Barack Obama

I want to give credit where credit is due.  Our miltary and their commander-in-chief made me proud today when Captain Richard Phillips was rescued by our Navy's special ops forces.

One issue in hostage negotiations is not to confuse delay for indecisiveness.  Wearing down the captors is often an effective tactic especially when there is no room for escape.  This ended well, with the exception of those thugs stupid enough to screw with the U.S. Navy.

And perhaps there is some interesting juxtaposition, as over Holy Week we saw a man taken away by those wishing him harm, thought likely to die, only to re-emerge safely on Easter Sunday.    

While this whole episode ended well, we need to ask deeper questions.

a) Why was an American ship seized?

b) Why did the pirates think we would let them escape with a ransom?

One answer to the first question is that the international maritime community has treated piracy like a vandalism claim.  The fear was a freighter defending itself would "escalate the situation".  For that reason, freighters were left with unarmed crews....apparently the insurance carriers liked it that way .  

One response to this ridiculous state of affairs would be to adopt either unilaterally or by treaty a "castle doctrine"  on the high seas, in which merchant sailors would enjoy blanket immunity from civil or criminal liability in the use of deadly force to prevent the boarding of their vessel.

Legislation directing U.S. flag vessels to carry firearms aboard as a condition of service might also dissuade 21st Century Jack Sparrows from seeking to commandeer our ships, seeking unarmed vessels from other nations.

But pirates also operated under the assumption that the U.S. Navy would err on the side of acquisesance instead of action when a crisis occurred, as it has been reported   

"U.S. rules of engagement prevent the Americans using their vastly superior fighting power to engage the pirates if there is any danger to civilians."

That doesn't provide much of a deterrent. Nor does the habitual payment of ransom by shipping companies. Once upon a time it was conventional wisdom that "if you subsidize something you get more if it"

The western world should collectively look in the mirror---as the prior subsidization of piracy and kidnapping....hmmmm...encouraged the problem to "escalate" 

So our Somali "friends" did not expect the Navy Seals to end this on our terms.  That creates the bigger---longer term--problem.

There's a paradigm that works---Pax Brittanica, Pax Americana, "Peace through Strength"---whatever the current iteration happens to be. It can be summed up in one common phrase.

The big dogs enforce the rules. 

Anglo-Americans have pretty much done this since Trafalgar. But now we have hints the Obama Administration and its intellectual allies find this an unwanted and unfashionable burden.

Certaintly when your overseas trip is labelled "an apology tour"   perhaps one could excuse the Somali thugs for questioning how stiff the present administration's backbone is? (I will note that covertly, Obama seems to be emulating much of what he once denounced on wiretapping   and detention; maybe the eight year record of not getting bombed again is looking more important to Obama now that he's in office) 

The problem here is that we need a power with some swagger, and yes, maybe even a touch of arrogance to enforce the international order.  It's easy to make lots of friends promising to consult everybody, and not impose one's will on those unwilling to go along, and generally make clear it case it wasn;t obvious enough you are not George W. Bush.

That said--"soft power" wasn't what freed Captain Phillips. Or what will prevent Iran from going nuclear. Or deal with an innumerable set of problems where only decisive action by one nation and one military is going to make the difference.

Maybe this minor crisis might cause Obama--whose actual military and foreign policy experience is ,,,hmmm..thin--- to reevaluate what he's trying to accomplish in protecting our interests and that of our allies.

He shouldnt listen to experts who suggest the age of deterrence is over.  Indeed, what we have seen off the Horn of Africa is in a multipolar world we will be left with a lawless "tragedy of the commons" devolving into a Hobbesian state of nature.  

Maybe this naval vessel might be a better inspiration. now that the President might have a better appreciation of their capabilities.

“One thing is certain. If we’re to continue to advance world peace and human freedom, America must remain strong. If we have learned anything these last eight years, it’s that peace through strength works.”

Now there's an alternative reality popular among college campuses, Hollywood, and various Whole Foods Markets around the country, and which it must be said, many of the Obamatons subscribe to,  Movie Director Ron Howard put it best, wanting a "more progressive America" that..

 I don't think we'll be, at a certain point I don't think we'll be so consumed with being the pre-eminent super-power and, you know, driven by sort of militarism and this need to export, you know, democracy and so forth.

I doubt very much Captain Phillips was quite so worried about American miltarism when he was floating around the Indian Ocean. American miltarism is why he's alive today. And you know, here's one issue where I really expected more out of Ron Howard. 

Remember one of Howard's best movies---ironically titled---Ransom ?

In Ransom Manhattan business tycoon Mel Gibson has his kid seized and a money demand placed on his safe return.  En route to a drop point in New Jersey, the kidnapper calls Gibson on a cell phone and makes an observation which is directly relevant to where we are today.

The kidnapper taunts Gibson calling him an "eloi" ...an elitist wimp who thinks he can buy his way out of all forms of trouble.  The kidnapper says he is one of the Morlock ...vicious brutes who exost only to prey on the Eloi.

The President might want to dwell upon that for a moment. The world is full of "Morlocks"---individuals who if given a chance will lay waste to civilization for fun, profit, ideology or due to mental illness. If civilization is going to act like the benign and peaceful Eloi, we are in for dark days. And sadly, the "human rights" people seems to think our military is the problem, not the prevention.

The term in law enforcement is "thin blue line". Our nation's military and intelligence services serve the same role in the global community. Are we going to make them stronger or make them weaker?. Are we going to reward action or penalize initiative?   

Will we be Seals or will we be Eloi? 

