Saturday, January 31, 2009

Hey Kids, it's a Depression ... by Alan Caruba

Hey Kids, it’s a Depression
By Alan Caruba

Here’s the difference between a recession and a depression as defined by Bloomberg Business News:A recession occurs when a nation’s living standards drop and prices increase. This downturn in economic activity is widely defined as a decline in a country’s gross domestic product for at least two quarters.

A depression is defined as an economic condition caused by a massive decrease in business activity, falling prices, reduced purchasing power, excess of supply over demand, and rising unemployment.If this isn’t the beginning of a depression, it sure feels like one. Just check the daily headlines. On Monday, the Financial Times informed readers that “Gloom deepens as 75,000 global jobs go.” Among the companies laying off people were Caterpillar, General Motors, Sprint Nextel, Home Depot, Pfizer, and Texas Instruments. My guess is the General Motors declares bankruptcy by March.

The Financial Times still called it a recession, but we know what it is, don’t we? And if we just look at the 1930s and see how every move the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt made only deepened and prolonged the Great Depression, we will also see what should be done, but won’t be done. Indeed, with every passing day, the Obama administration looks and sounds just like FDR’s.

As to the stimulus bill, here’s what last Monday’s Wall Street Journal had to say about it:
“The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine. That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today."

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.”

Much, if not most, of the proposed $825 billion “recovery act” will go to various government agencies. Even a cursory review of the 600-plus page document suggests that not much of its billions will create private sector jobs. Those portions devoted to infrastructure projects are not only worthy, but polls indicate are greatly favored by the public. By contrast, the bill includes nutty energy stuff about solar and wind farms, neither of which can produce enough steady, dependable energy to keep the lights on anywhere.

Contrary to the madness that has gripped most of Congress, government spending should be cut. There is enormous waste in government at almost every level except the local level that must answer to people directly.

There should be major cuts in the tax rates from the wealthy to the lowest paid job holders. Putting money back in the hands of people will shorten the duration of the depression by stimulating purchasing, investment, and the risks involved in beginning or expanding a business of any size.

There should be a marked reduction in government regulation of all manner of business and industry in order to avoid increasing the cost of production and facilitate research and innovation

NONE of these options, proven, known, effective, are being discussed by the Obama administration that, in office less than two weeks, is issuing executive orders that will increase the cost of manufacturing cars in the name of fighting “global warming” or “climate change.”Apparently word has not reached the White House that it just snowed in a Middle Eastern desert nation, the United Arab Emirates, for the first time ever! That the world outside (and including) Washington, D.C. is experiencing some serious cold weather.

It’s so cold in D.C. that Al Gore’s Wednesday testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Earth is warming will likely be rescheduled.

While there is talk of tax cuts, it remains just that, talk.

Meanwhile things are going to hell in a hand-basket, so maybe it would be a good idea to (1) pay attention to the history and lessons of the Great Depression, (2) avoid repeating the same mistakes, and (3) not take your eye off the ball here at home with talk of finding a Mideast peace where none has not existed since the days of Harry Truman and, for that matter, all previous presidents.

The folks in Washington, D.C., being politicians, are all delusional and guess who’s going to pay the price for that? Phone, fax, email your Senators and Representative, and tell them to put the Recovery Act back on the shelf.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center,


Friday, January 30, 2009

A Case Against Global Governance

The Case Against Global Governance Saying NO to a One-World Government

By: J. D. Longstreet


Is a one-world government inevitable? It certainly looks that way! At least it does if you buy into the theory of how good a one-world government would be for the world. I do not.

Let me be clear about this: I hate the very thought of a one-worldgovernment! Period!

I rather like being an American. I can’t stomach the idea of being forced to give that up to satisfy some centralized one-world government, which couldn’t find it’s rear-end with both hands and a hound dog!

There is a train of thought which goes something like this: If the US,Mexico, and Canada are successful in creating the North American Union (and they are having one success after another, right now) then once the NAU is established, soon afterwards there will be a movement to combine the EU with the NAU. And that, Dear Reader, is about as close to a one-world government as we are likely to get, at least, for the foreseeable future. With the Islamofacists continuing to kick againstthe pricks of the world, a one-world government will be in a constant state of war.

Of course we have options. One is to allow the Islamofacists to be successful and establish their worldwide caliphate and that would be a one-world government. A theocracy, to be sure, but it WOULD be a one-world government. The other option is for Americans to fight like hell to remain an independent nation!

To those of us who oppose a one-world government I suppose it sounds hopeless. Well, plainly put, to some degree, it IS hopeless. Once the juggernaut gets up a head of steam there will be no stopping it. It has already begun with the European Union and the proposed North AmericanUnion. The point is… the “powers that be” are certainly going to try to create that one-world government. (What do you think the “GlobalWarming/Climate Change” movement is all about? Global governance!)

Now, hold on, take a breath and let's see what faces an attempt at a one-world government.First off we know the Islamic nations will not willingly become a part of a one-world government. And… what about the continents of Africa andSouth America? Both are hotbeds of communism and socialism. The only way communism will become a part of a one world government is if they rule! The logical step would be for the Islamofacists, the socialists, and the communists to combine… as they each reflect some of the ideology of the others, anyway.

