Free kibbles

A reminder that government put us $9.7 trillion deeper into debt to fight this recession - to no avail. That's 13 times the money spent fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Cato describes American-style socialism.

Part 1 of Cato response to the GM bailout and bankruptcy. Part 2.

Reason says Obama's goals for GM are in conflict and undermine GM's chances at success.

In March 30, Obama assured a wary public that "the United States government has no interest in running G.M." This was the same speech in which he announced his firing of G.M. CEO Rick Wagoner, demanded a more "credible" restructuring plan, suggested that G.M. had not "consolidated enough unprofitable brands," unilaterally promised government-backed warranties for G.M. cars, and argued that the company should focus on "manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us towards an energy-independent future."

This week the president reiterated that "what we are not doing—what I have no interest in doing—is running G.M." This was the same speech in which he announced that the federal government was forcing G.M. into bankruptcy, deciding what creditors should get (regardless of what bankruptcy law says), and taking a 60 percent stake in the company.

These two paragraphs, and you could take an paragraphs from any Obama speech and make the same point, force any thinking person to wonder why anybody listens to a word Obama says. Obama wants to run GM. Obama is running GM. Obama has no desire to stop running GM. Everything Obama says is intended to make him sound reasonable, but every action he takes proves he's a radical leftist. Anybody who continues to believe what Obama says is a fool and part of the problem.

But I think all the critics who claim that Americans won't buy small, fuel efficient cars are being short-sighting. Americans won't buy small, fuel efficient cars at today's gas prices, but when gas is over $4 a gallon, they will. Obama's plans to force GM to build small, fuel efficient cars, and he plans to force gas prices over $4 a gallon by restricting the development of energy in the US. The two plans fit together perfectly from the viewpoint of destroying America as we know it, which is Obama's ultimate goal.

Reason asks the questions most Americans want to know about GM:

Will GM be run as profitably and efficiently as Amtrak? Will GM be paid not to produce, like the agricultural sector? Will it feed into an economic bubble like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Will it boast the negligible oversight and waste of the so-called "stimulus" package? Will it feature the fiscal irresponsibility of Social Security? Or will we see the runaway costs of Medicaid.

Or will it be worse? The article goes on to show how Obama's actions belie his words regarding wanting to run GM. Great essay.

Cato explains that having the FDA regulate tobacco will only serve Phillip Morris, not the public.

Aristocrats in Washington are considering adding a Value Added Tax on top of our current abominable tax structure. VAT in Europe has been instrumental in helping government expand its size and power.

Cato suggests that instead of going to a small, tyrannical country like Egypt to give a speech on Muslim-American relations, he should go to a large Asian Muslim country like Indonesia where Muslims have done a much better job integrating into the modern world.

Reason explains that Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is empathy over impartiality.

How creative destruction improved Long Beach, but has not been allowed to work in Detroit.

Reason wonders why President Obama is emulating Japan's post-bubble policies since those policies resulted in the lost decade in Japan. Because Obama is trying to impoverish America to set the stage for Marxist revolution. Karl Marxes 10 tenants of Marxism were designed to create the poverty necessary to spark Marxist revolution. Obama is following that path to spark that revolution. ACORN is his agitators.

Congress is adding all kind of bells and whistles to Obama's tax and trade bill to hide the costs from consumers.

I've long pointed out that culture affects genetic populations over time, selecting the genes that best fit the culture, so a culture of violence naturally selects for violent people. Science is bringing this idea into the mainstream with a study showing a "warrior gene" tends to make boys more likely to join gangs and be violent.

State Department employee couple accused of spying for Cuba for 30 years. Why would the State Dept. hire people who believed in the Cuban system of government?

Dick Cheney may be slightly more popular than Nancy Pelosi, but why would either of them be this popular?