Nero Fiddles as Our Country Slips Away

We are witnessing the disintegration of the great idea espoused by our Founding Fathers and, they hoped, protected for all time by the structure and limitations set out in our Constitution. They pledged and risked "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to achieve this country and this Constitution.

Those statesmen were well aware of the failings of democracy – and of the short-lived nature of the ones that had risen and fallen throughout history. They were determined that this would not happen to the United States of America, a place where personal freedoms and private property would be protected by limitations on government, and where every man would have the opportunity to succeed or fail on his own merits and the vicissitudes of Lady Luck.

But it is happening; we are going the way of all the others, and the main reason we are is that so many people decided that they were smarter and knew better than the men we call the Founding Fathers.

The downhill slide probably began when the smart people decided we should tax away the fruits of men’s labors and redistribute that wealth among those who failed or who refused to engage in an honest occupation. Without these revenues, there would be no welfare for able-bodied people and no monster government. There is no point in advocating an anti-income tax crusade, but a simple flat tax combined with greatly reduced government and reduced government spending would go far in getting us back to our roots and regain that which made us great.

The ridiculous idea of a “Super Committee” and its predictable failure shows all who care to see that most of our legislators and others in government service are more committed to keeping their jobs and keeping their benefits and their opportunities to profit at our expense – than in serving the public. I have long opposed term limits, but the corruption and utter failure of our government has changed my mind.

Super Committee Proves Point for Term Limits

By Bill Tatro 11/23/2011 Townhall

If there was ever a case for term limits, the actions of this past week have certainly demonstrated that now is the time.

Twelve Senators and Congressmen were asked to not make budget cuts, but to simply slow down the growth rate of government.

The greatest con is that a budget increase of 10% reduced to 7% is considered a 30% reduction in growth.

The growth, however, is still 7%.

The attitude exemplified by all these politicians of both parties is one of entitlement, which explains why nobody wants to do anything that will rock their boat. Just imagine if you were an elected official.

You would be entitled to pension and healthcare benefits that are far superior to the benefits available to the very same citizens that you govern. You would be able to access inside information and buy stock based upon that information, thereby dramatically increasing your net worth.

You can buy a useless piece of land, and based upon your decision and your special committee, create actions that will make that land worth a fortune.

You can buy IPOs related to companies whose future is predicated upon your public statements and influence.

All of these things would send anyone else to jail.

As Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes said, “It not illegal, but it certainly isn’t right.”

When presented with all the benefits of nationally elected officials, why would anyone want to leave public office?

Thus, in my opinion, any decision by the twelve super committee members was not done for the benefit of this country, but simply for the twelve’s own self interests.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Any twelve people who did not have a personal vested interest would have been able to accomplish the assigned task.

Most likely, here’s what they would have done. On the revenue side, institute the jobs repatriation act which states that all corporations pay a flat 20% tax. No loopholes. There, revenue is done.

On the spending side, all increases to the federal budget frozen for the next three years, with a 3% increase to offset inflation.

There, spending is done.

The combined total of these measures would far exceed the $1.2 trillion which was sought after.

Why was this so easy?

Because the twelve members in my committee weren’t running for re-election; instead they just proposed the right thing.

Term limits, the time has come.

Connect the Dots, Obama and Occupy Mobs

It's amazing that so few in the media have connected the dots between Obama and the "Occupy" thugs. Fact one: Obama led an Occupy Chicago group in 1988 which invaded a bank and broke into a meeting there. Fact two: the various "Occupy" movements started up immediately after Obama began his reckless "blame the rich" campaign. Fact three: the "Occupy" movements are an exact example of the methods taught by Saul Alinsky, a mentor of Obama. Fact four: Obama and leading Democrats like Pelosi and Reid have praised and supported the "Occupy" groups.

Even Chris Matthews, who once famously said he felt a thrill down his leg whever Obama spoke, has had enough of this demagogue.