So, out the window goes the “One World Government" idea. A more realistic idea, of what the global politics would look like, is, I think, a politically bi-polar world…in other words… a Two-Government World.

Seems to me, the only way to have a true one world government would be for the “would-be” one world government to conquer all the nations outside their government and colonize them much as the Western European nations did during the colonization period of world history.

Realistically, any attempt at a one-world government will spur wars, of various intensity, around the globe. The planet would be forever at war. The cost of worldwide wars is staggering and would very soon bankrupt any government trying to bankroll such action(s).

Anyway you parse it, creating and controlling a one-world government, on this little planet, would be akin to herding cats. If you have ever owned just one cat… you know it cannot be done!

For the moment I see it as incumbent upon the citizens of America to do everything they can to defeat the proposed North American Union. It’s the beginning, at least in this hemisphere, of an attempt at that dreaded one-world government. We need to nip it in the bud… NOW!

J. D. Longstreet


Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly Up!

Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly up!

Some of us believe in Capitalism. Some of us believe the American way, in business, is “survival of the fittest.”

Here is a column from a writer who believes, as I do, that business should be allowed to stand on its own. Survive, if it can, or close up shop, if it cannot. The title of the piece is: “Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and Darwin.” Jefferson Weaver writes it. Get to know that name. You will, I predict, be hearing more from him.

The article can be found

This is another pearl from Jeff. Keep up the good work, sir!

J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest!

Saying No to the Auto Maker Bail Out!
J. D. Longstreet
"The Obama"
is off and running. His sharp left turn, which was predicted by even the most semiconscious conservative writers, commentators and pundits, is now apparent for all to see. But, by far, the DUMBEST thing, in my estimation, he has done to date, is ordering the Department of Transportation to develop higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. Car efficiency standards are already creaming the US car makers while, those same car makers are getting a government bailout at the same time. Does that seem the least bit off-kilter to you? Well, it does to me! Is this DUMB, or what?

Like a drowning man, the US auto makers are going under for the third time and, frankly, I am not convinced the life-preserver bailout, thrown from the "Ship of State", will be of any help at all. Actually, I am not convinced the life preserver SHOULD be thrown in the first place!

I am against the bail-out. But then you probably already deduced that. Methinks we ought to allow those car companies to go into bankruptcy and reorder themselves and make another try for survival. If they can, and do, survive, mores the better. Those motorized carriage makers, too weak to survive, ought to close up shop. That is the capitalist way. That is the American way. One could even say it is nature's way.

Have you any idea how many car companies have failed? Do you have any idea how many car makers in America have opened shop, produced cars for several years, and then gone under? A slew of them!

I suppose everyone knows of the Tucker (due to the movie). A friend of mine was ticking them off in his column the other day and he managed to name a number of cars from my childhood that are no longer around. They are long gone. As a matter of fact, I owned at least two of those now non-existent cars. So, just from my, ahem, younger years, there was the Studebaker, the Packard, the Norge, the Kaiser, the Frasier, the Willys, and the Nash. Before that there was another bevy of jalopies that didn't make it. Some of those cars were simply so far ahead of their time that would-be buyers were afraid of buying them. Believe me, it happened back then. I owned a 1957 Packard.. Depending upon your perspective, it was a gorgeous machine with a 275 - 300 horsepower engine (I never was quite sure of the horsepower of that engine.)... with or without the supercharger. Driving a the Studebaker "Golden Hawk" was as close to low altitude flying as was possible in those days.

Here's a look at the Golden Hawk:

Here's a look at the Packard:

Now, if the government continues to insist that American built cars get more and more miles to the gallon of gasoline, we will have surpassed the technology to do so. We may have done so, already. So, in order to reach those standards the car makers will have to resort to downsizing the cars. Down sizing means less weight. Less weight translates into more miles per gallon. Then we will see the return of the little "beer-can" cars. Those were the uncomfortably small cars that you dare not lean against for fear that your body weight might cave-in the quarter panel or the door of the car!

I know of one police department that bought a fleet of those small cars, for patrolling the city, and when they mounted the red/blue lights on the roof, the roof caved in and they had to have all the headliners of their brand new police cars stripped out and reinforcing bars placed in the roof just to hold up the red/blue light! I kid you not! One officer told me he was afraid to drive the cars. He said they were so light that in a hot pursuit, you could hardly control the car, he said it was all over the road. Needless to say, those cars were gone, very soon, and the trusty ole Crown Vic was back.

The small cars, US car makers will be forced to build as a result of government regulations, will not only be ugly, they will also be dangerous. This ought to concern you as a prospective buyer. And I am sure it will. Sales of American cars will drop even more. At some point, the likelihood that the already bailed out car makers will go under anyway, becomes extremely high.

And what about the desires of the consumer? I mean, if you have a large family, you NEED a large car. Senior citizens might need a larger car simply because it is easier to get into and out of for them. The government is going to deny them the car they need and/or want. But, hey... that's what central planning by a socialist government does. Everybody suffers equally! And let's face it, dear reader, the US now has a socialist government.

