In this rare moment of candor, this politician, then Senator Obama, provided an honest appraisal of his own philosophy.

“Can you get the American people to say this is really important….that requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake.”

No, President Obama, our “understanding” is not required. After all, aren’t we all just bumpkins who don’t understand? You, representing the Federal Government, already possess all that is required – the brute force of power. The Federal Government need not mobilize a citizenry as you suggest. The passage of HR 2454 in the USHOR is ample proof. Once the Executive Branch and a narrow majority in House & Senate have conspired behind closed doors to concoct legislation, it can often impose its will upon our entire nation. That’s right, about 279 people pushing an agenda, no matter how corrupt, self-congratulatory, or ill-advised.

Does the USA need an energy policy to insure its national security? Yes. Do we need to be force-fed this “cap and trade” bill? Surely not.

George Washington said it best, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

BE A PATRIOT: Are you willing to allow your electricity rates to skyrocket? Are you happy that the U.S. House of Representatives (USHOR) has passed the so-called “Cap and Trade” legislation? Are you pleased that your Representative or his leadership in the House did not even read the approximately 1500 pages of legislation before passing it? It’s not too late to make your voice heard. Call, fax, and email your Senator now. Next, even though the House has voted, let your Representative know how you feel, and require them to pass along your opinion to your Senator. Call your state legislators, call your city and county officials. Make them all hear your voice and heed your words.

Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago — where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it — the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty-billion dollars of TARP money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That’s highly unlikely, with car sales presently hovering around 9 million a year.

In other words, taxpayers are not going to get their money back. Yes, we the people will be left holding the bag for the mistakes of GM’s management and labor leaders over the last four decades.

And with CAFE mileage-standards ratcheting up — all while GM is going down — Team Obama’s green vision for the economy will soon be crystal clear. With President Obama in the driver’s seat, we’re going to get little green two-door cars that most folks won’t want to buy.

Even worse, UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger has made it plain that his powerful union won’t let these cars be manufactured in low-cost non-union plants overseas. The result? Obama’s little green cars are going to be unprofitable as well.

But it’s the bigger picture that has me most concerned. What does Government Motors say about the direction of the United States? Historically, we don’t own car companies –or banks or insurance firms. But we do now. Tick them off on your fingers: GM, Citi, AIG. Oh, and let’s not forget Fannie and Freddie, those, big quasi-government, taxpayer-owned housing agencies. California is broke and likely headed to bankruptcy. Will we the taxpayers own that, too?

Altogether, we’re talking about hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid. This is the stuff the Italians used to do, and the Brits before Thatcher, and the Soviets a long time ago. But it’s something very new and very different for America.

Is this onslaught of government ownership an attack on free-market capitalism? Yes it is. Call it Bailout Nation or Ownership Nation, it’s an unprecedented degree of government command, control, and planning, all in the name of a tough economic downturn.

I don’t pretend to know all the answers to GM’s problems. Neither do I know all the miscues of the banks and insurance companies. But I do know this: The present level of government control over the economy does not bode well for this great country.

When I sat down with former Vice President Dick Cheney for a CNBC interview this week, I asked him about all this. He wasn’t happy. Of course, many of these policies began during the Bush-Cheney administration, and Cheney didn’t deny it. But when I asked if he anticipated the current degree of government control, he gave me another honest answer, as is his custom: No.

Regarding the banks, Cheney said the bailout work was done over at the Treasury (under Henry Paulson), and that no critical studies were performed by the White House. Cheney himself opposed the GM bailout, preferring Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He did sign on to the TARP bailout of banks as a stop-gap measure. But he didn’t anticipate its eventual size, scope, and sweep. Then, squarely acknowledging the mistake, he compared Bailout Nation to Nixon’s wage-and-price-control program, which touched every enterprise in America. He called it “a terrible mistake; a huge mistake.” By implication, Cheney suggested that the original Bush bailout program was itself a big mistake.

As for Nixon’s wage-and-price-control policy, the former veep reminded me that “we finally got out of it, but it took a long time to do it, and it [did] a lot of damage.”

Cheney was very critical of Obama’s big-government spending-and-borrowing policies, too, telling me that there are only two ways out: inflating the money supply or big tax increases. He doesn’t like either. Yes, Cheney believes Obama has taken Bailout Nation and government stimulus way beyond anything the Bushies ever contemplated. Nevertheless, the damage is done.

Cheney recalled Bush having said that “we have to suspend free-market capitalism in order to save free-market capitalism.” So the big question is this: How long before we resurrect free-market capitalism, and how much damage will current policies do in the meantime?

I won’t lose my faith in this country’s long-term future. But the issue of how much damage we sustain before returning to the policies of free-market economic growth is very much on my mind.

(Editor’s Note: Larry Kudlow is a Patriot.)

Why are people so concerned about the treatment of the Gitmo detainees and their due process when we have Obama-approved Predator drones flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan firing Hellcat missiles into suspected terrorist hideouts (operative word is “suspected”)? I don’t think there was a lot of due process for those on the receiving end, but this is an inconvenient fact that makes the treatment of Gitmo detainees look tame – unless you believe that death is preferable to prison. Are these “suspects” that much different than the people we captured and brought to Cuba? We know collateral damage occurs (translated – innocent bystanders killed), but this gets less coverage than our lengthy discourse on what is torture – some of which would only be considered hazing at many college fraternities – since it is no longer the Bush administration that is in office. Is this not blatant hypocrisy? The Pelosi, Obama, Cheney drama is a real treat as the facts slowly trickle out.

It seems our politicians are more interested in scoring political points by attacking Bush policies than giving workable alternatives or being objective. When the Somali pirates captured the American ship captain, and his life was “threatened”, the Navy Seals killed the pirates. It is interesting to note that while this plague of pirates off the Somali coast has been costly, they have not been killing their hostages – but it was okay for Obama to give the kill order with no due process. What would have happened if Bush was still in office and he gave the kill order?

You would think this debate would make us appear weak, but I think people who are objective understand that the Obama administration, once confronted with the reality of the world post 9/11, realizes it is much easier to pontificate about appropriate actions in the abstract than deal with reality. As long as we keep in place the deterrents to terrorist attacks, I am not certain Al Qaeda or the Taliban will look at the new administration as weak, irrespective of the sideshow on Capitol Hill.

Fred Young,
Dallas, Texas