Panicked AP Attempts to Memory-Hole Democrats’ #Occupy Endorsements

John Nolte Nov 18th 2011 Bigjournalism.com (Breitbart)

Occupy Wall Street’s imploding, Obama and the Democrats own the chaos, and now the AP is panicking.

But first a little context…

Something happened this month that the mainstream media and the Left (but I repeat myself) never expected. Two months ago, the White House, Democrats, and the MSM were all sure that the #OccupyWallStreet movement would save them in 2012. With thousands of astro-turfed morons in the streets raging against Wall Street, Obama’s allies hoped to use said morons to create a silver lining in the economic cloud he himself created.

Obama "We are on their side" Drudge report

The plan was a simple one. The path to Obama’s second term requires that enough voters forget that our current economic woes are the fault of a failed President who enjoyed two years of having every single item on his wish-list passed by Congress. And so the idea was to create Occupy in order to give the MSM the cover they desired to spend every single day up until the election talking about greed and income inequality in order to blame both for the stagnant economy.

The hope was that by repeating this message incessantly, enough voters could be convinced that Wall Street, and by extension, evil Republicans, were to blame for our chronic unemployment, record deficits, and stillborn economic growth. President Obama who?

Fortunately for America, this plan has not only failed miserably it has backfired completely. Thanks to the rise of New Media and our unwillingness to let the MSM’s lies, bias, and cover ups stand for even one more day, Occupy is in its death throes and might take the President and Democratic party down with it. First and foremost, we uncovered the lie that Occupy was grassroots and then we exposed every Occupy rape, poop, death, overdoese, old woman thrown down the stairs, attack on a police officer, and public act of masturbation. In the process, public opinion turned against the Occupiers and as a result these Leftists have started doing what the Left always does when they lose, have a tantrum.

But like I said, the Left and their media allies didn’t expect New Media to own this story and to use the truth to drive the narrative out of their control. And we know they didn’t expect to lose this one because almost every prominent Democrat in America very publicly jumped aboard the Occupy movement with the expectation that their allies in the MSM could control the outcome.

Well, now Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are way out on a limb and have been caught in bed encouraging, endorsing, and attempting to legitimize a wildly unpopular movement most voters now find repulsive.

So what’s a shameless left-wing media to do?

What they always do. Rewrite history.

And it looks as thought the Associated Press has decided to start the memory-holing with the following:

Democrats See Minefield in Occupy Protests

NEW YORK (AP) — The Republican Party and the tea party seemed to be a natural political pairing. But what may have seemed like another politically beneficial alliance — Democrats and Occupy Wall Street — hasn’t happened.

Insert record scratch here.

Sorry AP, but the only reason Democrats see a minefield is because they’re standing in it.

Democrats such as…

…House Democrats. And look, the story about House Democrats endorsing Occupy is an AP story!

…Top Democrats.

…Nancy Pelosi.

…A President named Obama, who said of Occupy, “We are on their side.”

…The SEIU.

Need I go on?

When the AP matter-of-factly (the most effective way to propagandize) states that this natural alliance “hasn’t happened” … they are lying. The alliance between Occupy and prominent Democrats occurred weeks ago and as one honest Democrat, Doug Schoen, put it just today:

Thursday’s coordinated Occupy Wall Street “National Day of Action” is bad news for the Democratic party, and bad news for President Obama.

But is it really bad news for Democrats when they have the corrupt MSM already out there shilling for them and pretending this solidarity never happened?

Well, maybe it is. If the slow motion implosion of Occupy has taught us anything it’s that the MSM doesn’t have the power it once had to control the narrative. New Media won this one and maybe New Media can can also win the battle of reminding voters of just who it was who ran out to endorse, encourage, and attempt to legitimize vandals, poopers, rapists, and public masturbators.

A Radical Plan To Solve the US Housing Crisis

Every thinking person recognizes that the housing and unemployment crisis we are in is not easily solvable, with almost half of all homes under water, with new home construction at a standstill, and with home prices continuing to fall. Most people realize also that home construction is an important component of employment. We will not get out of the overall economic crisis we are in until the housing crisis is over.

