I’ve said more than once in political discussions with friends that what we are seeing now is a bloodless revolution of sorts.

Not a coup d’etat, of course, but a revolution within the established parties, waged by the common man.

Provoked by the irresponsible passage of the “Stimulus” Bill and ObamaCare, the Big Bail-outs and, among other factors, the trillions of dollars of national debt which has obligated the children of today and those of generations as yet unborn, to pay the freight, the revelation arrived in the form of the Tea partyers and others, from both sides of the political divide, letting the politicians they elected know it’s time to type their resumes.

How? By voting out incumbents in the primaries, declaring their frustration with the old boy network of self seeking parasites on the Hill who squander the taxpayers’ money as though it were Monopoly money via spending the majority of voters of both parties do not condone.

Then, of course, a number of Democrats who were browbeaten or bribed by the Reid/Pelosi biumvirate learned very quickly that they had flushed their political careers down the tubes by ignoring the will of The People who, though they seem to forget, are their employers.

These on-the-way-out politicians are only the beginning, there is in progress a voter backlash the likes of which hasn’t been seen in my lifetime, and that, my friends, is the American system at work. It may take awhile for the American People to get it together, but what do you expect when the media, the public’s primary source for information, has become a propaganda unit for the far left?

As for the president, he, too, is experiencing a rude awakening, not only in the way his previously tame media, like rats abandoning a sinking ship, is going with the same popular opinion, to some extent, that has been placing as much blame for the outpouring of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, but also in the way certain members of his formerly agreeable congressional majority has, in an attempt to save their own skins in this midterm election year, begun to stand up to our self-styled king.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a $140 billion taxes and spending package in a resounding defeat for President Obama and Democratic leaders that signaled the era of freewheeling stimulus spending is giving way to greater concern for deficits.

Hours later, chastened Democrats produced a pared-down version they said spent less and found offsetting tax increases to pay for most, though not all, of the new measure, which includes unemployment benefits and aid to states.

“There are fewer dollars involved here, and it is more paid-for,” said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, acknowledging the 11 Democrats and one independent who sided with Republicans in blocking his first version. “We heard what those senators were saying and we have adjusted the amendment accordingly.”

Republicans said the vote - in which Democrats fell 15 votes shy of the 60 needed to allow for the overspending - marked a new attitude for lawmakers who are beginning to worry about debt and deficits as they prepare to face voters in November. It would have swelled the federal debt by $80 billion.

The whole thing.

Photo hat tip to The Voting Female.

Yup, and then into the oil patch, only this one a topical one, drilling pipe not included.

But don’t worry, Barack H. Obama, teeth bared and loins girded for combat, vowed during his Oval Office address to make ‘em pay, yes sir, make those evil knaves from British Petroleum pay through the nose, or else…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to compel BP Plc to pay the price for its “recklessness” in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and sought to harness public outrage over the disaster for a “national mission” to cut U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

“We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused,” Obama said in a televised address aimed at restoring confidence in his handling of the crisis before it further tarnishes his presidency.

Obama’s stern message for BP, delivered in a solemn tone, was a centerpiece of his high-stakes speech on the oil spill, which threatens to distract from his domestic agenda of reducing nearly double-digit U.S. unemployment and reforming Wall Street.

How forcefully Obama responds to America’s worst ecological disaster will have implications not only for the British energy giant but for the future of U.S. offshore drilling and for any hopes he has for rejuvenating climate change legislation stalled in Congress.

While urging Americans to “seize the moment” to break their addiction to fossil fuels, Obama’s appeal offered no detailed prescription for getting there and lacked a timetable for passing comprehensive energy legislation.

“Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”

I hate to be the harbinger of reproof, here, but… While George W. Bush was in office, all we seemed to hear from the left side of the aisle, between the ladies and gentlemen over there blaming Bush for everything under the sun, was of the vital need for America to drop everything and single mindedly concentrate on finding alternatives to fossil fuels before “it” was too late; Yet since the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate and got their fearless leader into the White House, there has been nary a peep about spending any money on that “vital” goal.

Instead, we’ve had unbelievable quantities of the taxpayers’ hard earned cash, much of it in debt instruments to be paid off by said taxpayers’ children, grandchildren and their issue and issue’s issue thrown at bank and brokerage bail-outs, the nationalization purchase of auto manufacturing companies and a “stimulus” bill that has stimulated nothing but the coffers of ACORN and various other friends of the Obama Administration.

