Hard Times (T.E.A. Day Edition)

Are you beginning to notice the same Obamunist governing pattern I am?  See if you can find Barry's Waldo:

Fox News commentator Steve Milloy, founder of the junkscience.com Web site, tells Newsmax that the U.S. is at “the point of no return” as the Obama administration is set to implement environmental policies that will lead to “energy chaos” in this country.

Milloy, author of the new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, also said the so-called cap and trade plan to reduce carbon emissions could double the cost of electricity and affect every aspect of American life....

The most immediate effect, Milloy said, will be “for your electric bill to go up anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent or more. But perhaps the most insidious part of that bill is that it will solidify control of energy policy and our economy by the greens.

“Greens are these people who say they are all about the environment, but I think that is the furthest thing they are about. They use the environment as a kind of shield behind which they advance their left-wing, socialist, totalitarian agenda.

“You just look at everything these people want to do. It’s all about government control of our lives. Even if there was an environmental problem that I could agree with them on, their solution is always going to be more government control.”

Is the underlying thread becoming evident yet?  Try Dick Morris' own recognition of it in Obamanomics:

So with the tax code totally changing, Europe about to formulate regulations for our economy, the U.S. government empowered to take over any large company, the deficit and spending reaching unbelievable levels and the feds insisting on continued control of banks, what businessman in his right mind is going to invest in anything?

How could even the most foolish optimist pull the trigger on a business investment without knowing the tax consequences, the regulatory framework and the policy of the banks on lending?

But Obama knows all this. He knows that his steps will delay economic recovery. But he wants these changes, not as means to an end, but as the end itself. And he is determined to get them passed and set in stone while the rubric of "crisis" justifies his doing so.

He is not unlike a leader who takes his country into war, knowing that by "wagging the dog" he can reinforce his power.

The Democrat Financial Logic Bomb got Red Barry elected.  His hard-left, fast-track-to-bankruptcy, "crash" economic, and energy, and health care - just call it domestic - policy course is designed to keep that crisis going, and in reality, to make it permanent.  Because as long as there's a "crisis," Barack Obama and the Donk Poliburo MUST remain in power to "solve" it, dontcha know, no matter what the law and the Constitution and American voters have to say about it.

There is precedent, remember.  The Bolsheviks seized power in the midst of a "crisis" and appointed themselves the "saviors" of the Russian people.  That crisis lasted for seventy-four years.  Of course the Bolshevik solutions were dismal, self-serving failures that had the curious effect of keeping them in absolute power forever, but it was only "fair" that they get all the time and chances they needed to "succeed".

Even in our own history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only president prior to the Twenty Second Amendment - and, not coincidentally, the inspiration for it - who had the effrontery to run for a third consecutive term.  For all the FDR-related conspiracy theories about his letting the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor because he wanted to "get America into the war via the back door," you do have to admit that from the standpoint of "maintaining the crisis" in order to keep himself in power, President Roosevelt had pretty much played out the Great Depression and needed a fresh self-serving justification for clinging to office like the burgeoning wannabe dictator he was.  War-related industrial production was taking up the decade-long economic slack, and becoming the "arsenal of democracy" for a large chunk of the planet was going to alleviate his New Deal gravy train.  But plunging into the global conflict outright opened the veil to oodles of new possibilities for expanding federal power over the states, the people, and the private sector that not even "fear itself" had offered.  One might observe that if there hadn't been a Second World War right when FDR needed it, he'd have had to "wag" himself one of his own accord.

For the record, I'm neutral on the FDR/Pearl Harbor conspiracism.  But the timing was opportune for a presidency that actually did outlast Adolph Hitler's fuerhership.  Indeed, if Roosevelt hadn't become so frail by the end of the war (he died at only 63) and had lived on another fifteen or twenty years, I seriously question whether he'd have EVER voluntarily relinquished power, and seriously wonder what crisis he'd have conjured next to justify perpetualizing his reign.

Barry O is simply continuing the tradition.  He's got the votes on Capitol Hill to entrench a level and degree of domestic communization that FDR could only fantasized about, and Soviet rulers from Lenin to Gorbachev would have no difficulties recognizing.  Toss in election-fixing systemic subversions like illegal immigration amnesty, ACORNizing the 2010 Census, and a Goebbelized media establishment, and Lucifer need never worry about 2012 or any other election year ever again, because like Castro and Chavez before him, his will be FDR's dream come true, himself the permanent crisis that We, The People, will have been stripped of the ability to solve for good.

It bears mentioning anew: No people ever knowingly vote themselves into bondage.  And virtually none that do ever manage to escape it.  How many of us truly realize how close to the precipice we really are?

If it's only three hundred sixteen thousand and change, God love 'em, but we're screwed.

UPDATE: Alright, I'll freely and cheerfully acknowledge that as spontaneous across-the-country protests go, six figures is pretty darn respectable.  Particularly in light of my getting somehow lumped in with the "aggressively imbecilic" left on this particular point, not a frequent occurance to say the least.  Probably it seems less impressive because participants weren't all gathered in one place.

The question would seem to be how much of this iceberg is above the surface?  If the ratio is ten to one, we are as screwed as I said we are.  If it's a hundred to one, now you're talking tide-turning, "red"-tide, Contractesque movement.

I'm not much for gimmickry and stunts, which the T.E.A.-bag movement indellibly is.  But if it can be the, or a, vehicle that ends up aborting Obamunism in its creche, more power to 'em.