I am a strict Constitutionalist, but I recognize that in time of war we need to do things that violate our Constitution. I also believe that people who work and save and plan should not have to support people who are suffering through their own folly or recklessness, but the housing crisis is bringing us all down; I am prepared to set aside my lifelong beliefs in the face of this catastrophe. I support a radical plan called ReMortgageAmerica, developed by an organization of the same name headed by an economist, Dr. Dennis Paulaha.

Although his plan is risky and smacks of socialism and almost unthinkable actions by the U.S. government, I believe it is the only way to avoid further catastrophe. We are seeing in the various “Occupy” movements the beginnings of violent revolution. Revolutionary thinking is needed to head it off. You can get more information about the plan at ReMortgageAmerica.com

“The Plan:

The US government offers every US citizen a 30-year mortgage at a 1% fixed rate of interest, with interest-only payments for the first two years. All financially qualified US citizens, not just those in immediate danger of default, would be able to finance a new or existing primary residence, with a $500,000 lifetime limit.

The reason for the plan:

Government programs have had a tremendous impact on big business. But the “trickle down” effect has not worked. Implementing this 1% mortgage rate for the people adds a “trickle up” boost to the economy because people will be able to spend and save more, and it is consumers who are the real job creators. The decline in net worth, wealth, and America’s standard of living will be reversed. Most important, the dignity and self-esteem of the American people that has been lost will be regained.


Why the plan will create jobs: It will let the people save and spend more.

When the US Government refinances a 4% mortgage at 1% and you pay only the interest for two years, it will cut the monthly payment on a $180,000 loan from $859 to $150 a month. That is an extra $709 a month! An extra $8,512 a year! For two years. Money you can save or spend. (Minus some additional taxes due to a smaller interest deduction.) After two years, if you have a 30 year mortgage at a 1% fixed rate, instead of 4%, your monthly payment on a $180,000 loan is $614 instead of $859. That is an extra $2,940 to save or spend every year for the length of the mortgage.

Why the plan will save homes:

It will stop home prices from falling.
It will stop people from walking away from “underwater” mortgages by making their mortgage payments less than rent, which will prevent many foreclosures and turn the housing market around. We believe this plan will increase home values, which will offset some of the financial losses experienced during the past years and help stop foreclosures.

Why the plan will eliminate the debt:

It will eliminate the federal debt in 10 – 15 years. This is a government loan program—not an increase in government spending—which means the money will be repaid. Plus, the economic expansion it generates will increase federal and state revenues while decreasing federal and state spending on unemployment and welfare. And taxpayers will have a smaller interest deduction, because they will pay less interest on their mortgages. Annual deficits will turn into surpluses of $1 trillion to $2 trillion a year, which will eliminate the $15 trillion debt in 10 to 15 years if all the extra money is put toward the debt and not spent by Washington.

The bottom line:

US citizens deserve and need this plan.
The American people who helped build this country deserve and need a plan like this—a plan that will help them directly while also stimulating economic prosperity, just like the GI Bill after World War II that gave returning veterans the opportunity to purchase a home at a low mortgage rate and virtually no down payment. In fact, the GI Bill is the model for this plan, because it was the GI Bill, not World War II, that ended the Great Depression and created the greatest era of expansion and prosperity in American history. Today, as then, the purpose of a plan focused on people and housing is not only to end a long-lasting recession, but to create prosperity that will last for decades.“

Listening to Rush Limbaugh Less and Less

I have listened, almost religiously, to Rush Limbaugh since 1988, and I have long been one of his greatest admirers. I even used to arrange my teaching schedule with more early morning classes so I could be free to listen to more of his 12:00 noon to 3:00 PM broadcasts.