Now, suddenly, as…

NEW ORLEANS – Scientists provided a new estimate for the amount of oil gushing from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday that indicates it could be leaking up to 2.52 million gallons of crude a day.

A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons of oil daily. The figures move the government’s worst-case estimates more in line with what an independent team had previously thought was the maximum size of the spill.

…comes to light, our dictator the president, who’s already stressing out under the pressure of two wars (he doesn’t acknowledge the war on terror, since that would mean also acknowledging that his friends and fellow Muslims are behind it), an inevitable, multi-state rout of DC Democrats, a pitched battle over illegal immigration (he’s for it, patriotic Americans are against it) and our collapsed economy, which includes rampant, depression era levels of unemployment, is striking out with a vengeance at the most visible target, BP, as though his onslaught might make the ongoing oil problem go away.

Speaking of unemployment, his infamous drilling moratorium and support of operations “elsewhere” is definitely “helping”, unfortunately not helping the taxpaying, voting Americans in Louisiana.

The six-month drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico will cripple Louisiana’s economy and leave thousands of families without income, particularly in coastal Louisiana, where one in three jobs is related to the oil and natural gas industry.

In Louisiana, oil and gas production can be divided into three industries – oil and gas extraction, refineries and pipelines – which in 2005 supported more than 15 percent of the total household incomes earned in the state.

Okay, how about a statistic or two?

How much oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico?

Around 33 percent of domestic oil in the United States comes through the Gulf of Mexico;

Eighty percent of the Gulf of Mexico’s oil and 45 percent of its natural gas comes from “deepwater” operations that occur in more than 1,000 feet of water.

How many jobs does the oil and gas industry provide in Louisiana now?

The Louisiana Department of Economic Development estimates that the active drilling suspension alone will result in a loss of 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the first two to three weeks;

The ban could cost Louisianans more than 10,000 jobs within a few months;

The state risks losing more than 20,000 existing and potential new jobs during a 12 to 18 month period, if the federal panel takes longer than six months to do their reviews and write their reports;

Coastal Louisiana, where one in three jobs is related to the oil and gas industry, services around 90 percent of deepwater operations in the Gulf of Mexico;

The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources estimates that an average of two supply boats per rig work every day with rates of $15,000 to $30,000 a boat, which means that suspension of drilling activity will result in a nearly $1 million loss per day in supply boat rental income. Each drilling rig job supports four other jobs in local communities.

On the other hand, the moratorium does seem to be of great help to both Brazil and the “infamous” George Soros, to whom the Democrats, knowing upon which side their bread is buttered, pay homage.

This one’s great, between their “controvesial” immigration bill and the more recent clarification bearing their governor’s signature that it is perfectly acceptable to run a business in America (or at least in Arizona) without being required to provide foreign language translators, those folks in Arizona are most definitely letting the more sheep-like states know where real Americans draw the line; and now, we have this:

From CNS News

Thanks to an advertiser who wishes to remain anonymous, cars and trucks on Arizona Highway 260 in East Central Arizona are driving by a billboard advertisement that recently went up, bearing President Obama’s face on a mock U.S. $100,000,000,000,000 (One-Hundred Trillion Dollar) bill.

The billboard’s caption: “But Who Will Pay the Piper?”

Chuck Perrine of Jones Outdoor advertising in Tucson, Ariz., confirmed to CNSNews.com that his company created the 10 ft- by-40 ft. billboard, which he said “went up within the last month.”

Perrine said the sign is located “near Linden (Ariz.),” but said that the advertiser is “not interested” in disclosing any further information about his identity–or his reason for purchasing the ad.

“I’m sorry, I can’t give you any information about the advertiser whatsoever,” Perrine told CNSNews.com Monday. “That’s part of his contract with us.”

The Office of Management and Budget in Obama’s White House estimates that the federal deficit this year will be 10.6 percent of GDP, making fiscal 2010 the first fiscal year since the end of World War II that the federal deficit has reached double digits as a share of GDP.

The billboard, which was rented for an undisclosed sum, will remain up for an undisclosed period of time, Perrine said.

Emphasis above is mine. A photo of the billboard is included in the linked article.

Go, AZ!

Speaking of billboards, the one at this IP is right up my alley, as well.

Today, instead of being the one doing the talking, I’ll leave it to two others, one a well known columnist, the other a fellow blogger.