New polling data released yesterday shows the majority of the American public supports a Bush Administration regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers, including doctors and nurses, who object to participating in controversial procedures such as abortion and sterilization.

The poll found overwhelming support for a patient’s right to seek care from a doctor who agrees with them on sensitive moral issues surrounding their health. But the apparent divide between Washington and the American people on this important issue couldn’t be greater. The Obama Administration wants to rescind federal regulations known as "conscience protections." Today is the final day to register a comment (click here to leave yours).

The poll, which surveyed 800 American adults of both political parties and independents (39% Democrats, 33% Republican, and 22% Independent), found 87% of Americans believe it is important to “make sure that health care professionals are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.” The results held true across the ideological and partisan lines, as 78% of Americans describing themselves as “pro-choice” supported health care provider conscience protections.

While the United States has a long tradition of protecting individual conscience rights stretching from the First Amendment to laws protecting conscientious objectors in time of war, Americans’ views on health care provider conscience rights are as much rooted in self-interest as they are in altruism towards doctors: 88% of Americans surveyed said it is important to them that they hold a similar set of morals as their doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.

Without strong protection of conscience rights for health care providers, Americans know their health care—both in access to and quality of care—will suffer, as faith-based doctors and other professionals leave the profession rather than be forced to violate their conscience.

Thorny issues of morality and ethics abound in health care, ranging from the beginning of life (abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc) to the end of life (physician-assisted suicide, advance directives, etc). Patients have a right to see a doctor of their choosing, without fear of government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Patients and their families have the right to have tough conversations about, for example, life support for themselves or their loved one, with a medical professional that shares their beliefs surrounding end-of-life care. The farther government intrudes in these deeply personal issues by compelling doctors to violate their conscience, the more budgets and balance sheets will replace compassion and caring.

Failure to protect conscience rights for health care providers will have a direct, negative effect on patients’ ability to get the care they need. For example, Catholic hospitals alone make up about 20% of all hospitals in the country and serve over 5.5 million patients a year. If these institutions’ conscience rights are not protected, they could be forced to shut their doors or reduce services. Undoubtedly, poor and rural patients served by these institutions will suffer the most in such a scenario.

In spite of this, the Obama Administration and Congress seem intent on rolling back conscience protections in health care. After less than two months in office, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate the conscience protection regulation. Last Friday, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have included conscience protections in President Obama’s $634 billion “down payment” for health care reform. The amendment, offered by Senator Tom Coburn, himself a doctor, would have prohibited government coercion of patients to enroll in specific health insurance plans or to see pre-selected health care providers. Given the chance, the Senate said “no” to giving patients freedom to choose a doctor that shares their beliefs on important moral and ethical issues.

While the American people strongly support conscience rights and freedom of choice in health care, Congress and the Obama Administration are moving rapidly in the opposite direction: toward increased government intrusion into Americans’ most private and personal health care decisions.

The public has until midnight tonight to let the Department of Health and Human Services know its support of conscience rights in the health care work place. Visit ADoctorsRight.com to register your comment with HHS today.

by Lance Thompson

It’s impossible to know whether hindsight will assess the current administration as the most corrupt, the most inept, or the most dangerous in history, but there is certainly an opportunity for Obama to rate highest in all three categories and claim the Triple Crown.

In the corruption column, Obama moved quickly to fill his cabinet and administration with tax cheats (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner) and terrorist sympathizers (Attorney General Eric Holder and National Intelligence Council chief Charles Freeman).  The only reason there aren’t more criminals in the administration is that several nominees withdrew their names when their questionable pasts were exposed–Governor Bill Richardson (under federal investigation for trading state contracts for campaign contributions) and one-time Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and private consultant Nancy Killefer (tax troubles for both).  Harold Koh, Obama’s pick for the State Department’s legal advisor, finds nothing wrong with applying Muslim Sharia law in “appropriate” cases.   Obama has brought the 2010 Census under the control of the White House, and is enlisting the vote-manufacturing experts at ACORN to recruit census takers.  And let’s not forget that Obama campaigned for and signed a stimulus bill that neither he nor many Democrats nor any Republicans in Congress ever read--the most costly single piece of legislation in history.

In qualifying for the ineptitude crown, Obama has demonstrated a supreme lack of diplomatic grace, despite campaigning on the promise to improve America’s image in the world.  He presented the British Prime Minister with movie DVD’s unviewable on European video systems, and the Queen with a video i-pod that included video coverage of his own speeches.  His state department denied the existence of a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.   Obama’s recent speeches abroad, besides denigrating American commitment and sacrifice to a free Europe, also demonstrates such a dismal knowledge of 20th Century history and geopolitics that no one could ever doubt his Ivy League education. Obama has also suggested that Americans in uniform provide their own health insurance; subsidized GM, fired its CEO, and then indicated the company may be better off declaring bankruptcy; spent the first few weeks of his presidency declaring the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” then switched to rosy outlooks and predictions once his cripplingly massive spending bills were passed.

But Obama scores highest in the “most dangerous” category:

He vows to rid the American arsenal of nuclear weapons while more rogue regimes than ever before are racing to perfect them.

His answer to a record national debt is to treble and quadruple that debt with mindless spending and unprecedented waste.

He slapped key ally Israel in the face by sending a billion dollars of aid to the terrorist government of Gaza to repair damage inflicted in the recent conflict.

He cravenly offered to bargain away our missile defense of Eastern European states while begging the Russians to cease their military aid to Iran.

He met the defiant launch of a North Korean ICBM with anguished hand-wringing and a complaint to the permanently ineffectual United Nations.

His Defense Secretary strips major military programs from the budget even as every other government program enjoys unprecedented largesse.