When I first discovered Rush it was a revelation to hear someone so articulate express political views that coincided with mine at a time when all you saw on the networks and read in the newspapers were asinine liberal views. It has also been wonderful to hear him occasionally launch into a passionate expression of patriotism and of the extraordinary exploits of many American heroes. I love my country and understand its greatness and history; in the face of so many ignoramuses who wish to tear it down, Rush has often brought tears to my eyes with his monologues that honor America.

Things began to change for me when Obama became president. Don’t misunderstand me; I agree completely with Rush that Obama has been a disaster as president, and that this country will not survive another Obama Presidency, but the constant Obama-bashing on Rush’s program has begun to wear very thin. This has been compounded by Rush’s support and making excuses for certain conservative Republican candidates, no matter how stupid they sound. This came to a head for me this week when Rush tried so hard to excuse Perry’s 53 seconds outage – an episode that I believe has ended his candidacy.

Of course, there has been a big change in how I get my information since I began with Rush. I have the internet, and I can hear both sides on Fox News now. I will still tune in to Rush occasionally, but my dependence on him is over.

If you don't understand, shut up

When you fight them in court and you lose, they have the deck stacked so you have to pay for their lawyers, so I guess one of the best ways to fight these trouble-making meddlers who have too little to do with their time is to ridicule their more outlandish protests.
I agree with the comment made by Winston Churchill, "Whether you are a believer or a non-believer, it is very wicked to rob others of hope". In other words, if you don't understand, shut up.

Oppressing the Atheists Among Us

By Lincoln Brown 11/11/2011 Townhall

Amendment I of the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists. The ADF has a story on the matter. At issue: whether or not memorial crosses can remain along Utah’s roadways. The crosses mark the places where Utah Highway Patrol Troopers sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. One such cross stands about 90 minutes from where I am writing this. Another is about 15 minutes away from my house, and was erected by the family of a sheriff’s detective who died in a helicopter crash while searching for a missing woman. I knew him. He was a good man, a good cop, and had a wickedly dry sense of humor.

What had the American Atheists so indignant was the notion that the crosses amount to a government endorsement of Christianity as they are located on small plots of public land. The atheists have no objection to say, obelisks, but the crosses have got to go.

The irony here is that in Utah the predominant religion is that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, which does not hold the cross in any particular esteem. In fact I have yet to visit any LDS church (and I’ve been to more than a few) that have a cross, picture of a cross, or even cruciform architecture. In fact as members of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have said, the crosses were not erected as expressions of Christianity, but because crosses are frequently associated with memorials.

So the atheists are fighting to remove religious symbols that were not erected as religions symbols. Or as one listener rather laconically put it to me off-air: “What’s next? Are they going to cut down all the telephone poles?” The guy had a point. Telephone and power poles with their cross beams do in fact have a rather Christian look about them. No telling how many people may be thrown into theological conniption fits from having such a symbol thrust upon them by the municipality!

I have a friend who is a Vietnam vet who to this day hates to see a peace sign.

Mainly because to him the peace sign is a not a symbol of back of those beautiful 60’s when “It was so groovy now that people are finally getting; together” but rather a symbol of those peaceful, love-filled people who called servicemen and returning veterans names and spit on them. But he doesn’t run around pitching a fit over every peace sign he sees. He’s got better things to do with his time, and he respects the First Amendment. Besides, he’s a cop too, and has his hands full protecting people who want to gripe about crosses erected to peace officers.

Those in support of the atheists will undoubtedly cite the First Amendment cited at the beginning of this column and will say that the atheist struck a blow on its behalf. These are the same people who in this discussion will with wild-eyed abandon, hair standing on end, teeth set in grim defiance shout about “separation” and that Jefferson was a Deist. And he was, but these same people either do not know, or will not acknowledge that Jefferson, was also very much a proponent of freedom of religion.

These are the same people who cannot read past the word “establishment” and somehow seem to gloss right over the “free exercise” clause. The argument can be made that the framers of the Constitution were averse to the British tradition of the king or queen being the head of the church, but they were not fans of a monarch being the head of anything in the new nation. But they were by and large men of faith and never intended to remove faith from the public square.