The first one, which caught my eye (actually, both of ‘em) this morning, is by David Limbaugh, in which he delivers an adroitly thought out yet brief synapsis of why the socialism being forced on us by Obama and his leftist cronies hasn’t worked, isn’t working and –surprise — never will work.

Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion that no amount of logic, history or everyday experience registers. Thus, they continue to burden the market system to an unsustainable level.

Liberals have always denied they intend to unduly shackle the free market. They say America is exceptionally prosperous — though it never occurs to them why — and can afford robust entitlement and redistributive schemes. But in no way would they favor anything extreme that would push the market to the tipping point.

Well, now that they are completely in charge, we’ve seen what they will do. Obama liberals believe not in America’s promise (and Martin Luther King Jr.’s hope) of equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcomes. Truth be told, Obama probably believes in a wholesale reversal of wealth distribution: not just equalizing it, but making the wealthy poor and the poor wealthy. But I’ll leave the psychoanalysis to others.

Jumping a ways…

…It’s not that Obama has not focused enough on the economy because he’s been preoccupied with his agenda. It’s that his agenda is incompatible with fixing the economy because it is destroying the human spirit and its capacity for productivity, not to mention that it, and his method of implementing it, are wholly inconsistent with any powers the framers’ contemplated for the federal government.

Like Seth’s always saying: The greatest flaw in liberals’ agendas is that they never fail to go against the grain of Human Nature.

Read David Limbaugh’s entire column here.

The second one comes from Michael at Flight Pundit, and was his last post to date, from back in February (I hope he hasn’t decided to hang up his spurs). I found the blog while surfing this site’s blogroll, but anyway:

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

The chart that follows within and the post in its entirety are here.

…by way of a hypocrisy by the lying, corrupt scumball Mexican president.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as “racial discrimination” an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a “violation of human rights.”

But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Hey, liberals, how come we aren’t hearing any cries of “racist!” against the Mexican government? Is their law fairer than Arizona’s (which only actually mimics the federal law the U.S. Government was supposed to enforce but didn’t/hasn’t)? Or is your only true motivation your craving for the majority Mexican vote, and the American people be damned?

“This sounds like the kind of law that a rational nation would have to protect itself against illegal immigrants — that would stop and punish the very people who are violating the law,” said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law.

“Why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?” Mr. King said.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, described Mr. Calderon’s comments as “hypocritical to say the least.”

Hey, liberals! Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls!

…to the bank!”

The kerfuffle comprised of flying blame over the financial crisis goes on.

Depending upon whom you ask, and that depending upon their individual political agendas, the conclusion one could easily draw is that the private sector’s to blame and the public sector’s to blame.

Face it, though, the entire economic mess was triggered, if that’s the operative word, by unconstitutional government interference in the marketplace.

As congressional Democrats press on with their attempts to get financial legislation reform passed, a key component has been lacking from the debate: how to handle the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE).

Although some Republican lawmakers have cried foul over the fact nothing has been included in a bill sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), President Barack Obama’s administration has vowed to pursue reforming the GSEs … eventually.

However, despite a long history of alleged corruption, close ties to the current administration and a recent $10-billion extension of “emergency aid” to Freddie and Fannie in the deadest possible part of the news cycle, these two entities have gone relatively unnoticed by the news media, with a lion’s share of the spotlight given to Wall Street bogeymen like Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS).

Reporting on the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been almost nonexistent, particularly in the broadcast media. Since March 28, ABC, CBS and NBC put together only broached the topic of GSEs one time. But Goldman Sachs and the circumstances surrounding an SEC investigation were mentioned 37 times.

Even in the cable media, home of the 24-hour news cycle, when GSE-reform is discussed, it’s dismissed as some sort of Republican talking point or distraction.

As usual, the big government, regulation addicted side of the aisle kick started the problem.

Background: Freddie and Fannie ‘Proximate Cause’ of Crisis

Though the attention has been lacking, there is a strong to be made that these government-sponsored enterprises are at least somewhat, if not largely, culpable for the economic crisis.

According to the “Financial Services Committee Republican Plan for Reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” posted on March 26, it’s not just the collapse in housing these GSEs are responsible for, but the entire economic crisis.

“The evidence is clear that the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – specifically, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were the proximate cause of the economic crisis,” the Republican plan explained. “Ultimately supported by the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Fannie and Freddie permitted their executives, investors, and creditors to make outsize profits when times were good, but stuck taxpayers with the tab when the housing bubble burst. Fannie and Freddie’s access to cheap capital and the taxpayers’ pocketbook helped run up housing prices to unsustainable levels, while crowding out lenders and investors who could not afford to compete against these government-sponsored juggernauts.”

