If Obama’s New Czar Has His Way, This Could Be My Last Post…

In a move destined to garner less attention than cap-and-trade or health care, Barack Obama’s choice for the position of Information Czar could have drastic implications for the conservative blogosphere.

by Michael Naragon

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and friend to the national Messiah, has been tapped to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  The Wall Street Journal has reported that Sunstein was one of the major influences on a young Obama’s attitudes on government regulation and economics, a scary proposition considering the degree to which the Obama administration is attempting to pull us toward Soviet-style communism.

According to the Journal, many of those familiar with Sunstein’s work and philosophy have said that his fingerprints are obvious in many of the administration’s policies, including credit card reform and the push for climate change legislation, the now-infamous cap-and-trade debacle.

But it is Sunstein’s ideas about the First Amendment that make him dangerous to free thought and free exchange of ideas.  In Sunstein’s last published book, Nudge, he advises that the role of government should be to “nudge” people into being better human beings, an apparent contradiction to the accepted idea that morality cannot be legislated.

Now, Kyle Smith of the New York Post reported Sunday, the release of Sunstein’s next publication, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, is imminent.  The Harvard professor’s new book gives us the blueprint for his agenda as Information Overlord in the White House, and it shows why his appointment will potentially be more critical to free speech and the Constitution than the possible confirmation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor, whose Senate hearing is scheduled to begin Monday.

In his new book, according to the Post article, Sunstein warns against the dangers of social networking sites and the “false information” that can be spread quickly and efficiently through their use.  Some of the ways he has suggested to clean up the rabble–which includes bloggers and those who comment on blogs–have been to relax the standard by which libel can be proved and to create a system through which the federal government will strong-arm and fine those bloggers that post information deemed to be “false rumors” by the Obama administration.

So, let’s say, you have written a nice blog on Obama’s newest attempt at nationalizing health care.  The president has claimed that the government has no interest in taking over the health care industry, but in your blog you illustrate the logical progression of the program, from “competitive” government option to “monolithic” government mandate.

If Sunstein had his way, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs–or some other federal branch under the guidance of his department–would send you a letter asking you to remove your post because it contained “rumor.”  If you do, the administration is happy, the First Amendment is trampled, and you’ve learned your lesson to never again write anything harmful about Sunstein’s friend.  If you don’t, the federal government could then force you to fight them in court to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Most bloggers would have no financial possibility of fighting such legal action against the taxpayer-funded federal government.  Faced with such pressure, a blogger would, naturally, take down their post rather than destroy their own financial future.  And the First Amendment would still become a worthless paragraph in the annals of American history.  It would only take one or two examples to silence the entire blogosphere, turning it into a place where you can only learn about Aunt Kathy’s twins or Jimmy’s Great Dane, while Congress and the executive branch, insulated from legitimate criticism, can pass their anti-American, anti-taxpayer laws.

Post writer Smith suggests a war be waged on Sunstein by the news organizations and blogosphere before Obama’s comrade can launch his own assault.  If such a war to preserve the First Amendment is unsuccessful, how long will it be before we are hiding in our basements, huddled around short-wave radios, listening to broadcasts of Radio Free America while party officials like Sunstein and Janet Napolitano concern themselves with rooting out the dissidents?

Government Intervenes With Over 9 Trillion in Spending: Will this help?

Or will it end all hopes of recovery?

According to CNN, the government has allocated over$ 9,542,000,000,000 with the intention of stimulating the economy. The large majority of this money is trying to stabilize banks and “make credit more accessible”. The logic behind this is that in times of economic growth, interest rates are low.

However, interest rates cannot sink below inflation rates without massive bank failure. This is because the rate at which the real value of loans decreases due to inflation and the rate at which the real value of loans increase due to interest balance when these rates are equal. So, banks can only make wealth when their interest rates are higher than the inflation rates.

We should now realize that the intervention in our banking industry will NOT help the banks, but rather cause permanent damage. While curing temporary illness, the government has injected a poison: inflation. With an approaching fivefold increase in total currency in circulation and with artificial competition in the banking industry, not only will inflation rates increase rapidly, but banks will not be able to raise interest rates to keep up.

The federal government has already applied regulations that will prevent the banking industry from increasing suddenly and steeply. The result of this will be bank failure, followed by hyper inflation and ridiculous interest rates, and then ultimately the fall of the global economy.

It is a sad thing to predict, but no other result can come from this print-and-spend government and its attempted control of the credit market.

Democrat-Controlled Legislatures Affirm Bill to Allow Conceiled Carry in National Parks

The Senate voted 67-29 and the House voted 279-147 for this bill.

While this seems a wonderful headline, it was simply an add-in compromise to get a bill regulating the credit card industry passed. This gun rights for regulation trade seems fair to the NRA, but even these new gun rights seem to worry the National Rifle Association. Says a spokesman for the NRA, “anything can happen”. This spokesman anticipates some “ghost” in the bill that may restrict or prevent this new expansion of ownership rights.

The NRA may fear some trick in the bill, but there isn’t much else to fear from this newly passed legislation, which also “cracks down” on credit card fees. It entails regulations that keep companies from issuing 18 year-olds credit cards and that keeps credit card companies from “double-cycling” and increasing interest rates as they please.

While such regulations are seemingly harmless, more are said to come. The purpose of these regulations is to soften the legislature for a more burdensome “salvo”.