These atheists were not oppressed by the crosses. But they decided to use memorials erected by grieving families to grind their axes, and force a change that the majority of the people of Utah don’t want. And that begs the question: who is oppressing whom?

Let's Get Real, Republicans

Let's face it, fellow conservatives, there are only two Republican candidates who have a reasonable chance to beat Obama and go on to become an effective president: Romney and Gingrich. Conservative favorites Bachmann and Santorum are going nowhere, Perry and Paul have made fools of themselves, Huntsman has no support, and Cain doesn't know how to handle the bright lights. These 8 person debates seem nonsensical, but they have narrowed the field so we can now have some real and substantive, one-on-one debates. Let's just knock out all but Gingrich and Romney.

An ‘Oops’ From Perry in G.O.P. Presidential Debate

November 9, 2011 By JEFF ZELENY and ASHLEY PARKER NY Times (Excerpt)

ROCHESTER, Mich. — "Gov. Rick Perry of Texas arrived at the Republican presidential debate here on Wednesday night on a mission to get his candidacy back on track. The first hour passed without incident. The second hour did not.

He emphatically declared that he planned to eliminate three government agencies in Washington. But as he began to explain, he could think of only two.

“Commerce, Education,” Mr. Perry said before pausing for an uncomfortable moment as he looked from side to side, counting on his fingers and flipping through his notes.

As his rivals volunteered suggestions, a moderator asked Mr. Perry if he could name the third agency.

“The third one, I can’t,” he finally said, a sad look on his face, after 53 seconds had gone by. “Sorry. Oops.”

For any other candidate, the moment may have been quickly forgotten or easily explained. But for Mr. Perry, whose candidacy has been consistently undercut by his debate performances, the gravity of the matter grew obvious as chuckles in the Republican audience turned to gasps. The lapse reinforced negative stereotypes about his candidacy, a point that was made clear after the debate when he made a rare trip into an adjoining room to face reporters and try to brush away what had happened.

“I’m glad I had my boots on tonight,” Mr. Perry said, “because I sure stepped in it out there.”

Supporters of Mr. Perry groaned, with one contributor saying by e-mail: “It’s over, isn’t it?” One of his rivals, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, offered pity, declaring: “We all feel very badly for him.” And Republican operatives almost uniformly declared it as a sign of great trouble for his candidacy, with Mark McKinnon, an aide to former President George W. Bush, describing the moment as the “human equivalent of shuttle Challenger.”

“I think the biggest question now is whether or not he can raise any more real money,” said Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist. “A donor strike will totally cripple what’s left of his campaign.”

It remains an open question whether Mr. Perry will be able to move beyond the moment, particularly given that the video was already looping around the Internet and television broadcasts. But his path to the presidential nomination grew more difficult, and his rivals began furiously working to present themselves as the best alternative to Mitt Romney.

The lapse by Mr. Perry was the most memorable of a two-hour debate on CNBC that was otherwise dominated by polite exchanges over economic policy. It was not until several minutes later, when he received another turn, that he explained himself, saying: “By the way, that was the Department of Energy I was reaching for a while ago.”

It was clearly a blow to Mr. Perry just as he was investing heavily in reintroducing himself to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire through television advertising. It could be weeks before it is clear whether it has a permanent effect on his campaign, but at a minimum it left him facing additional questions about his candidacy.

“It was a political death knell,” said Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist who advised Mr. Bush. “There’s just no recovering from a moment like that when you’ve had such a bad record of debates.”

It was notable that Mr. Romney, who had aggressively tangled with Mr. Perry at the last debate, on Oct. 18, did not see a reason to confront him on Wednesday night."

Some Thoughts on Sexual Harassment and Cain

As a former college professor, I know what every college instructor knows, "Never let the door to your office be closed when counseling a female student". At the public school grade level, the rule is, "Don't touch or hug a student regardless of their emotional distress and need for comfort". Recently a kindergarten boy was disciplined for sexual harassment because he hugged a girl. This is where we are.

