******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Now They Are Coming For Goldman Sachs

It would be easy to cheer as the Obama administration seeks to take down Goldman Sachs. After all, Goldman Sachs has become a proxy for Wall Street, since so many of the old icons no longer exist or have been consumed as a result of the 2008 credit crunch.

But do not cheer too quickly this time. As even the NY Times now is admitting, the actual civil charges against Goldman Sachs are far from clear cut.

Civil charges by the government can bring down an entire organization for reasons having nothing to do with the charges. As we speak, there is a clamor in Britain for the government to cease doing business with Goldman Sachs as a result of the charges.

Expect the same thing to happen here, as Democrats ratchet up the crisis atmosphere to get a quick vote on financial regulations which would give the government vast powers over the financial services industry. As I documented yesterday, the Goldman Sachs charges are being politicized for the administration's purposes.

It's the health care fiasco all over again. A manufactured crisis with an identifiable demon.

As tempting as it is to say "to hell with Goldman Sachs," remember the saying about "first they came for ...."

Goldman is not the first they came for. This administration already has emasculated the entire private health insurance industry, brought the health of hundreds of millions of people under its regulatory control through Obamacare, and demonized as racists and extremists law-abiding patriotic Americans who spoke out for individual freedom and constitutional federalism.

The pharmaceutical industry was evil until it cut a deal and bought advertising in support of Obamacare, and doctors were greedy -- as they performed unnecessary surgeries so they could bill more -- until the AMA joined the Obama chorus. One center of power after another fell in line in the year-long push for Obamacare.

If the administration gets its way on cap-and-trade, the government will control through regulation virtually all industry through industry's lifeblood, the consumption of carbon-based energy.

State autonomy also is dwindling, and those who point out that the federal government is limited to enumerated powers are derided as "Tenthers."

There are few remaining entities which can stand up to the overweening encroachment of the federal government.

Taking down the leading, and in many ways last remaining, Wall Street powerhouse will remove yet another center of private industry power.

The serial removal of centers of power outside the federal government in Washington, D.C. is a worrisome trend which becomes more difficult to reverse as the dominoes fall.

Don't wish too hard for the demise of Goldman Sachs. Because Goldman Sachs is not the end game.

Update: Michelle Malkin on the tangled web, All the president’s Goldman Sachs men.

Related Posts:
Goldman Sachs Suit The Latest Crisis Not To Be Wasted

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Bookmark and Share


  1. Excellent post. It is like watching a modern-day rendition of "Darkness at Noon," with Wall Street and industry being "tried and convicted" in a version of "show trials" where political rhetoric, the administration, and a complicit media do the work of a court of law. The leftists in DC (read thugs) seem to have studied all too well how to "fundamentally transform America."

    These are truly dark times for our nation.

  2. WSJ had an article on its frontpage about the partisan vote in order to bring charges against Goldman Sachs. Usually when such actions are taken there has to be a unanimous decision. Its seems that the long hand of political expediency is being used here and the democratic machine is in full play. The truth is while everyone is railing about Alinsky tactics, I think the more appropriate allusion is to Goebbels. There is evil afoot...

  3. "The truth is while everyone is railing about Alinsky tactics, I think the more appropriate allusion is to Goebbels. There is evil afoot..."
    --Independent Patriot

    I believe it is more like Stalin than Hitler (Goebbels), personally. After studying both, there appear to be more parallels between Stalinist USSR than Nazi Germany when it comes to the "machine," IMHO.

    And, yes, evil is afoot, indeed.

  4. I remember an author giving a speech on C Span that the average Joe should not be happy Martha Stewart went to jail. While tempting to celebrate the demise or hardship of someone you don't like or envy, it could be you next.

    I think some lawyer wrote a book about everyone is now a criminal, just a lot of us don't know it, we have to wait for a government worker to make that call.

    I believe the goal is to form a central bank and eliminate the small banks. I listened to a banker on the local talk show that said the new regs will take away the small community bank's ability to make mortgages. People tend to put their checking and savings in the same place as their mortgage is made. The small bank is the target, not the big guys. The small guy is always the endgame.