Most corrupt, most inept, most dangerous–certainly Obama has competition for any one of these honors from administrations past.  But we have never had a president who scored so highly so quickly in all three categories.  Of course, Obama could jeopardize his chance at the Triple Crown if he were to suddenly demonstrate competence, judgment and integrity.  But personally, I think his lock on the title is unassailable.

There's been a lot of comparisons of President Obama to President Reagan,  President Kennedy and President Roosevelt; among non-divine historical figures. Based on this forecast from the noted right-wing rag, the New York Times, it appears unlikely that on one score Obama will reprise Reagan; he is unlikely to preside over a jobs boom in his re-election year.  

As the recession grinds on, more and more of the nation's means of production -- its workers, its factories, its retail outlets, its freight lines, its bank lending, even its new inventions -- are being mothballed.

This idled capacity, like baseball players after a winter off, takes time to bring back into robust use. So even if the recession miraculously ended tomorrow, economists estimate that at least three years would pass before full employment returned and output rose enough for the economy to operate at full throttle.

So when do things "return to normal"?

 The Obama administration, like the Roosevelt administration 75 years ago, is trying to break this logjam through government spending, using it in effect as a substitute for consumers who are jobless or short of credit. The spending is also a substitute for companies that hesitate to extend themselves or see no profit in doing so.

But the president's solution, the recently enacted stimulus package, spreads $787 billion over two years. So even if every dollar of spending restored a dollar of output, President Obama would be nearing the end of his first term before output approached the level achieved just before the start of the recession in December 2007.

I might add one concern I have is it seems likely to me much productive capacity will be permanently shut down. Some of this may be in "Neutron Jack" fashion; for example, when Obama idles the F-22 production line even if the plant in Georgia is left intact, the skilled labor is going to be in the wind and incapable of being replaced in short order.

A permanent --or at least "sticky"---reduction in the private sector's ability to supply goods coupled with monetary expansion unseen in American history. Stagflation, anyone?

I also find agreement from another voice of the right, 538.com's Nate Silver.  Here's a few excerpts from his post, Why We're Probably in For a Long Recession 

Silver reviews in his February 10 post economic declines and recoveries since 1945, and breaks out the "post-Greenspan" ones as having more "inertial momentum" than the more volatile economies previously. The Greenspan era has been noted for fewer recessions, but slower recoveries, according to Silver.

  Now suppose instead that we perform the same process based solely on data from the Greenspan Era -- from August 1987 onward. This gives us a rather different result:

I would argue that since February notwithstanding the "relief rally " off Dow 6500 and a few signs of housing liquidity that we are moving closer to the "red line"; which Silver anticipates would yield a peak unemployment rate of 9.6% in May 2010.

Silver also seems skeptical with the long tail of this model " it is not necessarily out to lunch in thinking that the equilibrium unemployment rate will be in the high 5's rather than numbers like 4.0 that we are used to." 

What is the effect of a 9.6% unemployment rate on the 2010 midterm elections?   Well we do have some useful background from the 1980's  The Republicans lost 26 house seats that year perhaps because unemployment reached 10.8% in November 1982.

So much for Joe Lieberman's "make nice" on behalf of Chris Dodd.

He predicted voters will realize Dodd is too valuable to lose, as the economy begins improving while Dodd keeps working on legislation to fix the financial system.

No "Joementum" in the job market that I'm seein

Back to Nate Silver. He asked this question "When will voters blame Obama?" Answer:

Obama crosses the 50 percent threshold at almost exactly 18 months from now, which would mean September 2010. At that point, a majority of voters say they will hold Obama accountable for the performance of economy

When unemployment is likely to exceed 9%. Not timely just eight weeks out from an election.

OK, so maybe the Democrats get bloodied in 2010. Won't the economy come roaring back like it did for Reagan?

Well, this was the pattern from 1982 to 1984      The unemployment rate fell quickly from its Autumm 1982 spike, ending 1983 at 8.3% and reaching 7.2% on election day.

Payroll increased by 3.5 million in 1983 and by another 3.5 million prior to election day 1984;  Source: http://www.bls.gov/ces/ 

Today we remember Reagan burying Mondale in the largest landslide in history, but his re-election was a near run thing; his approval was below 50% for most of 1983 and finally started into positive terrotory as the election neared.Polls in early summer 1984 showed both Mondale and Hart within single digits of Reagan.  ; had the economic recovery been slower or weaker American history might have been radically different.

So what will be the upshot if by election day 2012 national output is no higher than upon the start of the recession?. Well, barring an unprecedented drop in productivity total employment will be less than when he assumed office.  And, barring an unprecedented drop in the over 18 US population, the labor force will be larger. So it's probably reasonable to expect that the November 2012 unemployment rate will exceed the January 2009 rate of 7.6%   Sure Reagan got re-elected with unemployment in the 7's....but will Obama be able to point to massive job growth immediately prior to his election? 

And remember too, when Obama took office inflation and interest rates weren't a concern.  What would a return to $4/gallon gasoline do to his political fortunes?

At this stage, my money is Obama's gonna have to be a Roosevelt; since I seriously doubt he'll end up resembling Ronald Reagan. 

I'm usually pretty dismissive of conspiracy theorists, not being one of the those "black helicopter" Republicans thinking every meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations is a dangerous cabal.

But, sometimes people simply start getting out of hand. You know, the ol "slippery slope" idea.

Which is why I was a little unnerved by this article in Time magazine

How Obama Is Using The Science of Change

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama's campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. "BUT, BUT, BUT," deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama's GOTV operatives nationwide, "What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!"