Some of us, including yours truly, will opt to keep my General Motors 4-door sedan and my Dodge truck. They are both nice and big. Other than maintenance, they hardly ever need repairs. My truck is easy to get into and out of... and... when I need a truck, I have one.They ride smoothly, and, if I am in an accident, I actually have some sheet metal between me and the opposing vehicle. In other words... they are safer.

Then there is the question of whether the bailout is for the car maker or the unions who have been so loyal to the Democrat Party. Many Americans think the bail-outs are really intended to help secure the union workers jobs. That view is prevalent here in the Southland of America where the unions are not so warmly embraced as they are elsewhere. We have automakers here operating car making businesses at a profit.

To sum up... no bail-out for the US car makers. They should be allowed to sink or survive on their own. If that means they will be forced to move more and more of their production facilities overseas, where labor is cheaper, then they should do so. If it means moving their entire production facility to a foreign country, then they should do so. But not one red cent of American taxpayer money should go to them directly and to the unions indirectly. And... the Department of Transportation ought not insist on
higher fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks they build here in The States. They know, as do we, that higher fuel efficiency standards will cost thousand of workers in the auto industry, and related businesses, their jobs. The government is acting like a cartoon character with one hand out to the US Auto Industry while the other hand, behind its back, is holding a hammer with which to crush US auto makers!

All in all, America has the government it said, by its vote, it wanted. It's far too late to whine and moan about their socialist agenda now that they have the power over your life. Looking as far as I an see down the road, I'd say the socialists are in a position, thanks to the American voter, to solidify their hold on America for, well, eternity. Well, at least until The Union comes apart again as it did in the 1860's. I won't live to see it, but as each day goes by and the government grows bigger, its intrusion into our lives will grow more intense, and that option will begin to look better and better.

I had a male friend stand in my office today and declare that, in his opinion, America has seen her last free election. I agreed with him. Those feelings are stirring again and have been for some time... and not just in the states that were forced back into The Union at bayonet point. This time those feelings are shared by many in various geographical parts of this country. "The Obama" and his cohorts either do not understand, or simply do not care, that what they do in the next four years may determine the survival of the US as a 50 state country or bring on the change that will break her apart into the democratic states which will live or die by the original constitution, as a Representative Republic or Republics, and those states that will suffer as socialist hell holes in the backwaters of a political swamp that was once that "Shining City" on a hill.

J. D. Longstreet

Dear Mr. President

"Dear Mr. President"

Here is an excellent column written by a Southern gentleman to the new President ... Mr. Obama. We found it absolutely terrific and thought you would as well.

Mr. Jefferson Weaver wrote it… and you will find it HERE. Mr. Weaver is one of our favorite writers and we think, after you read this, you will understand why.

Way to go, Jeff. Keep up the good work!

J. D. Longstreet

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Coal, Glorious Coal! ... by Alan Caruba

Coal, Glorious Coal!
By Alan Caruba

I began 2009 praising carbon dioxide as the gas, along with oxygen, upon which all life on Earth depends.

Now I praise coal and for reasons the mainstream press and other media will studiously avoid telling you. Coal, as you may recall, is on the Obama hit list because its use, according to the environmental loonies, will doom the Earth to a global warming that is not happening.

The United States is home to huge deposits of coal. It is second only to China in terms of total coal consumption. In 2007, the U.S. used about 1.1 billion tons of coal. According to an authority on energy, Robert Bryce, “That’s the energy equivalent of about 4.2 billion barrels of oil per year or about 11.5 million barrels of oil per day.” By way of comparison, “America’s daily coal ration contains more energy than Saudi Arabia’s daily oil production.” That’s a lot of energy.

Why, then, is the Obama administration and virtually all of the major environmental organizations opposed to coal? We know they oppose any use of oil, but coal, so abundant, so rich in energy would seem to be a great alternative. They oppose it because it emits carbon dioxide when burned (so do forest fires, etc.) and that contributes, they assert, to global warming.

Only there isn’t any global warming any more because the Earth is in a cooling cycle, so there must be another reason. The closest one I can come to is that they either want to return us all to the Stone Age or they are heavily invested in wind and solar industries.

In 2008, climate change alarmists proclaimed April 1st “Fossil Fools Day” using it to protest energy projects like Duke Energy’s massive Cliffside coal-fired power plant just fifty miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina. How they expect consumer’s to get electricity, fifty percent of which is produced by coal nationwide, is anyone’s guess unless they want to carpet all of North Carolina with solar and wind farms.

Led by a group calling themselves Rising Tide, a spokesperson said, “To survive climate change, we need to end the extraction of fossil fuels, reduce rich people’s energy consumption, localize economies and revolutionize public transportation.” By “rich” they mean YOU.

Obama’s would not be the first administration to try to restrict access to America’s supply of coal, oil, or natural gas from use. Congress has done this for oil by banning drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf. The Clinton administration closed off the vast coal deposits in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante area and, unfortunately the Bush administration would not revoke this travesty.

President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is a nightmare for anyone who doesn’t want to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas as the Europeans do. He favors that, but he is on record as saying, “Coal is my worst nightmare” attributing its use to greenhouse gas emissions. During his confirmation hearing, though, Chu was rapidly backpedaling saying mushy stuff like, “I think it is imperative to use coal as cleanly as possible.” He even added that offshore oil and gas production might not be a bad idea. Can we trust this fellow? I think not.

