I’m actually starting to feel semi-confident about the Obama administration. I mean… I was afraid he was actually going to make good on his promise of change, and that freaked me out because I don’t like the kind of change he talks about.

Now that he’s more or less assembling a cabinet consisting of a who’s-who of the Democratic establishment elite (also known as Everyone Who Ever Worked For Bill Clinton), I’m gaining confidence he might just be more of the same after all… which means a lot of posturing, chest-beating, blaming Republicans, and then getting nothing done other than making people realize everything Democrats do is either a) dangerous, b) worthless, or c) both.

Hey, how ’bout that Eric Holder pick for Attorney General?

About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, “You wouldn’t send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?”  Holder answered, “No, we don’t expect anything like that to happen.”  Then the Department did precisely that. The day after the seizure, Holder appeared again with Russert, who asked, “Why such a dramatic change in position?” “I’m not sure I’d call it a dramatic change,” Holder answered.  “We waited ’til five in the morning, just before dawn.” [SOURCE]

Just to refresh your memory:

Yes. Somebody who thought that was a good idea is Obama’s pick for Attorney General.

Oh, and the guy Obama is picking for White House counsel - Gregory Craig - has a distinguished list of clients:

• John Hinckley, the guy who attempted to assasinate President Reagan. Hinckley’s insanity defense? Courtesy of Craig.
• Ted Kennedy and William Kennedy Smith, who he advised on the Palm Beach rape case.
• Bill Clinton, who he defended against impeachment.
• Elian Gonzalez’s father, who (along with the Castro regime) wanted Elian back in Cuba
• Bolivian Minister of Defense Jose Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, who fled to the USA under accusations of human rights violations and the murder of dozens of civilians protesting the Bolivian government.
• Pedro Miguel González Pinzón, under indictment for the ambush killing of a US Army Sergeant and wounding of another.

Wow. I don’t know what else to say, but wow. Think he’s gonna go for the gold and bring back Janet Reno while he’s at it?

Via Uncle:

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

–snip–

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

–snip–

Well YOU DON’T SAY.

Daniel Pouzzner, editor of the Architecture of Modern Political Power, has reassembled Obama’s Change.gov Agenda (in its entirety) from the Google page cache. 

You can view an identical mirror of the agenda as it was posted on November 7th at Mega.nu. 

Post, re-post, and post it again, friends! (I think if you link directly to http://www.mega.nu/ampp/obama_agenda/agenda.html it will help get it into the Google index faster.) 

To allow the Obama camp to pretend their words never existed is unacceptable.

Okay, I know I said I was signing off the election stuff, but this doesn’t really count. Check out what showed up in the UK’s Daily Mail:

PETER HITCHENS: The Zombie and the Third-World Marxist … How the American West views the presidential race

They tell me that about one person in 50 on the streets of Moscow, Idaho, is legally carrying a concealed pistol. A lot more have them in their cars. I rather approve of this, though I don’t think I’ll join in.

Many of those packing heat are women combining a hard, practical feminism with a conservative view of the right to bear arms.

The important thing is that you don’t know who is armed and who isn’t, and nor do potential rapists and muggers. I am sure this arrangement improves everyone’s manners no end.

It is certainly a very polite place and shoot-outs here are a good deal rarer than they are in gun-controlled London or Manchester.

…

MORE

It’s really a fantastic article, but I’m probably biased because I feel like I’m in on all the inside jokes.

For the record, picture #1 is inside Tri-State, where we don’t shop because they are anti-open-carry.

But this?

That’s Sure Shot, our go-to gun shop, and we flippin’ LOVE that sign. I just about died when I saw that picture in the article.

Awesome, awesome, awesome. I love our weird little town.

I know you’ve probably all seen/read this, but READ IT AGAIN:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” - Barack Obama

Did you catch that? Did you REALLY catch that?

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”

As the cartoon says: THAT’S THE POINT. I just… I don’t even know what to say. This guy is openly advocating defiance of the Constitution AND PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR HIM.

Contrast what he says laments:

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

With what the 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Again: THAT’S THE POINT.

Then, after claiming redistribution of wealth will make us all richer (hat tip to Karen on this one), he said:

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

They’re calling it socialistic because it is socialistic, Barack. Taking money from somebody who earned it - because they have more - and giving it to somebody who did nothing to earn it - because they have less - WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL THAT!?

And riddle me this, Barack. Let’s say I earn ten dollars, and I’d like to spend five of those dollars on some candy, and give the other five in the offering plate at my church. Except you think you know better what to do with my money, so you tell me I have to give five dollars to the government so you can give it to those you’ve deemed worthy of receiving “charity.” I say no, and you say tough, and send IRS agents backed up by people with guns to take it from me. And if I won’t give it, they’ll just take my stuff and throw me in jail, instead.

