Wildman’s Hangout

Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” President Obama declared on Saturday. “This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money. … I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”

The president was referring, of course, to the Supreme Court decision that last week overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations. Like most of the criticism provoked by the ruling, his reaction was long on outrage and short on constitutional interpretation.

Which is weird, because the Court was interpreting the Constitution — in particular, the part that says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is hardly a leap to conclude that Congress violates this injunction when it passes a law that, as in this case, prohibits an activist group from distributing or advertising a documentary close to an election because the film portrays a candidate in an unflattering light.

The closest that critics of the decision came to a constitutional argument was their claim that the First Amendment was meant to protect the rights of individuals, not the rights of corporations. As a New York Times story put it, they argued that the Court “committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.”

For the record, I think intelligent extraterrestrials residing in the United States would be covered by the First Amendment. I am less sure about self-aware robots. But since the corporations at issue in this case are created and run by human beings, the Court did not need to address those issues. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, “The individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons.”

The 1990 precedent that the Supreme Court overturned in this case was based on the premise that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth … that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”

Yet the vast majority of corporations do not enjoy “immense aggregations of wealth” — they are either small businesses or nonprofit organizations like Citizens United, the conservative group that brought this case. Furthermore, the anti-distortion rationale would allow censorship of rich individuals as well as newspapers, TV shows, websites and books, since these are all produced by wealthy corporations.

Instead of addressing the merits of this dangerously misguided precedent, critics of last week’s decision, like censors throughout history, worried that freedom of speech would have bad consequences. “It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don’t,” Obama warned. “Any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time.”

It was a bit rich for Obama to bemoan the influence of “special interests” the same week Massachusetts voters expressed their anger over bailouts he enthusiastically supported, the week after he cut a deal that exempted union members from a tax everyone else would have to pay, around the same time he was bragging about a spending binge that has stimulated lobbying more than the economy and in the midst of his attempt to salvage health care legislation backed by big corporations.

In any case, democracy is a clash of interests, which we call “special” when we don’t like the policies they support, and the election-time “assault” of Obama’s nightmares is nothing more than public criticism of politicians.

Obama and other supporters of restrictions on political speech believe voters can’t handle clashing versions of the truth, that they need to be shielded, in the name of democracy, from messages that would otherwise mesmerize them into doing the bidding of “powerful interests.” The Framers thought otherwise, and that’s why we have the First Amendment.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network

source:  http://townhall.com/columnists/JacobSullum/2010/01/27/cover_your_ears

Posted By Bobby Eberle On January 28, 2010 at 9:10 am

Barack Obama has been on television so many times that it makes my head spin. From his speeches to Congress to his numerous press conferences, I just can’t take it. Most of the time, I simply read through the transcript later so that I can avoid all the smugness and arrogance. However, on Wednesday night, I decided to watch Obama’s State of the Union address live. Boy, was that a mistake!

Not only was Obama as narcissistic as ever, the speech was nothing like some pundits were predicting. Having faced stunning gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey and then the historical Scott Brown Senate victory in Massachusetts, those “in the know” speculated that Obama would move toward the middle. Wrong! The speech was the same old socialist rhetoric topped with a direct confrontation with members of the Supreme Court. There was no class at all… but should I have expected anything else?

It was truly agonizing watching for more than an hour as Obama extolled the need for jobs but only offered government as the solution. A job “created” by the government simply based on Obama’s proclamation that it is an “approved” job will only last as long as tax payers are paying for that job. Is that a real job? What about promoting an economic climate so that businesses can hire more people?

Obama railed against the spending, yet it was his socialist plan that exploded the budget and put more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. His proposal to “cut spending” after his massive spending is just silly. He talked about not wanted to burden a few generations of Americans with debt, but his policies have led to several generations being burdened.

As noted in the AP Fact Check on GOPUSA:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,” he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s.

Later in the speech, I guess Obama thought no one was listening or perhaps was trying his hand at stand-up comedy. He actually spent time blasting lobbyists and special interests. Completely amazing! This is coming from the man who hires lobbyists! The Democrat-controlled Senate is performing backroom negotiations with the aid of lobbyists and unions to craft the health care bill. Now he doesn’t like them?

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” He also said it’s time to “require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone.

One of the most stunning moments of the entire speech was when Obama addressed the members of the Supreme Court directly. I have never seen this before. He blasted their recent ruling on election spending by advocacy groups. Not only was this an extreme breach of protocol in my opinion, it was also wrong. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito couldn’t sit stone-faced while Obama went on and muttered the words “not true” to Obama’s attack.