Seeing as more regulations are coming, when this next round comes, we must do our best to fight it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/house.guns/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_credit_cards

“Atlas Shrugged”

I attended a local teaparty, one of apparently thousands across the United States. The newspaper estimated that 500 people would attend our protest; 5,000 people attended.

The atmosphere was wonderful. People were all around me, all frustrated at the continuous growth of government and the direct and indirect taxation of our people. They were frustrated at the growth of the public debt.

Kevin Brady, our congressman, spoke at our teaparty. He spoke of lowering taxes and of limited government. Ironically, he had voted for TARP. Many of us were yelling at him, “Why’d you vote for TARP?”, or “Why’d you vote for the bailouts?” Justice was served, and our voice was heard.

As this ripples throughout the country, we shall see what effect this will have in the long run. Many networks have given this protest little or no radio time, even though it is the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States.

This was a necessary step in the direction of revolution.

"Atlas Shrugged"

I attended a local teaparty, one of apparently thousands across the United States. The newspaper estimated that 500 people would attend our protest; 5,000 people attended.

The atmosphere was wonderful. People all around me, all frustrated at the continuous growth of government and the direct and indirect taxation of our people. They were frustrated at the growth of the public debt. They were frustrated with government waste.

Kevin Brady, our congressman, spoke at our teaparty. He told us  of the greatness of lowering taxes and of limited government. Ironically, he had voted for TARP last year. Many of us were yelling at him, “Why’d you vote for TARP?”, or “Why’d you vote for the bailouts?” Justice was served, and our voice was heard.

As this ripples throughout the country, we shall see what effect this will have in the long run. Many networks have given this protest little or no time, even though it is the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States. CNN and MSNBC in particular have shown bias with their apathy towards these protests. FNC, on the other hand, had featured this nationwide protest.

TOverall, the teaparties were a necessary step in the direction of revolution, or atleast the change we need.

Edward Liddy, the Congressional Scapegoat

We all need to blame someone for our troubles.We saw this with George Bush in 2007 and with Steve Bartman in 2003.

Kenneth Westhues wrote,
<blockquote>”Scapegoating is an effective if temporary means of achieving group solidarity, when it cannot be achieved in a more constructive way.”</blockquote>
People look for scapegoats when they need someone to blame, and most often, they are not even related to their effects. For example, George Bush is blamed for Freddie Mac’s failure, though the failed institution was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and forced into bad loans with poor families by the Carter Administration (and Bush would have made the necessary changes to save Freddie Mac had the liberal congress not prevented this in the name of the poor).

This brings us to Edward Liddy. Congress called him in, like a court, and questioned him about AIG and what was being done to fix the company. Congress was fuming about AIG’s continuous corruption, and they wanted answers.

Well, Edward Liddy is certainly not responsible for this corruption. The federal government put him at his post as CEO of AIG. Many other people have been CEO before him, including Martin Sullivan, Robert Willumstad, and Joseph Cassano. ABC says that the latter “virtually bankrupted” AIG, and even this is unfair.

It is implausible and unfair to attack Edward Liddy for contractual bonuses, especially when Liddy believes he’s “made progress in winding down this business”.

Now we must note that our government hates the very AIG that they set up. Says Democrat Paul Hodes, “AIG now stands for arrogance, incompetence and greed.” Well, one thing is certain. Dissatisfaction with the work of liberal congress is bipartisan.

Inflationary Stimulus

According the the Federal Reserve Board, the federal government has nearly quadrupled the money flowing through our economy in the last five months…

While in the short term programs and people can pay down their debts, in the long term price inflation is expected to reach the double digits according to Dick Morris. What does this mean? Well, all those who were saving their money for harder times will see the value of their savings drop quickly. Further, interest rates will rise, making it harder to get a loan and start a business.

So, with diminishing savings and a halt in entrepreneurship, what can we see happening soon? Well, nothing good.

A Temporary Gain

DOW jumped 500 points today.

Unfortunately, this is nothing. DOW has already dropped 7000 points since the height of the Bush era. Bush began the bailouts late in 2008, and finally, 2+ trillion dollars later, DOW jumps 500 points…

Well, I want my money back. I’m sure most Americans do. We can only begin to imagine how much 2 trillion dollars flowing through our economy would help. Instead, it has been sapped in by the government and dumped into failing companies, ultimately to be lost.

Americans have a right to be concerned. But still too many are impartial.

Ending Spending Rather Than Endorsing Failure

Even though we aren’t in any position to do this, I propose that the government end all subsidies and corporate welfare.

Essentially, these government expenditures are bailing out failing companies on a daily basis. Companies that can not survive on their own are not producing wealth. Instead, they are sucking it from the successful corporations.

By bailing out companies everyday, with subsidies and corporate welfare, progress is slowed and wealth is given away. It is not government’s responsibility to redistribute wealth among companies.

By letting these companies fail, we are opening the market up for companies that can really produce wealth. Instead, like carcasses, companies take up market space and do not produce.

By subsidizing failure, we get more failure.

The End of the World As We Know It

Universal Healthcare:

Though it has failed everywhere else (Hawaii, Canada, Australia, Britain…), for some reason, it is the solution to our healthcare problems.

But we will not be fooled. Creating a government monopoly that is ran by a bureaucracy and exponentially less responsible than free-market insurance will destroy our current system and, after it fails, leave us with more uninsured and another mess to clean up.

Certainly this isn’t change we can believe in. But congressional democrats are planning to pass such a bill, dubbed the ‘Ted Kennedy Memorial Bill’ or something to the likes of that. Why? Well, nobody is sure, and we need to make them realize that they will do more harm than good.