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation's leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: "A Record Turnout Is Expected." ..

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed,......

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country.

Stop me for a second. Does the name "George Orwell" spring to mind?

Read the whole article. I want you to reflect then on the utter arrogance that pervades the concept that the American public are in need of what amount to behavior modification, not appeals to rational self-interest or national self-interest.  And that the answers to what is best for Americans are already known to the Obama administration.  Therefore, we must be conditioned to accept the pre-ordained answers.

Democracy. Who needs it. The voters might make mistakes. We'll deprogram them

  But Obama is no therapist changing individuals one at a time. He's an organizer trying to build community and inspire collective action through house parties and Facebook as well as rhetoric about shared values. In other words, he's trying to create social norms — behavioral change's killer app....

The research proves change can come about when it's easy and popular, but making it lucrative — or even mandatory — can make sure it happens.

Hmm, wasn't that why we got rid of King George III?

Now I acknowledge governments here and elesewhere have used pretty subtle and pervasive means to foster their agenda. But generally campaigns against drunk driving and for racial tolerance are means to promote already agreed upon social policies. Same with appeals to patriotism to bolster domestic support for a nation's foreign policy.

 What the Obama people here are seeking to do is a quantum leap forward and away from the concepts of individual liberty and representative government.  There's no political consensus on fixing entitlements or heath care or the energy system. And by seeking to impose social conformity on the "appropriate options", the Obama camp seeks to subvert the need to obtain the consent of the governed.   No wonder they've kept it all secret.

Time identifies this problem, and then adopts an "ends justify the means" defense.

  The idea of public officials, even well-meaning ones, trying to engineer our private behavior to produce change can seem a bit creepy.

But face it: Obama is right. Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary. Our health expenditures are bankrupting the Treasury, and most of our visits to the doctor can be traced to unhealthy behavior. We do need to change, and we know it.

  So much for debating what we ought to do.  Just follow what "The One" has decided is best.

I'm slightly familiar with the science of behavior modification, having a son who is on the autistic spectrum.  It's ironic that concepts like Applied Behavior Analysis are used to help children with an expressive disorder properly communicate their wants and needs.

The Obama Behavior Modification agenda is designed to prevent typical adults from communicating their needs and wants; since more and more choices will be taken away from us and replaced with a government approved "default option", and tremendous peer pressure brought to bear against those with undesirable nonconformist choices.

Now, if this didn't leave you a little queasy, I refer one to Hot Air, and Ed Morrissey's fear that the Internet will now be legally subject to appropriation by the administration. 

The bill addresses the need to protect vital networks from cyber attack, but it gives a lot of power to the executive branch — perhaps too much power.

 I don;t know if the  Cybersecurity Act of 2009, S.773 would provide unfettered power to the Obama Administration to shut down the Internet. Morrissey suggests the bigger problem is   "that the bill essentially repeals the Fourth Amendment." 

If the Obama Administration wanted to quell some ad hoc "tea party" national civil protest movement, certaintly screwing with the World Wide Web would be one way to do it. That is how it is done in China, isn't it.

Again, I'm not big on conspiracy theories. But putting these two things in juxtaposition also doesn't leave me with warm feelings about the good intentions of the current administration. This keeps up, this RINO may go libertarian yet.

===Update===

While I was thinking about this, I realized that there had been a behavioral scientist who had written extensively on topics related to human choice.

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American psychologist, author, inventor, advocate for social reform,[1][2]and poet.[3] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[4] He invented the operant conditioning chamber, innovated his own philosophy of science called Radical Behaviorism,[5] and founded his own school of experimental research psychology—the experimental analysis of behavior. His analysis of human behavior culminated in his work Verbal Behavior, which has recently seen enormous increase in interest experimentally and in applied settings.[6] He discovered and advanced the rate of response as a dependent variable in psychological research. He invented the cumulative recorder to measure rate of responding as part of his highly influential work on schedules of reinforcement.[7] [8] In a recent survey, Skinner was listed as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.[9] He was a prolific author who published 21 books and 180 articles.[10] [11]

OK, so why does this matter that Skinner is the major influence on contemporary behavior sciences. Well, what did he have to say about permitting individuals make decisions?

This was his little dissertation of applying behaviorism to society.

Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a book written by American psychologist B. F. Skinner and first published in 1971. The book argues that entrenched belief in free will and the moral autonomy of the individual (which Skinner referred to as "dignity") hinders the prospect of using scientific methods to modify behavior for the purpose of building a happier and better organized society.

Beyond Freedom and Dignity may be summarized as an attempt to promote Skinner's philosophy of science, the technology of human behavior, his conception of determinism, and what Skinner calls 'cultural engineering'.

"Almost all major problems involve human behavior, and they cannot be solved by physical and biological technology alone. What is needed is a technology of human behavior. 

Skiiner wrote another book Walden Two, "an earlier novel in which Skinner depicted a utopian community based on his ideas regarding behavior modification. In Beyond Freedom and Dignity Skinner extends his argument for explicit cultural engineering of which Walden Two may be seen as an example."

Accordingly to Wikipedia, Noah Chomsky took a big swipe at Skinner's efforts to apply behavioral psychology to societal reform.  I'm not sure I'm accustomed to having him as an ally, but when a hard lefty like him and a RINO like me are going libertarian, well, hmmmm

I'm usually pretty dismissive of conspiracy theorsts, not being one of the those "black helicopter" Republicans thinking every meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations is a dangerous cabal.

But, sometimes people simply start getting out of hand. You know, the ol "slippery slope" idea.