In contrast to Obama’s “spend, spend, spend, government control, government control, government control all in the name of reducing spending and expanding freedom” speech, I invite you to study the Republican response given by nearly elected Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

His speech actually cited such forgotten principles as free enterprise, private job creation, and the limited role of government. It was so refreshing, especially after Obama’s speech.

I invite readers to add their comments and point out particular passages of the speech that caught their attention the most. There is just too much to go over in one column. For me, it was just an endless laundry list of spending… along with yet another blast at former President George W. Bush. Yes… Obama did the “blame Bush” thing again. Get over it already!

source:  http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=238

I bought a new Ford F-150 and returned to the dealer yesterday because I couldn’t get the radio to work.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated.

‘Nelson,’ the salesman said to the radio.

The radio replied, ‘Ricky or Willie?’
‘Willie!’ he continued and ‘On The Road Again’ came from the speakers.

Then he said, ‘ Ray Charles!’, and in an instant ‘ Georgia On My Mind’ replaced Willie Nelson.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I’d say, ‘Beethoven,’ I’d get beautiful classical music, and if I said, ‘Beatles,’
I’d get one of their awesome songs.

Yesterday, some guy ran a red light and nearly creamed my new truck, but I swerved in time to avoid him.

I yelled, ‘Ass Hole!’

Immediately the radio responded with, “Ladies and gentlemen,the president of the United States …”

Damn I love this truck……!!!!!………….

John Hawkins
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that so few Americans understand how our government works in the real world. Since that’s the case, most people simply aren’t capable of making an informed judgment about whether politicians can deliver on a promise. With that in mind, it seems like a good idea to go back to basics and explain what so many of us have already learned the hard way about the government.

Government can’t compete on even footing with the private sector: There’s a reason why you get better service at Wal-Mart than at the DMV. It’s no coincidence that FedEx makes a profit while the post office loses billions. Moreover, it’s no shocker that Enron and Lehman Brothers are gone, but FEMA and ICE are still around. It’s because the government can’t compete on an even footing with private industry. Unlike businesses, they don’t have their own money on the line, most of their employees advance based on seniority, not merit, and government agencies don’t pay a big price for failure. To the contrary, if a government agency does a lousy job, it just means it will probably get a bigger budget the next year. What it comes down to is that the only way the government can compete with a business is by outspending it or by rewriting the laws to make the business less competitive with the government.

Government action often creates more problems than it solves: People are always clamoring for the government to “solve” problems, but what they don’t understand is that when the government “fixes” one problem, it can often create another issue that may be even worse in the process. Our government’s attempts to “fix” one problem or another led to the length of the Great Depression, the destruction of the black family in America via welfare, marriages shattering across America because of no-fault divorces, gas lines in the seventies, the Savings and Loan crisis, and the current banking crisis that was caused by a government-created housing bubble. While the government is not the root of all evil, many of the worst problems we have as a society were exacerbated or created by the government in its clumsy attempts to fix some long forgotten mess. This is why government should be treated as a necessary evil, not a force for good.

It’s extremely difficult to shrink government: Our political system rewards spending money and punishes cutting spending. For example, if you create a 300 million dollar a year “Giving Fluffy Kittens to Orphans Program,” people will love you for it. Animal shelters and pro-orphan advocates will publicly laud you for your compassion while orphanages around the country will funnel campaign cash into your coffers. Meanwhile, if you bring up the cost of the program, most Americans will shrug their shoulders and say, “Ah, it’s only 300 million dollars.” However, if you suggest cutting 50 million dollars from the “Giving Fluffy Kittens to Orphans Program,” you’ll be accused of hating orphans and kittens while every orphanage in the country will be screaming for your blood. In other words, government spending is easy to get started, but difficult to stop. That’s why it’s wise to be very hesitant to create any new programs — because billions can be frittered away on useless debacles like Head Start that have proven to be nearly impossible to kill despite the fact that they don’t work.

Our politicians lack expertise: Many people seem to attribute almost super human abilities to our politicians, but the reality is far different. Most of the politicians in DC are bright people, but as a general rule, they have a very superficial understanding of the subjects their legislation impacts. How can we expect people who barely know how to use the internet to handle a subject as complex as network neutrality? How can we think someone who has worked in government all of his life can truly understand how much a new regulation may hurt someone running a small business? Moreover, given the length of bills that are being shoved through Congress and the fact that these bills are written in legalese, many of our legislators undoubtedly don’t even fully understand what they’re voting on half the time. Point being, even when members of Congress have good intentions, their lack of hands-on experience can lead to disaster.

The first priority of our politicians isn’t solving our problems: As the great Thomas Sowell has said:

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.