And I’m selfish? You - who voluntarily gave LESS THAN 1% of your (considerable) income to charity for several years running - want to call me selfish because I don’t believe in doing my giving at the point of a gun? Because I can give more when you leave me alone with my ten dollars, instead of leaving me with only five? Because I believe I should have freedom to choose what constitutes a cause or person worthy of my freely-given, hard-earned dollars?

We pay a private health insurance premium every month. We’re paying for our child’s birth out-of-pocket because that insurance won’t cover the midwife I’m seeing. We have not made a poor investment in a home we can’t afford, so we aren’t receiving any bailouts. We are not applying for WIC. Oh - and we could certainly qualify for all of the above. We could easily roll over and suckle at the taxpayer’s teat, and probably be living far more comfortably than we presently do. But we believe in personal responsibility, so we don’t. And that’s why this is personal to me. We have too much respect for our fellow man and his hard work to demand our fellow taxpayers foot the bill for us. All we ask in return is the same courtesy - to be left alone to enjoy what our hard work brings us.

And this is personal because, if you’re voting for Barack Obama, you are condoning the initiation of force against other Americans to confiscate their earnings and redistribute them. Today I may not be in the tax bracket most affected - but a few years from now, I certainly hope to be. So, if you’re voting for Barack Obama, you are signing off on use of force by the United States government to confiscate wealth Mike and I will earn, to give “back” to people we never took anything from.

Yeah, this is damn personal.

I’m not asking anyone to vote for John McCain, honest to Pete. This isn’t a partisan issue - it isn’t Republicans vs. Democrats. I’m just asking you not to vote for Barack Obama. Vote third party. Vote Ralph Nader for all I care! Write in Ron Paul. Stay home.

I - and many fellow Americans - are asking you not to initiate that aggression against us. Mark my words: It will not end well for the Republic.

Thing the First: Yes, I’M ALIVE! I made it back to Free America safe and sound, and I apologize for the long delay before giving y’all proof of life.

Thing the Second: Part of the reason I’ve taken so damn long to update is because I returned from the People’s Republic of California with another new Idahoan in tow… and she’s been camped out on my couch. My younger sister finally had enough of The Bad Place and packed up her guns and dog and relocated to our neck of the woods. That’s the good news.

The bad news, for all you single guys anyway, is it took approximately .00002 seconds for one of our friends to bogart her affections. But I can start a waiting list or something in case that doesn’t work out. Be forewarned, she has fairly strict BYO-ammo requirements.

Thing the Third: Today marks the birthday of both my sister and everyone’s favorite Irish PGB reader, the little bastard known ’round here as Fucker. He may or may not have had to remind me for the, uh, sixth or seventh year running that the 29th of October is indeed his birthday (well, was if we’re going by his timezone) and for that I am captain of the failboat YET AGAIN.

But - no matter - here’s a big HAPPY BIRTHDAY to you both!

Thing the Fourth: I said three, but I lied. We have officially reached the wailing/gnashing of teeth/rending of clothing point about next Tuesday. I’m genuinely scared. I mean - the idea of a McCain presidency gives me the heebies. The idea of an Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled congress has me absolutely terrfied. I feel my very way of life is under siege, and I feel powerless to stop it. I’m depressed.

I’ll post more tomorrow about the latest Obama redistribution of wealth statements and gun things and everything else that has me wishing I were in drinking condition at this point… Though I strongly suspect I’m just 99.9% preaching to the choir, especially since I think we’re screwed either way, just less screwed less quickly with McCain.

Regardless of who wins next Tuesday, America loses. The Republic is in distress.

House of Representatives Comprised of Spineless, Pandering Boot-Lickers;

also Germany Loses World War II.

Oh… you already knew?

EDIT: Bill Sali for the win!

I love my state. Senator Mike Crapo voted no on the bailout.

Ol’ Senator Larry “Wide-Stance” Craig voted yes, as I was pretty sure he would. Thanks, you idiot. I can certainly see how the need for “Main Street” to be able to buy refrigerators on credit trumps your espoused conservative aversion to federal government interference in the market. Oh well, I figured you’d be a chump since you’re out of a job in a month anyway.

I just put in calls to the offices of Senator Crapo, Senator Craig and Representative Sali.

To Craig and Crapo, the message was: DON’T SCREW THIS UP.

To Sali, I said: Thanks for voting against the bailout, please continue to do so, yes this will affect how I vote in a month, and oh-by-the-way thanks for sticking up for gun rights and at least engaging in some action (however symbolic) against the BATFE.

Hurry up and call your Senators before they vote. And tell your Representative what you think of their position, while you’re at it.

Ron Paul is mad. You should be, too. I’m posting this in its entirety - apologies for length, but it’s worth reading.

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market’s attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I’d only be repeating what I’ve been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration “is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets.” Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that “low interest rates” led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or “wildcat capitalism” (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: “Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.”

Doesn’t that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn’t that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn’t the federal government shown that the “many” who “believed they were guaranteed by the federal government” were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don’t give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary “the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet.” Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It’s the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end… It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a “rescue plan”? I guess “bailout” wasn’t sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you’re supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,
Ron Paul