Which is why I was a little unnerved by this article in Time magazine

How Obama Is Using The Science of Change

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama's campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. "BUT, BUT, BUT," deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama's GOTV operatives nationwide, "What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!"

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation's leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: "A Record Turnout Is Expected." ..

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed,......

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country.

Stop me for a second. Does the name "George Orwell" spring to mind?

Read the whole article. I want you to reflect then on the utter arrogance that pervades the concept that the American public are in need of what amount to behavior modification, not appeals to rational self-interest or national self-interest.  And that the answers to what is best for Americans are already known to the Obama administration.  Therefore, we must be conditioned to accept the pre-ordained answers.

Democracy. Who needs it. The voters might make mistakes. We'll deprogram them

  But Obama is no therapist changing individuals one at a time. He's an organizer trying to build community and inspire collective action through house parties and Facebook as well as rhetoric about shared values. In other words, he's trying to create social norms — behavioral change's killer app....

The research proves change can come about when it's easy and popular, but making it lucrative — or even mandatory — can make sure it happens.

Hmm, wasn't that why we got rid of King George III?

Now I acknowledge governments here and elesewhere have used pretty subtle and pervasive means to foster their agenda. But generally campaigns against drunk driving and for racial tolerance are means to promote already agreed upon social policies. Same with appeals to patriotism to bolster domestic support for a nation's foreign policy.

 What the Obama people here are seeking to do is a quantum leap forward and away from the concepts of individual liberty and representative government.  There's no political consensus on fixing entitlements or heath care or the energy system. And by seeking to impose social conformity on the "appropriate options", the Obama camp seeks to subvert the need to obtain the consent of the governed.   No wonder they've kept it all secret.

Time identifies this problem, and then adopts an "ends justify the means" defense.

  The idea of public officials, even well-meaning ones, trying to engineer our private behavior to produce change can seem a bit creepy.

But face it: Obama is right. Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary. Our health expenditures are bankrupting the Treasury, and most of our visits to the doctor can be traced to unhealthy behavior. We do need to change, and we know it.

  So much for debating what we ought to do.  Just follow what "The One" has decided is best.

I'm slightly familiar with the science of behavior modification, having a son who is on the autistic spectrum.  It's ironic that concepts like Applied Behavior Analysis are used to help children with an expressive disorder properly communicate their wants and needs.

The Obama Behavior Modification agenda is designed to prevent typical adults from communicating their needs and wants; since more and more choices will be taken away from us and replaced with a government approved "default option", and tremendous peer pressure brought to bear against those with undesirable nonconformist choices.

Now, if this didn;t leave you a little queasy, I refer one to Hot Air, and Ed Morrissey's fear that the Internet will now be legally subject to appropriation by the administration. 

The bill addresses the need to protect vital networks from cyber attack, but it gives a lot of power to the executive branch — perhaps too much power.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

World Wars I and II produced a wealth of acronyms, which, today, would be condemned as “politically incorrect.” At the top of our list is “FUBAR,” which rings truer with each passing week of Obama’s administration. America is fast becoming “F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition.” This great country, forged on battlefields, defended with the blood and lives of heroes, has been brought down on so many levels, so fast, all our heads are spinning.

From sea to shining sea, and from our southern borders straight up to Canada, the United States of America, thanks to “Team Obama,” is starting to look and feel a lot like a Blade Runner wasteland – a place where the occupants are dispirited, panicked and upended.

There is one consolation: the “occupants” referred to above includes disheartened and/or disillusioned Democrats. Any disillusionment on the Far Left is from Barack Obama’s stuttering on change. Not only are many moderate Democrats lachrymose over the loss of their life savings and pension plans (like the rest of us), they alone must live with the disgrace of being responsible for voting Obama into the White House. Talk about falling on your own sword!

The U.S.A. – our home – has steadily shifted from vibrant to monochrome, which began the moment Obama was sworn in as president. Almost immediately, his administration’s bailout mechanisms went into effect and plowed over the foundation of our country’s success and prosperity: entrepreneurship. For Obama, free enterprise apparently is out and “spreading the wealth,” as he stated to Joe the Plumber, is in, and in to stay. At the rate the Treasury is doling out our tax dollars, there soon could be zero wealth to spread around. The Land of the Free has become the perfect breeding ground for Marxism, because the “mandate” Barack Obama rode in on has morphed into a full-blown dictatorship over private industry (better known as employers).

Is Obama affected with Malignant Hero Syndrome (MHS), or is Rahm “a good crisis shouldn’t go to waste” Emanuel, the Wizard behind the political curtain, cursed with the more identifiable Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP)? What better analogy is there to describe the driving force behind Obama’s billions to trillions (and incomprehensible head-scratching) bailout decisions? A person with MHS sets up risky situations to create emergencies and then devises rescue plans with the aim of being a hero. MHS and MSBP are about personal gain, attention, prestige, and, to a large extent, power. It has turned out our speculation is not too far-fetched since now even leaders in the European Union are up in arms over Obama’s unbridled spending, and are proclaiming them as “the road to hell” (their words, not ours).

It’s ironic that this statement came from a part of the world where the masses once shouted Obama’s name in exultant adoration and swooned at the very sight and sound of him. Anyone heard worshipful shouts or seen any fainting lately?

Obama has confirmed he is no master of foreign policy or diplomacy. But then everyone knew that going in. Foreign policy is a matter of guesswork; and the object of diplomacy is to take the guesswork out a little at a time. To the American people’s unending chagrin, by coarsely shipping back the bust of Winston Churchill to England and then snubbing the British Prime Minister on his recent visit to Washington, Obama hacked out chunks of our alliance with our great sister nation. Thus, his presentation to the peoples of Europe that he is qualified to be a world leader was nothing more than a ham sandwich. Perhaps after a batch of useless DVD’s and an iPod, England will be singing a different tune.