Howsomever, there appeared to have been some hanky panky going on, of, as they say, an unsavory nature.

For example, there’s the chain of shenannigans brought to us courtesy of Goldman Sachs, wherein they’re accused of capitalizing in less than forthright fashion upon markets broken by the onslaught of federal buttinskyism.

A Senate showdown has put Goldman Sachs’ defense of its conduct in the run-up to the financial crisis on display before indignant lawmakers and a national audience. Democrats hope it also builds momentum for legislation, now before the Senate, to tighten regulation of the nation’s financial system.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein testily told skeptical senators at a hearing Tuesday that clients who bought subprime mortgage securities from the Wall Street powerhouse in 2006 and 2007 came looking for risk “and that’s what they got.”

The Senate investigative panel alleges the firm bet against its clients — and the housing market — by taking short positions on mortgage securities, and failed to tell them that the securities it was selling were very high risk.

Naughty, dudes and dudettes at Goldman Sachs, if these allegations are indeed true.

One rather impissening revelation, if it is indeed a revelation, are the series of not-all-that-good accusations and the resulting investigation into my own former bank (no, I didn’t own it, per se, just had lots of money in it before it was absorbed by Chase as it began sinking to Davy Jones’ Locker).

Of course, the below ABC News account is a bit on the bursting-with-enthusiasm side of things.

In an incident that critics view as emblematic of rampant greed at Washington Mutual, a remix of that song — with the lyrics changed to “I like big bucks and I cannot lie…” — was performed at one of the company’s lavish annual retreats years before it became the largest bank to fail in U.S. history.

Every year the bank would hold huge parties in exotic locales to celebrate its mortgage originators who created the most loans — the same high-risk loans that would ultimately prove to be the company’s undoing.

At the 2006 retreat in Kauai, a group of employees performed a “tribute” to the event’s honorees. To the tune of the 1992 hit “Baby Got Back,” the employees came out on stage and started rapping, “I like big bucks and I cannot lie / You mortgage brothers can’t deny / That when the dough roles in like you’re printin’ your own cash / And you gotta make a splash / You just spends/ Like it never ends / Cuz you gotta have that big new Benz…”

At a retreat in Maui the year before, NBA Hall-of-Famer Magic Johnsonwas the emcee. “President’s Club,” Johnson told the gathering. “It’s kind of like the NBA All-Star game. Everyone there is an All-Star.”

But on Sept. 25, 2008, collapsing under the weight of these now-toxic loans, Washington Mutual — with over $300 billion in assets, $188 billion in deposits, and 43,000 employees – was seized by federal regulators and sold to JP Morgan Chase for $1.9 billion in the largest bank collapse in the country’s history.

For the past year the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by chairman Carl Levin and ranking member Tom Coburn, has been examining Washington Mutual’s collapse as part of a probe into the financial crisis.

What they have found is widespread fraud. The investigators have said that Washington Mutual engaged in fraudulent lending practices for years leading up to its demise.

I must admit that as we entered the mortgage quagmire, WaMu bank officers were being encouraged to push those loans any way they could, and one branch manager I know told me that there were generous bonuses being paid to help things along.

All the while, the bank was selling its toxic loans into the market: not only were some marred by fraudulent information, but others were ones that the bank believed would likely go bad. Still, the company did not alert the securities’ buyers about the looming problems. In fact, the bank even boosted compensation for its loan officers who sold higher-risk loans: the faster the speed and the greater the volume, the bigger the payday a loan officer would earn for the sales.

The entire article on Washington Mutual is here.

Any way you look at both sides in this, it is profoundly disconcerting.

We hear more and more about the pushing of the Value Added Tax by the kommies in our midst, who thing every working (or spending) American is a mere cash sponge to be wrung out without mercy in order to finance the ever-increasing monetary demands of a socialist country.

Recently, progressives have made noise about introducing a value-added tax (VAT) in the United States. The VAT is an indirect tax — that is, Americans wouldn’t pay the tax directly to government, but would pay it to businesses as part of the retail price of things we buy, and businesses would then remit the tax to Uncle Sam.

A VAT is set at a fixed rate — say, 10 or 15 percent — added to the price of a good at every step of production, with a deduction allowed for the amount of VAT paid during earlier stages of production. The more steps there are in transforming raw materials into complex consumer goods, the higher the resulting consumer price as a result of those multiple layers of taxation.