When I was young I worked in factories and restaurants. There was a constant and steady stream of sexually suggestive banter going on all the time between males and females - as often as not initiated by the females. After President Clinton's escapades became known (Clinton's main historical note will be that he introduced the idea of oral sex to our grammar school students), supervisors in factories and restaurants were warned to observe and step in if it appeared that a female looked like she "felt uncomfortable" with the banter. This was to prevent an expensive, she said-he said lawsuit that the company would usually lose - along with the wasted time of all involved.

Where am I going with all this? Sexual overtures only become sexual harassment when a person holding power over another punishes that person when those overtures are rejected. Someone is going to have to show me that testimony taken under oath resulted in a judgement against Herman Cain that he punished someone for rejecting his advances. Sexual banter only becomes sexual harassment when someone complains, and the banter doesn't stop. Neither normal sexual banter nor mistaken intentions on either side constitute sexual harassment.

Gloria Allred and Herman Cain

Now that ultra left-wing attorney Gloria Allred has entered the offensive to destroy Herman Cain's reputation and presidential campaign, I have reached two conclusions: 1. Cain is innocent of charges of sexual harassment, and 2. this mission to destroy Cain is not directed by Rick Perry, but by supporters of Barack Obama. These are the same tactics used to try to destroy so many conservatives who pose a threat: Sarah Palin, George Bush, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Ray Donovan, Edward Meese, etc., etc. etc.

Fresh from her successful effort to destroy Meg Whitman with silly charges involving an illegal alien, (which succeeded in putting Jerry Brown into the governor's mansion in California - the same Jerry Brown whose policies and philosophy turned the golden state of California into a third world country), Ms. Allred has once again gained the TV cameras with this crude effort to destroy Cain.

You would think the people of this country would revolt against this baloney, but then you remember that O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony went free, and that most people are more interested in the antics of Lindsay Lohan than in stopping the bankruptcy of the once-greatest country in the world.

I cannot support Mr. Cain's bid for the presidency; I can't see replacing a bumbling president with another neophyte whose knowledge seems pretty shallow, but I am truly outraged by the treatment this good man is getting. Get ready for blood on the floor once we Republicans actually choose our candidate.

Mr. Obama, Call Off Your Vicious Mobs

In a survey conducted under the auspices of Fordham University, it was found that 60% of the Occupy Wall Street mob voted for Obama, while only 2% voted for McCain. The rest did not vote or voted for an obscure party. While many surveyed indicated displeasure with the Obama presidency so far, IS THERE ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN THE USA WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT OBAMA INSTIGATED THESE MOBS THROUGH HIS 'HATE THE SUCCESSFUL' RHETORIC AND THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF HIS GOONS?

I assure you, it was no accident that the 'Occupy' movement started up immediately after Obama began his 'blame the rich' campaign. it is no accident that William Ayers became a main speaker of the 2011 Occupy Chicago movement. It is no accident that this movement is a main component of the teaching of Saul Alinsky, one of Obama's teachers and heroes. It is no accident that today's 'Occupy' movement so closely resembles the Occupy Chicago movement of 1988 organized by Obama, himself.

It is also no accident that former ACORN staffers have been caught organising 'Occupy Wall Street':

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests

By Jana Winter November 03, 2011 FoxNews.com

Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the group’s involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.

Unfortunately, we are now in such a mess that it will take years and much self-sacrifice to get our country back. Even if we defeat Obama in 2012, it will only be a first step, as the following article explains:

Does America Deserve Obama?

November 4, 2011 By David Deming American Thinker

President Obama is a socialist and a vapid demagogue who has been educated beyond the level of his intelligence. He is the choice of a puerile and spoiled electorate who want to be taken care of and obtain handouts from a parental figurehead.

I can't believe the West won the Cold War. The Cold War was a competition of economic ideologies. In the 1960s, we used to have sincere debates about which economic system was better -- a socialist, centrally-planned economy, or a capitalist, free-market economy. The debate is over. By 1990, even the Russians and Chinese were forced to implicitly admit the superiority of market economies. But while our former enemies were busy converting their socialist systems to market economies, we were happily rushing headlong into socialism.