It’s scarcely possible to over-exaggerate the unwieldy decisions springing from the White House, including that Obama has declared that the U.S. government will now be guarantor for all car warranties on GM and Chrysler products. Put more plainly, Obama is asserting government control over the auto industry, which is similar to the establishment of the Volkswagen (the “People’s Car”) for Germans. But that’s not all.

Amid the pomp, power and intrigue of this administration, and in the House and Senate, has come the news (on March 30, 2009) that North Korea has a missile ready to launch in early April. Add to this the breaking news (on March 31, 2009) that, soon, Washington will be a definite target for a terrorist attack, according to Baitullah Behsud, commander of the Taliban in Pakistan. 

These revelations must have the empty orbs swirling faster and faster about those proud shoulders within congressional chambers. The reality of a possible missile strike has caused our naval fleet and air forces to scramble defensively into certain areas of the Pacific region. There is no doubt in our minds that the news coming out of North Korea and from the Taliban are bitter pills the president and the Congress must not only chew on but eventually swallow particularly in light of Obama replacing the term “War on Terror” with “Overseas Contingency Operation.” One can’t help but wonder exactly how the Taiwanese will respond to an “overseas contingency operation” when China figures out, or already has figured out that, Obama is in over his head.

Obama stumped on his “hope and change” ideas, which were accepted without question by Democrats and liberals. Hope is a good thing, but it’s proving itself to not be everything for everyone. At the same time, the changes are crosscutting the American fabric of liberty, freedom, and equality. The years 2010 and 2012 may well end up being the last best hope and change for Republicans seeking to take back the Land of the Free and return it to its rightful owner: The People.

Americans of both major political parties – and all the others in between and on the fringes – are quickly waking up to this new America, realizing the lofty promise of hope and change is not quite what they had in mind. The truth for most Democrats is that “the f*cking they’re going to get is not worth the f*cking they’re going to get.”

by  Lance Thompson

I have never owned a car not built by General Motors in the continental United States.  My father used to sell General Motors cars, and owned everything from stately Buicks to flashy Corvettes.  So when Pesident Obama decided, first, to dump billions of dollars into General Motors, then to fire its CEO, and most recently to declare that it wouldn’t be so bad if the company went into bankruptcy after all, I had to look into it.  And because of my long association with the company, I was given a sneak peek at the many wonderful new products that will result from the Obama administration taking the helm.

Senator Ted Kennedy contributed a design for a wind turbine-powered limousine, the Schooner, which harnesses the power of the wind to propel the vehicle.  It takes a stiff breeze to activate the Schooner’s twelve-foot turbine, but the energy generated is stored in the Kennedy-patented “wind bag” until it is needed for propulsion.  The high-profile vehicle, with its sixteen-foot mast, is somewhat ungainly, but it is legal on all roads more than fifty miles from the Kennedy compound.  Naturally, the senator insisted on an amphibious option and a fully-stocked bar in the center console.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in keeping with her tradition of international diplomacy, will re-badge a Russian import for domestic sale.  The new Potahtoe is based on a successful Soviet tractor design from the 1960's.  It sports the largest rear wheels in the industy (84 inches), and its only marketing drawback is that It Takes a Village to push-start it.   The one-seater places the driver in a high, commanding driving position, and instrumentation has been simplified to one button whose label is still mystifying linguists.  The Potahtoe is admittedly a gas guzzler, but it can attain almost six miles per gallon if the optional plow is left at home.  As an additional inducement, buyers are encouraged to petition oil-exporting nations like Russia, Venezuela and Iran for fuel subsidies, as our State Department has legitimized begging as a viable foreign policy option.

Previously optional equipment will be standard on all models.  Satellite radio will provide the driver with a limited choice of programming–National Public Radio or audio rebroadcasts of “The View.”  Onboard navigation systems are also standard, although they will permit only left turns.  Vice President Joe Biden will compose all the new owners manuals, but it is expected that he will merely plagiarize the previous versions.

The president himself contributed a brave new design reflective of the new political realities.  The Obama Imaj takes advantage of new technology in several respects.  First, electronic amplifiers make the whiny hybrid engine sound like a powerful V-8.  Hologram projectors create the impression that the small economy car is actually a substantial vehicle.  Onboard video screens keep the occupants distracted from the paucity of quality features.  All in all, the Obama Imaj succeeds in making a lightweight seem eminently desirable.  

First lady Michelle Obama is in charge of marketing for the new company, and is convinced that her new slogan will drive people to the dealerships in droves: “For the first time in your life, you will be proud to be an American car owner.”

In the interests of improving fuel economy, Representative Barney Frank has designed the sleek new Loafer roadster.  As befits one of the central figures in the housing crisis, the shifty automobile has no rear-view mirrors.  But using lightweight composites and downsizing components in the car, Frank’s Loafer is the lightest in the inventory.  Its revolutionary nylon mesh seats alone are eighty-five percent lighter than conventional seats, but the open weave design means that the driver’s Fannie Mae be exposed.

Realizing that consumers may find some of these new technologies undesirable, Obama has taken steps to overcome resistance.  Instead of choosing your next car in the privacy of your own home, union representatives in six-man “marketing groups” will call upon you and, under the new “consumer free choice act,” counsel you to choose one of the new cars by the process of card check.  Test marketing has shown that 95% of consumers make the choice that the groups recommend, which means that only 5% of the sample requires hospitalization.