Right now, however, in Europe, Germany is building 27 coal-fired plants by 2020 and Italy plans to increase its reliance on coal from 14% today to 33% in just five years. Throughout Europe, 40 new coal-fired plants are set to be built in the next five years. China can’t build them fast enough and India plans to boost coal production by 50% by 2012 and quadruple it by 2030.

Making sure Americans can’t use their own national resources seems to be a major mission for the federal government. The U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS) has found a “high potential” for oil and gas in Colorado’s Canyon of the Ancients, Washington’s Hanford Reach, and Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks.

There are, however, some twenty-seven States in which coal is mined with some 90% of the coal reserves concentrated in ten States. Montana is a big coal state, as is Wyoming. The USGS estimated the U.S. is home to 1.7 trillion tons of identified coal resources. They estimate the total amount when new discovers are included could exceed 4 trillion tons. In other terms, the U.S. has more than a 250-year supply under current use.

But coal is bad, right? Just ask President Obama, any of his so-called environmental and science advisers, and any major environmental organization. This kind of thinking leaves America vulnerable, particularly in light of the fact that a growing population requires the production of more energy, particularly electricity.

What you’re not being told is that, ever since the enactment of the Clear Air Act in 1970, as amended in 1990, the most stringent air pollution law in the world has been in effect. American industry has spent an estimated $350 billion since 1970 to clean the air and each year the cost for pollution control runs about $33 billion.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute, pollution control equipment accounts for up to 40% of the cost of a new power plant and 35% of operational costs. These costs represent about $10 billion of the nation’s electric bills each year and consumers will pay more if the Clean Air Act is amended to be even more stringent. A single “scrubber” in a coal-fired plant can cost more than $100 million to construct and many millions to operate. There are at least 200 of these in operation or soon will be. Someone has to pay for all this clean air and that someone is YOU.

All around the world coal continues to be the energy source of choice. Americans who have plenty of it should, by any rational standard, be thrilled to use it. When our domestic coal is exported, it generates $4.1 billion and presently represents 2.5% of all U.S. exports.

For these reasons, the electricity it produces, the jobs it represents, the value as an export, and the way it does all this without polluting the air, there is ample cause to celebrate coal, glorious, coal.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center,

© Alan Caruba, January 2009


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Global Warming Debunked Again

Snow for the only the second time in history in the United Arab Emirates
J. D. Longstreet

It snowed over the weekend... in the desert! To be more exact... in the UAE! As the headlines indicate it doesn't do that often. As a matter of fact it has only done that one other time since man has been recording history. We think this is just one more indication that we have been correct in declaring that the earth is on the cusp of a re-freeze, another ice age... not a planet wide warm-up or "Climate Change" as the adherents to the gospel of "Global Warming" have taken to calling it (since so much of what they have declared has been debunked and more debunking is happening every day).

We thought you'd like to read the article for yourselves. You'll find it

If we could warn you of anything, it would be not to be caught up in the planet wide hysteria about a non-existent warming of the planet. We are convinced it is a hoax, quite likely the greatest hoax ever visited upon mankind.

The Pew Research Center released the results of a poll last week that indicates that Americans are just plain tired of all the global warming hype. It seems Pew called 1500 adult Americans and asked them to
to prioritize the issues they thought the government should tackle in 2009. They were given 20 issues to rank. Global Warming came in dead last! CNS News has an excellent article on it HERE.

There's good reason for this trend among Americans. What we are being told about the earth's warming does not correlate to what we are seeing out our windows! It snowed here in the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina last week. It may do so again this week. That is rare. But NC is not a good example... unless you live here where the average high temp, in January, is 56º and the average low temp in January is 33º.

The problem for the Global Warming adherents is the fact that global temps are going down... not up!
Last year the snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China was greater than at any time since 1966.

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats." Read the article HERE.

Oh, and the CO-2 scare... well, that is coming unglued as well. It is bunk! An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide man made CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number." Read the article HERE.

Back in December of 2008, a US Senate Minority report on this very thing was released and it had some interesting comments from some of the 650 dissenting scientists concerning Global Warming. Here are just a few samples:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." — U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
— UN IPCC Japanese Sci
entist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"
— Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined."
— Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning."
— Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

In the meantime those who pull the world's strings from the shadows continue to push this mythical global disaster as a means toward introduction of a one world government. After all, that's what the Global Warming hoax is all about.

J. D. Longstreet


Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama Picks a fight. The Wrong Fight!

Obama Picks a fight. The Wrong Fight!
J. D. Longstreet
According to The Telegraph:

"Barack Obama is on a collision course with his critics after picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, America's most influential conservative commentator."

The article is by Tim Shipman and we recommend you read it HERE.

Open warfare between Obama and Mr. Limbaugh, and the millions of conservative followers of Limbaugh, is the last thing Mr. Obama needs, especially this early in his regime.

Some are saying Obama is risking a new culture war between the "Obamaniacs" and American conservatives. We are here to declare there is no risk involved. The so-called "culture war" has hardly taken a breath. Conservatives graciously allowed the left to have their love-in and group hug after the election and during the inauguration, and were content to allow Mr. Obama a honeymoon. That "truce" is now over.