People have been discussing economic systems for more than two thousand years. As described in my books, Science and Technology in World History, Vols. 1 & 2, communism was advocated by Plato as early as the fourth century BC. But Plato's student, Aristotle, disparaged communism by observing "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." Aristotle concluded that the ills which are supposed to arise from private property in fact originated in human nature.

We have been aware of the superiority of market economies since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. When a person is left free to pursue his own interest unimpeded, he is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention ... [and thus] by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

In Principles of Political Economy (1848), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) gave three reasons to severely limit government interference in a nation's economy and markets. First, any increase in government power is a threat to human individuality, freedom, and originality, qualities necessary for the progress of the human race. Second, market economies function more efficiently and produce more prosperity. Third, laissez-faire economies inculcate moral virtues in citizens by making them more self-reliant, virtuous and intelligent. "A people," Mill explained, "who expect to have everything done for them ... have their faculties only half developed."

The test of any theory is experiment, but it is virtually impossible to conduct large-scale controlled experiments in economics. It is difficult to even make meaningful and unambiguous comparisons between countries. Nations differ -- not only in economic systems, but in cultures, languages, traditions, geographies, and natural resources. To test socialism versus capitalism, we would have to take one or more countries with similar social and physical characteristics and divide them in half. After assigning a different economic system to each country, we would then sit back for fifty years and observe what happens.

But this experiment has already been performed through an accident of history. We know the answer. At the close of World War II, Germany and Korea were divided into socialist and market economies. Socialism failed dramatically. East Germany had to build the Berlin Wall just to keep people from fleeing. North Korea is still in the stone age. A satellite photo taken at night shows South Korea ablaze with the light of civilization. But North Korea is dark, both literally and metaphorically.

In the U.S., we exist in a curious state of denial. We acknowledge the inferiority of socialism but continue to become more and more socialistic. Every attempt to shrink the size of government or repeal a regulation brings about a shriek, like a bottle being pulled out of the mouth of an infant. I cannot recall a Republican president or Congress who reduced the size of the federal government. No one wants to surrender a special privilege or entitlement. We know what the best system is, but we lack the discipline to return to it.

Ronald Reagan used to say that liberals know only how to tax and spend. If there was ever a man who embodies that aphorism, it is Barack Obama.

He has no clue as to how a free-market economy works or why it produces economic prosperity. Obama continues to insist that government should determine what energy technologies we're going to have. Thus the debacle of Solyndra. Five hundred million dollars went down the drain needlessly. Government can't pick winners because it doesn't know how to do so. If a centrally planned socialist system worked, it would have produced prosperity in China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. It didn't. Only a free-market system knows how to efficiently distribute resources.

Since the inception of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," we have had at least forty years of welfare programs designed to reduce poverty. These programs have not worked. The current U.S. poverty rate is the same as it was in the late 1960s. So what do we do about it? Instead of reversing course, we continue on the same path. If the "Occupy Wall St." protestors have no jobs, it is because they are reaping the rewards of their own success. Socialism has killed the prosperity produced by our formerly great system. The U.S. is now ninth on the index of economic freedom and heading downward.

Yes, we have a clueless poseur for president. But we have no one but ourselves to blame. Obama was chosen by the people of the U.S. He was elected democratically, and therefore is nothing more than an iconic representation of our own ignorance, greed, and infantile sense of entitlement. Obama is not the problem, and his electoral defeat in 2012 will not magically heal the country or return us to prosperity and freedom.
Elections change nothing, because they are not causes, but results. The U.S. Congress now has an all-time low approval rating of nine percent. This is nothing more than an indication that we have lost the ability to govern ourselves. After all, we elect our congressional representatives. We have the government we deserve. Prosperity and freedom will return only if and when the American people again become educated, virtuous, and intelligent.