Getting reelected may entail lying about what a bill does, punishing people who don’t deserve it because it’s popular, rewarding special interests who may help your campaign, and promoting bills that sound good but don’t work. The sad truth is that politicians are often rewarded at the ballot box for pushing policies that sound good, but ultimately do great harm to the country. That’s all the more reason to limit the power of government as much as possible.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network

source:  http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/01/26/5_things_americans_need_to_understand_about_how_government_really_works

By David Limbaugh
January 26, 2010

The more painful exposure we have to Barack Obama — and we’re talking hyper-exposure at this point — the more we realize how narcissistic he is. Indeed, we are treated to this overexposure precisely because of his narcissistic impulses. He can’t keep himself out of the spotlight.

So it was that on the heels of his crushing personal defeat in the Massachusetts senatorial election last week, Obama’s principal reaction was, “This isn’t about me.”

When someone says that one time or a few times, you might believe him. But when he says it repeatedly (see below), you have to conclude he is protesting too much and means just the opposite.

Given what we’ve learned about Obama’s self-absorption, it’s not a stretch to infer that when he says “it’s not about me,” he wants to project an air of humility while receiving personal credit for that which he denies seeking credit. What he really means is, “The causes I am working on are greater than self, but — wink, wink — I darn well expect you to applaud me anyway, not just for my transcendent accomplishments but also for my being humble and selfless about it.”

The context of his “not about me” statement following the Massachusetts election bears this out. After the obligatory disclaimer, he added: “This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.”

Forget the distortions for now. But notice that he is seeking plaudits for his important work, which he’s willing to do even if it damages him in the polls. He also gets the added benefit here of deflecting blame for the defeat by implying the election results weren’t about him.

But make no mistake — to borrow another Obama phrase — health care is all about him (everything he says and does is about (SET ITAL) him (END ITAL)); it’s not about the Democratic Congress, though it’s complicit. He’s the one driving this train, even if not in the policy particulars.

His entire domestic and foreign policy agenda is so much about him that he insists on cramming it down our throats even though the polls overwhelmingly indicate that we Americans do not want it and, more importantly, that it is bankrupting this nation and making us less safe. That’s not selflessness. It’s self-indulgence and conceit to an obscene degree. He is so brainwashed in Marxist and appeasement ideologies that he continues to believe in their maxims in the face of their historical failure and of the miserable failure of his own agenda in the here and now. He is so convinced he knows better than we do what is in our best interests that he must thwart our ignorant will.

If it weren’t all about Obama, why would he say, “We (meaning I) are the ones we’ve been waiting for”? Why would he cultivate a messianic image, replete with echo-enhanced microphones, a grandiose Greek temple backdrop at Invesco Field, and that far-off and high-above look he has mastered for his ethereal orations?

Obama’s effort to present himself as otherworldly, of which the rhetorical device “it’s not about me” is but a part, is not something he just contrived in the past year. It’s part of a deliberate pattern he established long ago and has continued with consistency, as my research has confirmed in spades.

Consider this sampling:

–On Feb. 15, 1990, after becoming “the first black president of the influential Harvard Law Review,” Obama said, “I realized my election was not about me, but it was about us, about what we could do and what we could accomplish.”

–On Nov. 2, 2004, when Obama visited the campus of the University of Illinois during his campaign for U.S. senator, he said: “Ultimately, this election is not about me. … It’s about the willingness of our citizens to get engaged and get involved.”

–On Dec. 11, 2006, in a speech in New Hampshire, Obama said, “It’s not about me.” But, according to an NPR reporter, “it really is all about him.”

–On Dec. 10, 2007, Obama said, “This campaign is not about me; it is about the hundreds of volunteers … in Rhode Island … and the millions of people across the country who want change we can believe in.”

–On Dec. 14, 2007, when asked about a New Year’s resolution, Obama said he needed to keep reminding himself, “This is not about me.”

–On Aug. 28, 2008, Obama said in his acceptance speech, “This election has never been about me; it’s about you.”

–On July 20, 2009, Obama said (exactly as he repeated following the Massachusetts election): “This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.”

Whom do you think it’s about?

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

source:  http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dlimbaugh/2010/dl_0126p.shtml

Here are the winners:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus : A person who’s both stupid and an asshole.

3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6.. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high

8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.

9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

11. Karmageddon : It’s like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it’s like, a serious bummer.

12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

13. Glibido : All talk and no action.

14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you’ve accidentally walked through a spider web.

16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you’re eating.

The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.

And the winners are:

1. Coffee, n.. The person upon whom one coughs.

2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.

3.. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

4 esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.

5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.