Admittedly, the cost of many new models may be off-putting, but Obama has already made arrangements to address that issue.  Anyone who buys a car he can’t afford may apply for a “personal mobility bailout” financed by taxing those who have recently bought cars they can afford.

Patrick Ruffini wrote a post on  Next Right  yesterday where he sees a golden opportunity for the GOP to gain some political ground by running on an agenda that includes healthy cuts in the size of government. He believes the GOP is "galivinized" to make cutting government by a third - back to 2007 levels - the centerpiece of a revival even if, as he realistically points out, not much will change given the huge advantage currently enjoyed by liberals in Congress.

It's an ambitious proposal and is predicated on the idea that people will reject the naked statism being advanced by President Obama and come home to the party of smaller government as a reaction to the bail-out culture as well as the heavy handed attempts by the Administration to gain outright control of companies like GM and AIG.

But will they? Obama still enjoys broad support among the American public and beyond that, you have to wonder how much people really care that government has instituted policies that are destroying the free market and limiting freedom. The small percentage who are paying any attention at all to what is happening in Washington will hear this by Obama and be satisfied:

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.

If the lie is told often enough, people will believe it - especially when the media doesn't think it's their job to call Obama out for his prevarications. Have you seen any article (outside of the Wall Street Journal and a few reactionary newspapers) or any news broadcast beyond a few CNBC and Fox segments that even discusses the possibility that what Obama is doing is nothing short of a government takeover of GM? If you can fire one CEO, hire another, force bankruptcy, and guarantee warranties, not to mention deciding which "changes" GM should make in their business plan, that sounds an awful lot like "running GM" to me.

But the average voter doesn't hear any of that. All they hear is the president standing up on national TV and solemnly proclaiming one thing while his Administration is blatantly doing exactly the opposite. The key to any good propaganda is to make the lie believable. And for the moment, the people trust the president to tell them the truth. Right now, people just aren't that upset with what is going on save the minority of us who are paying a little closer attention to what's going on in Washington. And don't forget, there's another minority of people paying attention who are supporting the President and urging him to do more. Liberal activists have only just begun to hold the president's feet to the fire and before all is said and done, America could potentially be a place that you and I wouldn't recognize from just two years ago.

Patrick makes this point in his post:

The end result of this agenda, the size of government at 2007 levels, may seem minimalist in any broad sweep of history, but it is galvanizing in a way it wasn't before because of the sheer scope of what's changed in six months. The yawning gap between where we are now and where we were two years ago gives conservatives an ambitious goal to reach for and a reason for being again, even if the end result is little change over time. And if we get a mandate to actually cut government significantly -- and I think the public mood will shift there in a few years if not sooner -- it might not be that much harder to cut it to below pre-Obama or pre-Bush levels because current levels are so out of whack that people would not be able to tell the difference between that and what the status quo was in the mid-2000s -- only that it is change.

Unfortunately, history is not on Patrick's side. The most conservative president in history couldn't shrink the size of government. The most conservative Congress in history barely made a dent in the size of government during the 1990's and then turned around and became the biggest spendthrift Congress in history. "Shrinking" the size of government to 2007 levels can't be done simply because it is not 2007 anymore. A great tide washed over the country last November and when it ebbs, no one knows where we will be. But there is an historical certainty there will be no road back the way we came. As powerful as the Obama wave seems to be today, even he cannot erase all the contours of what Reagan built many years ago. Similarly, if, as many suspect, Obama's victory was a transformational moment in history, the next wave of change cannot entirely undo what has been done by his Administration.

The game has changed. Nationalized health insurance is on the way, more top down solutions to education are being contemplated, wholesale changes to business and industry as a result of the green craze will be forced on the economy, the defense budget will be drastically cut, and that's probably only the beginning. Patrick believes the voter will rebel against these changes. That remains to be seen. But what is certain is that they won't turn to Republicans for the answers no matter how "galvanized" the GOP becomes.

For Patrick's proposal to succeed, the word "Republican" will have to be rehabilitated with the voter. The damage done to the party during the Bush years - as Patrick rightly points out - will not be fixed by simply reiterating what the party's message has been since LBJ's presidency. It won't be repaired by offering the same small government mantra no matter how much "big government" is screwing things up. Ruffini points to history to buttress his argument:

The Welfare State mentality of the '60s that created the conditions for 1980 and 1994 systemically excused bad behavior at an individual level, creating millions of individual tragedies. Obamanomics systematically excuses bad behavior at the wholesale macroeconomic level, creating a vicious circle of irresponsibility with major consequences for every American.

If nothing else, the first 70 days of Obama -- with an assist from the last 4 months of Bush -- has left government economic policy so off-kilter that it may take a decade or more to fix. Remember that exhausted to-do list? Not a problem any more.

For the first time in decades, Republicans could run on a platform of cutting government by a third and not seem wild-eyed or mean-spirited. When we talk about the dangers of governments running private businesses, we will have contemporary object lessons to teach with, not bogeymen that are decades old or oceans away. When we talk about getting the government out of our lives, more people will nod their head knowing exactly what we mean, having just footed the bill for bailout after bailout, instead of yawning or dismissing it as a non-issue as they did in the prosperous, laissez-faire post-Reagan America.

All of that would be true if the GOP wasn't totally and deeply discredited as a political party. The difference between 1980 and 1994 and the situation today is that in both those eras, Republicans were competitive across the country. Now, whole swaths of the United States are almost no-go zones for the GOP. Bereft of national leadership, having no counter-agenda that is accepted by the party regulars, and unable to escape the economic legacy of George Bush, Republicans have a lot of work to do in order to be taken seriously - even when they pledge to "shrink" the size of government.