For our friends and enemies in Europe and around the globe please be advised: the United States of America is every bit as divided today as it was on January 19th. Maybe even more so. In fact, I believe it is more divided.

Look, conservatives are going to have an extremely difficult time accepting Obama as their president. I know the law says he is. But, the law can do nothing about the distance between the core beliefs of the conservative and the core beliefs of the liberal/socialist now in charge in this country. Say what you will, do what you want, but the old expression "never the twain shall meet" applies , absolutely, to the great divide between the conservatives and the liberal/socialists in America.

So, what if the conservatives formed a "government in exile". Nothing formal, you understand, just a government which is "understood" to exist. My guess is that Mr. Limbaugh would be the first President of that hypothetical government in exile.

So, then, the liberal/socialists have their leader and the conservatives have their leader. Where does that leave the GOP? Right where they placed themselves...up that proverbial creek without a paddle!

It now appears that we are going to see a four year contest between Obama and Limbaugh.

What about the bipartisanship Obama pledged before the election? Well, that went right out the door the minute the last vote was counted. It was never anything more than a campaign promise... which is understood, the experts tell us, to be nothing more than "puffing"... meaning it has no substance.

In fact, it is a good thing that the liberal/socialist facade of "universal love" has been shredded and now lies in fractured heaps at the feet of The Obama. It was untrue from its inception. And now you know. Now the world knows.

This is going to be an extremely contentious four years in America. With all our financial problems we are going to have a continuous fight in the halls of government. Don't be surprised if some punches are thrown. We are facing the exact opposite of the future which was described by the old hippies in the Mainstream Media and in the government. Peace, love, prosperity, etc. it's all a crock. It isn't going to happen. What, in fact we will see and experience, is financial collapse, multiple terrorist attacks within America, soaring unemployment, civil unrest, and a government on the very precipice of total collapse. THAT is the future we should be preparing for... and some of us are doing just that.

Race relations in America, realistically, can be expected to worsen. If, in fact, The Obama represents his (African/American) race then every failure of his Administration will be shared by all African/Americans in America. At least that will be the prevailing attitude in the country. Unfair, you say? Of course it is! But that will not/does not matter. We are dealing with "true-life", the way things are in the REAL world.

If I said that I supported this President, I would be not be truthful. I did not support Mr. Obama during the campaign, and I cannot support him now. I believe his policies will only bring disaster to this country. I will not be hypocritical and announce that I support him when I do not. I am convinced that Mr. Obama's $825 billion economic stimulus plan will do absolutely nothing to ease America out of the recession and will, in fact, only deepen the recession and worsen the impact on Americans of all economic levels. Just like the machinations of FDR, it will not end the recession it will only make it worse. For those of you who attended public schools, (Government schools) FDR did not end The Great Depression. The Second World War ended The Depression.

So, here we are at the beginning of a new administration in America and the battle lines are, for the most part, already drawn. It is going to be a nasty few years in America. There is no effective opposition. The GOP committed suicide by insisting on running "democrat-lite" candidates they knew American conservatives could not support and now they are paying the price for that bit of mind boggling political ignorance.

So, yes, conservatives will be looking for leadership on the national stage and many believe they have found it in the man The Obama chose to denigrate over the weekend. Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is now thrust into a position I, personally, don't believe he wanted. Nevertheless, he will be the "go-to" guy for conservatives over the next four years. If you don't think this will revive the "Fairness Doctrine debate" you are sadly mistaken. Our socialist government will feel that it must silence Mr. Limbaugh by taking whatever action they can. No doubt they are feeling pressure to move on silencing Rush as quickly as they possibly can.

To our friends and enemies around the world, do not expect much input into your problems from America in the near future. We will be turning inwards to seek solutions to our own problems, problems which threaten our Republic, first. America must first help herself before she can be expected to help anyone else.

May God bless America... and quickly!

J. D. Longstreet

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Gun Control is NOT about Guns!!! It’s about Control!!!

Gun Control is NOT about Guns!!! It’s about Control!!!

J. D Longstreet


With Democrats in control of the US Government, American citizens need to guard such liberties as gun ownership even more closely.

Let’s take a look at what gun control has wrought around the world:

Since 1996, when a madman went on a rampage killing 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain has tightened to strangulation its already draconian gun control laws so that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns. These must be .22 caliber or smaller and must be kept locked up at the club at all times.

Guns have been virtually banned, and the God-given right to self-defense has been virtually abrogated in England.

And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing.

And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America.

To make matters worse for England – and this is also true for Canada – in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace, and dangerous, because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times, which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"(2) Perhaps England should look introspectively.” Taken from: “Great Britain and Gun Control: With Neither Liberty nor Safety” by: Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. You’ll find the entire article at:

Then… there is this taken from: “Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard,” written by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and published in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy:

“[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed....

Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety....

In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century....

A recent study of all the countries of Western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime....

Plus: “A United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.”

If we scan the world we get similar results. If we look back in history it is astounding what happens when a people are disarmed and left defenseless to anyone wishing to do him or her harm, including their own government. I received the following by e-mail recently. It is very telling. We invite you to read it and think, seriously about what it says.