6.. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.

7. Lymph, v.. To walk with a lisp.

8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.

9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.

10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.

11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.

12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.

13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.

14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.

15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men

John Hawkins
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Barack Obama’s first year in office was one long string of gaffes, foreign policy blunders, and domestic disasters strung together in a long, terrible line. Although it’s not possible to adequately catalogue every blunder in Obama’s first year in something shorter than a book, here are some of the many, many blaring lowlights that really stood out:

1) The stimulus that didn’t: The Democrats shoved through a stimulus bill that cost more than the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined. Why? Over and over again, they said “jobs, jobs, jobs.” In fact, the Obama Administration said that if the bill passed, they expected it to keep unemployment below 8%. Instead, unemployment hit a 26-year high of 10.2% in November.

2) Pyrrhic “victory” on health care: In one of the most nauseating displays of government “sausage making” in American history, the Democrats have used open bribery to push a wildly unpopular health care bill through both the House and the Senate. The Democrats are willing to trade tax increases, increased premiums, Medicare cuts, government-financed abortions, taxpayer-funded care for illegals, death panels, rationing, and reduced quality of care for a bill they believe will help move America towards socialism. However, this is turning into the Hindenburg of political bills and could very possibly cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the White House over the next couple of election cycles unless Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts and helps kill the bill deader than Lenin in the next few weeks.

3) Thanks for the help on the campaign. Enjoy your new company! In what may be the “crookedest” government deal since the Teapot Dome Scandal in the early twenties, Barack Obama broke legally binding contracts and spent more than 50 billion dollars in taxpayer funds to save union jobs at GM and Chrysler. When it was all said and done, the unions, which provides political shock troops for Democrats all across the country, ended up with more than 50% of Chrysler and almost 40% of General Motors. Jack Abramoff, Bernie Madoff, and Charles Ponzi together couldn’t have bilked as many Americans out of their money in a hundred years as Barack Obama did with this scam.

4) Obama lets you know what he really thinks about race: Barack Obama has been well served by letting his supporters play the race card for him while he keeps his hands clean. That way, he looks like a good guy, even while his friends and allies scream “racism” at everyone who gets in his way. However, the mask slipped on the Henry Louis Gates case and Americans got to see what Obama really thinks about race.

After admitting that he didn’t know all the facts, Obama accused the police of “stupidly” arresting his friend and then went on lecture everyone about the racism that surely had to be involved. It was Obama’s most revealing moment on race since he tossed his own grandmother under the bus even as he supported Jeremiah Wright.

5) Book ‘em, Danno! The decision to put 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on trial in New York is simply bizarre. No one in the Obama Administration has been able to give a coherent explanation for why KSM is being tried in New York while other terrorists are facing military tribunals. Why increase the chances of a terrorist attack in New York, give KSM the chance to spew propaganda in the court room, risk the release of sensitive intelligence data, and give a slick lawyer a chance to let Khalid Shaikh Mohammed off via a loophole? This is all doubly true since both Barack Obama and Eric Holder have assured Americans that KSM won’t be released, no matter what happens. That should help America’s image abroad — making a big show of putting a terrorist through our criminal justice system and then in essence telling the world it’s a sham trial that’s about as meaningful as the courtroom proceedings in North Korea or Cuba.

6) This is the most important fight ever! Here’s when we give up: Since Obama got into office, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has markedly deteriorated. General Stanley McChrystal gave Obama a plan to help turn things around, and after months of golfing, Obama got around to partially approving it — along with a timeline, explaining when we were leaving. Just after telling Americans how vital Afghanistan was, not just to America’s security but to the world, Obama then told the audience when we’d be starting to pull out, whether we won or not. After it became clear that the timeline had the potential to dramatically undercut support for the war, the administration backpedaled like they were training for the Tour De France, leaving everyone confused about where we really stand.

7) Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Al-Qaeda nipping at your nose: Isn’t it great to know that after all the obtrusive, annoying, and time consuming searches we have to endure at the airports, terrorists can still get on airplanes with explosives? Moreover, despite the fact that our government was given every warning that the Christmas Day Pantsbomber was a threat, not only did they manage to fail to connect the dots, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano declared that “the system worked” because passengers managed to thwart the terrorist attack. As if that wasn’t insulting enough, aggravating, completely ineffective new rules were implemented because of the attack, and after the Nigerian pants bomber was foolishly put into the civilian court system, he immediately stopped talking. Where’s Jack Bauer — or for that matter, Dick Cheney — when we need some adults to help protect our country?

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network

source:  http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/01/19/seven_lowlights_from_obamas_first_disastrous_year_in_office