And it isn't just the map that is the problem. Vital segments of the voting public have decisively rejected the party including the 18-35 age group and Hispanics - two groups who are growing in number and becoming more politically savvy at a time when the Republican social agenda is receding in importance to voters and on issue after issue a decisive advantage accrues to the Democrats. Couple this with the thought that Congressional districts will be redrawn in 2010 with a probable increase in Democratic seats as a result and you have not only problems with party ID but systemic hurdles to overcome as well.

Patrick is not talking about an opportunity for the short term but it is hard to fathom at this point where the GOP can begin to close the gap. Ruffini is attempting to reduce the online activism gap but that too is a long term project. Can these problems be overcome by running on a platform "We are not socialists?" In the end, I think Patrick expects too much of the voter, projects our own anger on to them when I am convinced it will take more than what Obama has done so far to rile them up.

What Patrick has latched onto is an illusion of opportunity. The people aren't ready. The party's not ready. The elected representatives certainly aren't ready for what he is proposing. And before we're through, history will have a say as well. For that, no one can predict what the outcome of Obama's assault on capitalism will be nor how well the GOP can respond given the limits imposed on them by their own stupidity and arrogance in the past.

One of the biggest reasons for the Right's decline in the Bush era is that we had long since completed most of the items on our to-do list. Low marginal tax rates? Check. The Soviet Union gone? Check. Welfare reform? Check.

This empty cupboard of ideas had led to progressively more minimalist Republican governing agendas and campaign platforms. If John McCain proposed any big, game-changing policy shifts in the last election, I must have missed them. It's true that Obama's ideas were not new either -- but he was able to sell them as "change" because they had been not tried in toto since the Johnson Administration, and people had forgotten how badly they had crashed on the rocks their last time out. Obama's central thesis -- that government ownership and central planning can outpace returns in the private market -- is actually very, very old. His playbook is that of FDR in 1933, Attlee in 1946, and Mitterand in 1981.

The effect on the Right even before Obama had been so corrossive that the institutional right was utterly incapable of offering any competing thesis of the economic crisis, leaving government ownership and bailouts as the only "appropriate" policy response. Even the previous Administration, made up of men of the Right, justified the bailouts -- and particularly the auto bailout that precipitated the White House putsch at GM -- as inevitable, "temporary," "emergency" measures.

Fast forward two months into the Obama era. Pro-forma denials of nationalization and socialism aside, the White House feels responsible enough for the insurance and automobile industries to dictate their management and maximum salaries -- the classic hallmarks of ownership. The Federal budget has swelled to $3.6 trillion, and revenues cover barely half the bill. To an extent probably never seen before in our history, there are no consequences for business failure, no consequences for individuals who took out loans they couldn't pay for, and no consequences for government that overspends.

The Welfare State mentality of the '60s that created the conditions for 1980 and 1994 systemically excused bad behavior at an individual level, creating millions of individual tragedies. Obamanomics systematically excuses bad behavior at the wholesale macroeconomic level, creating a vicious circle of irresponsibility with major consequences for every American.

If nothing else, the first 70 days of Obama -- with an assist from the last 4 months of Bush -- has left government economic policy so off-kilter that it may take a decade or more to fix. Remember that exhausted to-do list? Not a problem any more.

For the first time in decades, Republicans could run on a platform of cutting government by a third and not seem wild-eyed or mean-spirited. When we talk about the dangers of governments running private businesses, we will have contemporary object lessons to teach with, not bogeymen that are decades old or oceans away. When we talk about getting the government out of our lives, more people will nod their head knowing exactly what we mean, having just footed the bill for bailout after bailout, instead of yawning or dismissing it as a non-issue as they did in the prosperous, laissez-faire post-Reagan America.

The end result of this agenda, the size of government at 2007 levels, may seem minimalist in any broad sweep of history, but it is galvanizing in a way it wasn't before because of the sheer scope of what's changed in six months. The yawning gap between where we are now and where we were two years ago gives conservatives an ambitious goal to reach for and a reason for being again, even if the end result is little change over time. And if we get a mandate to actually cut government significantly -- and I think the public mood will shift there in a few years if not sooner -- it might not be that much harder to cut it to below pre-Obama or pre-Bush levels because current levels are so out of whack that people would not be able to tell the difference between that and what the status quo was in the mid-2000s -- only that it is change.

Though it has apparently triumphed, this is a dangerous moment for liberalism. Long-planned moves toward redistribution like universal health care or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts are being conflated with and to some extent elbowed aside by emergency nationalizations and Mr.  Geithner's experiments. The White House is not selling the de-facto AIG and GM nationalizations as such, because they know the stigma the S-word carries. It becomes harder to sell the long-standing liberal policy agenda as urgent and necessary when the Administration is busy putting out ten different fires first. And after Year One, it becomes exponentially harder for a new President to push wants instead of needs.

Meanwhile, it becomes easy for Republicans to point to real-life consequences of government control to nullify the entire Obama agenda. Screw ups like the AIG bonuses will inevitably happen and be magnified by the fact of government investment, and this will have a chilling effect on the public's view of interventionism more broadly in areas like health care. Barack Obama standing behind your new muffler will not be looked upon with warm and fuzzies in the years to come. The best case for Obama is that this time in history is seen as sober and necessary. But that's not a rallying cry and a movement-builder. The right will be galvanized to action by the theft of the free enterprise system. What will the left be galvanized by?