Gun Control...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him or her of this history lesson.

An Armed man is a citizen!

An UNARMED man is a subject!

With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

J. D. Longstreet


href="" rel="tag">Conservative+Gun+Control


Saturday, January 24, 2009

Infrastructure: Let’s Spend Money on It! ... by Alan Caruba

Infrastructure: Let’s Spend Money on It!
By Alan Caruba

There is one aspect of President Obama’s proposed agenda that I like very much and it has to do with investing in the nation’s infrastructure of highways, bridges, ports and airfields.

As a youth I can recall President Eisenhower and, from the vantage point of many decades later, I am amazed at how effective and foresighted he was. As President, perhaps his greatest legacy was the creation of a system of interstate highways. He funded it with a gas tax and it literally transformed the nation economically and socially.

Today, those highways, begun in 1972 and not finished until 1993 at a total cost of $130 billion, are in need of some serious maintenance and upgrade as are other elements of our infrastructure.

Attending to this vital national need will generate lots of jobs, well beyond construction. These are not the “green jobs” that Obama talks of, but real jobs that will produce real results in the form of an improved highway system, as well as the expansion of our ports and other transportation facilities.

Writing recently, Anthony Coscia, chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had this to say about the nation’s infrastructure:

“America is literally falling apart. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, one-third of the nation’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 26 percent of its bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.”

Back in September, the Washington Post reported that the Highway Trust Fund was about to run out of money before the end of the year. Left unmentioned, however, was why. Billions of the Fund’s money have been diverted to boost the production of ethanol. When the ethanol lobby realized it was going to be rightly blamed for potholes and collapsing bridges, it got the Energy Policy Act of 2005 passed to facilitate direct financing from the U.S. Treasury. Who voted for this? Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Tom Harkin, and Sen. Richard Lugar, to name a few.

“The nation’s air traffic control system still relies on radar technology dating from the 1960s, leading to chronic flight delays and near collisions on the runways. Traffic gridlock on the nation’s highways and airways costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually.”

Part of the problem is that the State’s are responsible for some 75 percent of the cost of all infrastructure projects with the federal government picking up the rest. Governors, being politicians, know that highway repair is not a big vote-getter, so they have tended to ignore it. Some have actually leased parts of the nation’s highway system to foreign companies. Infrastructure is an American priority and should be funded by Americans.

Coscia notes that “The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates it will cost $1.6 trillion just to bring the nation’s infrastructure to a state of good repair.” This would be money well spent. Right now there are $79 billion in projects whose plans have been completed and could begin tomorrow if the money was available. The Obama administration and Congress need to make it available.

At issue, too, is where those projects are located. Bear in mind that 65 percent of America’s population lives in metropolitan areas and accounts for 75 percent of the economy. This is no time for more “bridges to nowhere.” The nation’s cities should be first in line to upgrade existing structures and add new ones.

Among those structures in desperate need of upgrade are the crumbling water mains in cities from Boston to Tampa to San Antonio and elsewhere, most of which were built generations ago. The estimated bill will be $277 billion according to the Environmental Protection Agency. What is more vital to life than water? Spend the money!

This is, ironically, a quintessential conservative cause even if it will take a recession and a nation’s capitol filled with liberals to make it happen. Republicans in office should embrace infrastructure as a key issue now that Congress has returned.

As Emil W. Henry, Jr., a former assistant treasury secretary from 2005 to 2007, wrote recently, “Like the maintenance of a strong military—investment that protects prosperity—investment in key infrastructure is consistent with Reagan principles.” He like so many others says “Our infrastructure needs are at a critical juncture.”

There will be voices opposing this task and they will all be from environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club that are already on record as being against building new highways, new coal-fired or nuclear generation plants, and just about anything else that will ensure that our complex society can function and our economy can keep pace with the rest of the world.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center,

© Alan Caruba, January 2009


href="" rel="tag">Conservative+US+infrastructure+spending

Friday, January 23, 2009

The Presidency ... J. D. Longstreet

The Presidency
J. D. Longstreet


Well, we have ourselves a new President. For good, or ill, Mr. Obama is "The Man" for at least four years.

I sure as heck did not receive an invitation to attend, and I didn't partake of all the offerings on TV of the Inauguration. I figured I'd see all I wanted to see, and then some, of Mr. Obama over the next four years so why overindulge this early on in the game. Besides, the remarks made by Douglas Adams, a British comedy writer crossed my mind. Mr, Douglas is credited with having said: " Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should, on no account, be allowed to do the job!"

Still there are those who, upon observing the way our US political system works nail it, dead on! Take for instance, this quote from Deng Xiaoping, a former Chinese politician and communist leader, who was the most powerful figure in the People's Republic of China from the late 1970s until his death in 1997. He said this: "The United States brags about its political system, but the President says one thing during the election, something else when he takes office, something else at midterm, and something else when he leaves." See? Even the Commies understand how it works!

Harry Truman, the 33rd President of the United States said this:
All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.

John Adams, the second President of the US said, in reference to his term in office: "The four most miserable years of my life!" Later, Adams said: "Had I been chosen president again, I am certain I could not have lived another year."

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the US, said this: "No man will ever bring out of the Presidency the reputation which carries him into it. To myself, personally, it brings nothing but increasing drudgery and daily loss of friends."

