams of everyone's children are the same - and turn out the same. Would America be ok if we took money from the rich to give to the poor, bankrupted industry, and slowed innovation, as long as everyone was in on the deal? Would it be willing to accept, under Nationalized Health Care, a shorter amount of one-on-one time with one's doctor as long as everyone got the same shortened visit? Reduced survival rates as long as everyone had that same dismal chance?

So let me get this straight America, what you're really saying is that if you can't afford to send your son or daughter to a good college, then no one should?

So what can America's savior really bring them if not mediocrity? Swarming in with a Harvard Law Degree and an impeccably tailored suit may fool some, but it won't fool the invisible hand. Much like Engals and Marx, who were never members of the proletariat, if all conflict is truly rooted in class struggle, then it is arguably that suit and that degree, if not exactly the fact that he has gone from the citizen demanding change to the President of the most powerful country on earth, that makes him a member of the ill-fated bourgeois. And that's just the trouble then isn't it - America wants to have her cake and eat it too. They want you and I and everyone to help them get out of poverty and even out of the middle class. And to do it, they are totally fine with forcibly taking from those who have what they want - money, success, and possessions. But when they get to that 250K cut off, America will want the tax hikes gone.

Tough talk America. So you don't really hate poverty than do you - you hate success, or at least some one else's. It's been said Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.

Trust me - his daughters are going Ivy when they grow up.