Many countries have VATs, including Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. One might say that a VAT is an emblem signifying that a country’s government consumes a large percentage of its GDP, for VATs seem to go hand-in-hand with big-budget nanny states.

The reason for this phenomenon is simple: Any government that seeks to be all things to all people, and therefore seeks to spend ubiquitously, must inevitably seek to tax ubiquitously. Such governments have insatiable appetites for revenue. Because VATs are cash cows, diverting huge sums of money from consumers to government, they are favorites of big-spending governments.

Unfortunately, though, VATs have significant negative economic consequences.

Because they inflate consumer prices, quantities demanded fall. Most often, the marginal buyers who can no longer afford to pay the higher price are poorer citizens. When government policy raises
prices, the first victims are poor people.

The second victims of a VAT are the workers who will lose their jobs as a result of falling demand for the newly higher-priced goods.

Many affluent Americans may not curtail their consumption, but because more of their money is diverted to the government treasury, their savings must correspondingly decline. This results in decreased capital accumulation, which, in turn, slows business expansion, development, and formation. It also slows the growth rate of labor productivity, hence retarding economic progress for workers.

Read on.

These leftists, who have no respect for the Constitution nor for the intentions of our founding fathers, and who certainly despise the very principles that define the United States of America, would love to watch our nation come apart, sinking into an abyss of socialism…

…and as a bit of lagniappe, let’s finish with an excellent and unrelated column by Wesley Pruden.

…of the ObamaCare vote, which at this point seems to be one of the few things that stand between what America was founded and then succeeded as, and its tragic transformation into a socialist state, I ran across this article by Robert F. Turner.

As a scholar who has studied and revered the Constitution for more than four decades, watching the behavior of our Congress in recent years has been all too often a depressing experience. One wonders whether some legislators have even bothered to read the Constitution, or if the problem is they simply don’t care about the oath they took to support it.

While doing research for my doctoral dissertation many years ago, I had the pleasure of reading extensively from the Annals of Congress, notes from Cabinet meetings of early presidents, and a great deal of other historical material while seeking to understand portions of our Constitution. In the process, I found myself marveling both at how remarkably well-read the Framers were - encountering frequent references to the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Vattel, and other prominent 17th- and 18th-century thinkers - and also at the high principles repeatedly expressed by members of both political branches of our government when novel issues surfaced.

The pedigree of people we elect to Congress has evidently changed.

Sadly, the latest parliamentary shenanigans in the House, to pretend that the Senate health care bill has already been signed into law so that the (non)law can be “amended” immediately to secure enough House votes for passage, is but par for the course. It is no better than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attempt to use Congress’ rule-making power to deny future Congresses their constitutional right to repeal or amend a previous law by majority vote. Section 3403 of the bill passed by the Senate provides: “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The Constitution can’t be changed by statute, and it certainly can’t be changed by amending House or Senate rules.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution sets forth detailed requirements for the making or amending of a law, specifying that “Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary” shall be presented to and approved by the president (or enacted over his veto) - so as to prevent unprincipled legislators from bypassing the procedural necessities by the kind of semantical chicanery currently being contemplated by House leaders.

Mr. Turner finishes the column in spot-on fashion.

At some point, if we are to have any chance of preserving our magnificent Constitution, the American people are going to have to start saying “no” and holding legislators accountable at the polls for violating their oaths of office. The senators and representatives we elect were intended to be servants of the people, not a special class of aristocrats empowered to rule our lives while remaining aloof from the very laws they enact. Writing in Federalist No. 57, James Madison assured the American people that one of the checks against legislative abuse of power was that Congress could “make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” One can only wonder what the Obamacare vote would be if it applied to members of Congress and their staffs.

After nearly four decades of watching our elected representatives flout their solemn duty and evade the burdens they impose upon the rest of us, I have finally concluded that the time has come to start voting against incumbents who behave as if they are the rulers rather than the servants of the American people.

Me, I’d vote ‘em all out, Left, Right and Independent and elect all Senators and Representatives from among candidates who have never held political office before and impose term limits — one single 6 year term, thus eliminating any ambitions for reelection, leaving them focused solely on their duties as representatives of the will of their constituents, the folks who put them in office.