Patrick Henry, one of the of the Founding Fathers of the US was not particularly happy with the Constitution and the way it treated the office of President. It is important to note, I think, that Henry wanted a "confederation of states" rather than a "consolidated government" which, he felt, was what the early Constitution did, even before the Bill of Rights was tacked on. In any event, this is what Henry had to say, especially about the office of President: "The Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting - it squints towards monarchy. And does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. . . . Where are your checks in this government? . . . I would rather infinitely - and I am sure most of this convention are of the same opinion - have a king, lords, and commons than a government so replete with such insupportable evils."

President Jimmy Carter once said: "You really have to experience the feeling of being with the president in the oval office. . . . It's a disease I came to call Ovalitis."

President Dwight David (IKE) Eisenhower said this of the decision making by the President: "No easy problems ever come to the President of the United States. If they are easy to solve, somebody else has solved them."

Newt Gingrich, always good for a quote, is given credit for having said:
"If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified! The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now."

I'll return to Harry Truman for another quote on the Presidency. Truman is felt by many to be if not the most "grounded" President the US has ever had, then certainly he would rank within the top three. Truman once said: "When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one gun salutes, all those things. You have to remember, it isn't for you, it's for the Presidency.

Now, I'm not trying to make any particular point here, in this piece, I just thought it would be good to get a perspective on the views of others, especially those who have served in the office of President, or served the office of President, helped to define the office of President, and even, in some cases, reported on the office of the President. It IS an exalted position in our government and our society. But, it is well to remember that those who have served as President and Mr. Obama, who serves today, is "... but a man."

Having established the fact that the President is "just a man" I, along with a multitude of Journalists/Bloggers/Commentators and every living American, reserves the right to excoriate him when he does something with which we do not agree.

Mr. Obama is in for some serious pounding in a few days, or a few weeks, whenever the so-called "Honeymoon" is over. Those of us on the political right have the long knives out, sharpened, and at the ready. We will be slicing and dicing Mr. Obama just as efficiently as the writers on the political left eviscerated Mr. Bush. I would hope we do it with more style, less crudity, and far less profanity and vulgarity than the political left.

In doing so, we should not flinch from the job at hand. I will turn to a quote from one of my favorite former Presidents of the US, Teddy Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt was a "man's man" and did not mince words when speaking on a topic he held sincere views about. Roosevelt held strong opinions about the job of, and the office of, the President. He said this:
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.”

Taking our lead from former President Theodore Roosevelt, we here at
"INSIGHT on Freedom" intend to do just that.

J. D. Longstreet


href="" rel="tag">Conservative+US+Presidents

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Mr. Obama. Taking America into Harm’s Way.

Mr. Obama. Taking America into Harm’s Way.
Not Everyone Is Happy

J. D. Longstreet
Is the partying done yet? Is the trash picked up off the mall? Has everyone sobered up? Far more important is the question: Has the defecation hit the rotary oscillator yet?

So many questions. So much uncertainty. So much fear. Yes… I did say F E A R !

See, not all of us were celebrating as Mr. Obama took the Oath of Office. Some of us are genuinely frightened at the prospects ahead… prospects, which do not bode well for the United States and the people who populate these states.

See, there are 58 million of us who voted against Mr. Obama. Did you get that? I said 58 million Americans voted against Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama got 53% of the vote across America. See how close that is to ½ the electorate? So, when you fan away the media’s smoke… we are right where we were before the election… so far as the common man and woman of America is concerned. We STILL live in a country equally divided, roughly 50/50, about the direction the country should be taking.

Now, you would never know that from all the hoopla in the Mainstream Media about “healing”, and “hope”, and “change”, and all the “feel good” “warm and fuzzy”, “group hug” rhetoric, right out of the 60’s “hippie culture” spouted by the talking heads on TV and the gushing of the leftie writers in the printed press. I must tell you folks… to an old southern conservative, like “yours truly”, it is sickening. I could not watch it on the television for fear of vomiting.

Hey, and while we are at it… can we agree that America is no longer a “racist country”, like every other country on the face of the earth? No, you say? And, why not, pray tell? We have been told, all along, by the bleeding hearts in the Mainstream Media that if Obama were elected it would end racism in America!

Well, of course, I knew it was BS then… and it is BS today (BS=Bovine Scatology). But you know, there are actually people walking around on this earth who actually believed that stuff? Yeah! No kidding! That ought to scare you to death! I know it rattled my cage with gusto!

It is absolutely amazing how simple-minded the American voter really is. But, we can take comfort that only half, at best, of the American electorate bought that Utopian nonsense. Remember, only 53% of us voted for Mr. Obama. The other 47% still have their wits about them… and they will be, eventually, the people who save America from the Socialists, the Old Hippies, the Eurocrats, the Neocomms, (Neocomms=New Communists) and the plain ole “Air Heads” who populate the two chambers of our legislative wing of government. (Speaking of Air Heads… have you looked into the eyes of some of those people with their vacuous smiles plastered, permanently, to their faces? You really ought to. If gives new depths of meaning to the phrase: “The lights are on… but nobody is home.”