~  ~  ~

Looks like Congressman Haw-Haw knows his judge-shopping - or favor-calling-in - well.

Or maybe he just does one helluva lap dance:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Representative. John Murtha cannot be sued for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood," remarks that sparked outrage among conservative commentators.

The appeals court in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a Marine who led the squad in the attack. The judges agreed with Murtha that he was immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters....A three-judge panel on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Murtha could not be sued under the 1988 Westfall Act, which gives federal employees immunity from lawsuits arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties.

Funny, I wasn't aware that defaming American servicemen as well as trying to convict them before they were ever even charged, much less tried (and, you know, all acquitted, with the pending exception of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the shaftee of the D.C. Circuit subpanel), was an "official duty" of a United States Representative.  But by the same token, I would have expected the voters of Haw-Haw's Pennsylvania district to make the same observation in the last two election cycles, and that never happened, either.

D'ya think the breadth of scope of "official duties" would be wider than Rosie O'Donnell's buttcheeks if the object of the vile hatemongering of the Joe McCarthy of our age were instead, say, an avowedly homosexual soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or coast guardsman flouting the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule?  Uh-huh.  Almost as impartial and even-handed as the reaction would be if it were minority, instead of military, voters getting disenfranchised at an 80% clip in Haw-Haw's district.

But hey, why should "mass murderers" get equal treatment under the law when we so desperately need STILL MORE Democrats "elected" to spend the next several epochs "solving" all our "crises"?  Evidently three D.C. Circuit Court Judges agree - "impartially," of course.

~  ~  ~

Talk about pushing against an open public relations door:

A Guantanamo detainee phoned a Middle Eastern TV network to say he was severely beaten for refusing to leave his cell, giving the first media interview with someone held at the U.S. prison in Cuba.

Mohammed el Gharani, a 21-year-old from Chad, told Al-Jazeera that guards beat him with batons and sprayed him with tear gas, according to the network. The comments were published on its Web site Tuesday.

The United States never has allowed journalists to interview Guantanamo prisoners, and Al-Jazeera did not say how it managed to speak with el Gharani.

A spokesman for the prison, Navy Lieutenant Commander Brook DeWalt, told the Miami Herald that el Gharani apparently used one of his weekly phone calls to his family to speak to the reporter. The spokesman also said there was no evidence to substantiate the abuse claims.

DeWalt and lawyers for el Gharani did not respond to requests for comment from the Associated Press.

Right, Mohammed.  Would this alleged beating be before or after the 72-virgin conjugal visit, pedicure, and Swedish massage complete with happy ending?  One has to be extraordinarily relaxed, after all, to festoon one's "torture" tale with the enhancement of coming after Red Barry's election, casting it as "Bush getting in as much abuse as possible before Godbama could come to the rescue of poor Mr. el Gharani, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the entire Muslim World, and Allah himself" - and America's imprisoned collective soul as well.  You've got talent to come up with camel dung of this rare quality.

Not that quality matters anymore.  Artful propaganda like el Gharani's could be as gutterally risible as Newsweek's bilious "Koran-flushing" tripe and it would already be in the official Hussein administration terrorism policy narrative.  If this were three years from now I might suspect the White House of planning to make el Gharani an official campaign mascot.  As it is, I guess he'll have to settle for returning to the "glorious battle against the doomed infidel Americans."  Maybe he'll be rewarded with martyrdom duty in the promised Taliban attack on Washington, D.C. that will "amaze the world."

Betcha he's on Murtha's mailing list, though.  Hope he left Haw-Haw's district office a forwarding address.

~  ~  ~

What does an unelected Democrat governor filling out the term of a megalamaniac predecessor who couldn't keep his meat pistol holstered, who stupidly bumbled into public disclosure of his own indiscretions with wine, women, and weed, annnnnnd whose own poll numbers make those that George W. Bush rode off into the Crawford sunset with look positively Clintonesque do now?  Go to Disneyland?  Go out and get wasted?  Go grab Spitz and go cruising for whores?

Nope; you flog the sodomarriage inflatable dominatrix again:

New York Governor David Paterson plans to introduce legislation this week to legalize same-sex marriage, reviving a bill that died in 2007 and still faces strong opposition despite a new Democratic majority in the state Senate.

Paterson, talking to reporters Tuesday in Hempstead [heh], N.Y, said "there is clearly a problem" when gays and lesbians in civil unions are denied 1,200 to 1,350 civil protections such as health care and pension rights because they're not married.

"The timing was always right. It's just who is willing to take that step, and I am," Paterson said. "I think it is, as other states are showing, the only ethical way to treat people who want to live together in peace under the civil law. So my general feeling about all these issues is the right ethical decision will inevitably be the right political decision."

No, Governor, you are the already-expendable-since-you-won't-even-be-running-next-year political crash test dummy who'll get cut to pieces in order to further wear down political opposition to an ethical and moral abomination that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean the end of the human species, but which the lavender lobby will kneecap as many parishinors and beat up as many pastors and slash the tires of as many church-goers as it takes to shove, figuratively and literally, their hateful perversion down our throats until we gag into unconsciousness.

Andy Cuomo will get the grinning, camera-flashing, ass-slapping signing ceremony two or three years from now (before it gets reversed in yet another popular referendum, assuming the Dems haven't banned them by then), while David Paterson won't even be a historical footnote - at least outside men's room stall walls.

But heck, if he's a "soldier for the cause," and wants to hang his big, fat 19% approval rating around it, why should the good guys complain?