We haven’t posted for a month, but between Wolf’s current activities, Chuck’s maritime indulgences and my own incumbent issues, well… My apologies, and hopes that these intervals between posts are able to return to pre 2008 levels really soon…

…The course on the front burner today is obviously the ObamaCare debacle, which is summed up pretty well by Wesley Pruden.

Being me, I’ve gotten into debates of sorts with a number of people who have been either undecided (not unusual, considering that the very template upon which the entire government-run healthcare equation is based is a virtual labyrinth of contradictions and blank checks interwoven with the seeds of stealth legislation, promoted as “good for us” by a media which is as ignorant about the technical details of the whole thing as most of us) or sort of decided.

My way of talking about the issue is, I think, pretty simple.

The vast majority of Americans would rather have small government and keep more of their hard earned money. They want quality medical care and the choice of where to obtain it.

Passing ObamaCare, or any federally managed health care legislation, would be the equivalent of uploading software into your computer that contains a few dangerous and irradicable viruses.

It would install a permanent, ever-growing chain of bureaucracies inside our government, scoring an instant and lasting victory for the tax-and-spend socialists on the far left, essentially transforming the United States of America into a socialist country.

Obama, Pelosi and their ilk are willing to sacrifice the careers of a score or more Democrats on the Hill, decimate their own party for the next decade or so, just to force this single bill on us because it will, if enacted, provide that “change” Barack Hussein promised during his campaigning days — a 180 degree change, as a matter of fact, one that would make America as we know it disappear for all time.

I’m serious, folks. Even a “far right” majority would be stuck with the system — unable to reverse the legislation, they’d be tasked with maintaining it, feeding it, expanding it to keep it alive while it sucked the blood from the U.S. taxpayer and destroyed a successful private sector run healthcare industry that only a marxist with a political agenda could call “a failure” with a straight face.

The only response by Republicans in Congress to government run healthcare should be NO! NO NEGOTIATION, NO CONSIDERATION, NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE, PERIOD! MOVE ON!

But no, the GOP still address the issue as a valid topic of discussion, which it is not — remember, we are governed by The Constitution, and therefore government run healthcare is not, legally, even supposed to be on the board.

Now, we even find, the lefties are seeking ways to get around the rules in order to get their agenda passed.

If the GOP allows this legislation to pass in any way, shape or form, they will have failed not only every conservative in the nation, but every American.

…or at least that’s the impression I get.

Government regulators threatened to remove top Bank of America executives if they backed out of a buyout of failing brokerage giant Merrill Lynch, and offered to provide taxpayer funds to compensate for Merrill’s poor performance, according to company records obtained by The Washington Times.

Well!

“It’s highly unusual for a government agency - let alone a Treasury secretary and a Fed official - to virtually order a company to do something like this under threat of removal,”said Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at the Boston University School of Law. “It raises a fascinating question which is, if you’re Bank of America and you have a shareholder’s interests paramount in your mind, what is your liability if you go against those interests in the interests of the country?”

I don’t really see this as being in the interests of the country, more in the interests of the Obama Administration which, much as I hate to say it as I’ve always believed in supporting the President, whoever he might be, but I draw the line at Obama. I believe that electing him was a mistake of the highest order, one I think will even be acknowledged as such, eventually, by the majority of the voters responsible.

Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch - and the government’s role in the deal - are the subject of a hearing Thursday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Bank of America executives said they were told their top brass would be fired if they attempted to renegotiate their bid for Merrill by declaring what’s known as a “material adverse change” (MAC) - a clause in their acquisition agreement that would allow them to walk away or renegotiate the price in light of Merrill’s mounting losses.

“The Treasury and the Fed strongly stated that if we were to invoke the MAC clause and fail to close this transaction, they would remove the board and management due to the risk we would create in the system,” according to draft talking points prepared by company attorneys for Mr. Lewis ahead of a Dec. 22, 2008, board meeting.

Bank executives say financial regulators assured them that taxpayer money from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout fund was available to compensate them for Merrill’s disappointing fourth-quarter financial results if they followed through on the deal.

Hmmmm, TARP… wonder where they get the money for that?

If I’m not mistaken, I think some well heeled guy who never runs out of money is treating the government to that one, um, a dude by the name of Joe Taxpayer.

Anyway, Tarp’s available to compensate them for Merrill’s disappointing failure to perform for their clients and shareholders fourth-quarter financial results.

Der Kommissars have spoken.

Step right up! We got Obama, we got czars, we got kommissars…!

UPDATE

Speaking of TARP…