I am an old “states righter” who believes that the best government is the government that governs the least. I also believe that the smaller the government the better. I believe we should starve government into reducing its size by cutting taxes to reduce the amount of available funds the government can use to enlarge itself. I believe, as did the men who founded this country and drew up the Constitution, that the Federal Government was/is to be the agent of the states and is to take its orders from the states… not the other way around… as it is today. Like President Reagan, I believe government is the problem and not the answer. I believe Mr. Obama is dead wrong, absolutely wrong, in his stated desire to grow the government to right all wrongs in America. It will only create more wrongs.

I believe Mr. Obama is about to take the US into Harm’s Way… and he has no clue. He is a Commander-in-Chief who will have to be taught how to salute. And HE is to COMMAND the mightiest military force on the planet? YES! Does that not scare you?

And the bailouts: When do you and I have to pay it back? Huh? Oh, yeah! They forgot to mention that, didn’t they? Yep, you and I, the American taxpayer, AND our children and grandchildren, some yet unborn, will be required to put all that money back into the Treasury’s coffers.

Oh, well. We finally have that “Nanny State” 53% of the electorate wanted. Yep! You finally have a government that can give you everything you want. But, by the same token, you also have the government that can take everything you have!

I was in the Artillery when I served the country in the US Army. One of the first lessons I learned, as new artilleryman, was to always remember that as soon as the enemy is within range of your guns… YOU are in range of THEIRS! There are no “gimmes.” There is “No Free Lunch.” Somebody MUST pay. Want to know who is going pay for all the “FREE” stuff you are expecting to get from the US Government under Obama’s reign? Just look in the mirror!

No, some of us are not celebrating. Some us are sincerely worried.

J. D. Longstreet


© j. d. Longstreet


href="" rel="tag">Conservative+Obama+Oratory+Action

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Oratory Versus Reality: The Obama Years Begin ... by Alan Caruba

Oratory Versus Reality: The Obama Years Begin
By Alan Caruba

Not since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy has this nation had a President so blessed with the gift of oratory.

There is no doubt that, if words alone could lift this nation out of its current financial crisis, its wars, and other problems, President Barack Obama could make that happen.

We need, therefore, to cast our eyes backwards to those earlier presidents to remind us that, for all his eloquence, his power to encourage and inspire Americans, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not resolve the Great Depression and, indeed, prolonged it with a misguided New Deal. Inaugurated in 1933, he was still struggling when World War II began for the United States in 1941.

As John F. Kennedy urged us to ask not what the country could do for us, but what we could do for our country, it was mere months before the die was cast for growing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Other than the space program, his administration was a series of stumbles. His assassination eliminated any further opportunity to judge his brief term in office.

So oratory is a fine thing and our new President delivered a fine speech. But! If Americans discover that we are in for a “first 100 days” that involves a great flurry of ill-conceived, ill-considered, and utterly political legislation, we will rue the day we gave power to him and those on Capitol Hill.

“There are some who question the scale of our ambitions,” said President Obama. He’s right because the greatest failures always follow an excess of ambition. It happens to individuals and it happens to nations.

The proposed stimulus bill reeks of all the errors and ills of FDR’s New Deal programs that wasted millions paying farmers not to plant crops, fixing prices within industries to kill competition while driving up the cost of goods, and initially handing out money without requiring that people work to earn it.

The proposed $825 billion “stimulus package” is pure pork. It has no more relationship to economic recovery than previous efforts. The real change America needs is for government to stop interfering with the marketplace of goods and services.

When Congress gets out of the way of business and industry, you will have recovery.

When it stops paying farmers not to plant crops, as it continues to do, you will have recovery.

When it puts a stop to the lawsuits and laws that stop or slows every form of development in favor of some unknown species of insect or reptile, you will see recovery.

When it permits our vast natural resources of coal, natural gas, and oil to be extracted and sold as energy for America, you will see recovery.

Called the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill”, the proposed bill includes $650 million to help Americans upgrade to digital cable after the transition on February 17th. In what possible way does this help the economy? It is pork.

While surely there are structures in cities and towns in America that could use an upgrade, $44 million will be spent to repair and improve the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. All manner of taxpayer money will be lavished on a panoply of government agencies, all standing in line with their tin cups.

As Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.”

There will be $1.2 billion to provide day care services to 300,000 additional low-income children since clearly both parents will have to work in order to put food on the table. It is pork.

$1.2 billion to create an estimated one million summer jobs for young people. It is pork.

And $6.2 billion to weatherize the homes of low-income people to make them “more energy efficient.” It is pork.

It probably passed unnoticed, but the President’s promise to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” is quite possibly the worst indicator of what his new administration plans to do to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars and countless new regulations.

The Earth is dramatically cooling. There is no global warming. Why the new President talking about “a warming planet”?

As just one more example of the endless list of items taxpayer money to be wasted, the most egregious is $2.4 billion for “projects demonstrating carbon-capture technology.” There is no need to “capture” carbon dioxide, a gas that plays virtually no role whatever in climate change. The oceans of the world have been doing that for more than five billion years.

After the oratory comes the reality. If, as a nation our elected representatives act, based on the failed politics and policies of the past, economic reality will swiftly become painfully apparent and all the speeches in the world will not put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center,