  5. Let me see if I have this straight. Your job as a clinic supervisor is to lobby the SEC on changes in rules and regulations. And in this post, you have compared the SEC to perpetrators of the Holocaust ("first they came for", citing to the Wikipedia page explaining the Holocaust allusion).

    So you're saying that the SEC charging an investment bank with securities fraud is as bad as, oh forget it, I'm not going there. But good luck with your job.

  6. The next step is the Dodd "too big to fail" bill, which will give BHO unchecked powers to take over certain corporations at his discretion without congressional approval.

  7. If you listen to some of the speeches before and just after the 2008 election, Obama made it clear that it was too difficult to "just take over the banks" in the US, because "there are too many of them."

    Maybe Becky is onto something......it is easy to control one centralized bank, but with our free-market system and multiple banks, it is nearly impossible to control "the banks" and "Wall Street." Inconvenient truths.

    Always question the timing - and the motives - of these Chicago-on-the-Potomac thugs.

    "Never let a crisis go to waste." --Rahm E.

  8. Umnhhhh....I'm a cynic.

    I think the GS thing is a show-trial. SEC won't be able to prove, but Obama gets his cred on 'fixing Wall Street.'

    Small fine, maybe a C&D order, everyone goes home happy.

  9. I don't wish for GS to fail, because I know what the government is up to here - more control. But don't expect anyone to cheer Wall Street firms since they've been a bunch of corrupt scum who screwed everyone else for years. I predict Wall Street will fall quickly to the government.

  10. As tempting as it is to say "to hell with Goldman Sachs," remember the saying about "first they came for ...."

    "...the communists."

    That's how it always begins BTW.

    It's amusing to see right-wingers using it so much to describe the oppression of rich financial elites.

  11. Finely crafted post. To add anything would be to guild this lily.

  12. William,

    I'm sure you are more educated, so can you describe the type of government the left is headed for here?

    I say a combination of European statism and an administrative government. Some others are arguing the Chinese model.

    As for AJB trying to be cute by half. The point of the saying isn't about communists. The method described by the author is not limited to Fascism or communism but is a tool used by all would be tyrants and dictators. Isolate, demonize and then eliminate. People who make light of what is happening today in our nation are either ignorant of history or just plain ignorant period.

    Go ahead and have your moment. You'll be like that school kid running around with a sharpened stick. It is all fun until somebody gets their eye poked out.

    Obama's people (not Obama he's just a cardboard cutout)are deadly serious mercenaries bent on committing the largest robbery in human history. And they aren't nearly done with the effort. You think this is bad, wait till cap and trade eats you alive.

  13. OMG, you right wing nuts are hilarious! You seriously think that the world is going to hell because there is some re-distribution of imperialistic capitalistic thievery. What makes you so self-righteous, anyways? The US government has made more deals with the devil to prop up dictators so that domestic corporations can rape and pillage entire nations of their natural resources, and not a peep out of you. So if you feel compelled to spout sayings (which is all a saying is) like "first they came for", where were you when so many third world people were screwed out of a future when American companies bribed their governments so that US companies could literally steal their oil/diamonds/gold/whatever? You people are so myopic and stupid! If we don't look out for each other (globally and not just at home), all we are left with are the lucky ones who end up with all the money since money equals power in a democracy/dictatorship/socialist society. And the rich are 90% lucky and 10% smart, and by the time they get rich, the 10% of brains has been replaced by a fear of losing their money. WTF possible use can someone have for billions of dollars? To pass it on to their spoiled rotten kids? Nice? Hording money is the same as hording anything...it's a sickness and America is a big money addict. It's pathetic and the fear mongering that revolves around feeding your fix is a joke. Start thinking for yourselves and actually examine the outcome of your actions over time and maybe just maybe you can have something to smile about when you're about to die instead of "why the heck did I spend all my time trying to get richer and richer, when I could have done something worthwhile or even fun". Sad people, really sad.

  14. I'm really at a loss to understand the perspective from which you understand the recent SEC suit against Goldman Sachs. You've tied it to Obama's push for regulating the financial industry. Duh! As I read more about it, it appears that the filing of this action very well may have been motivated by the fact that the legislation will be in front of congress in the next couple weeks. First, the charges are pretty thin considering the sophistication of the purchasers involved and Goldman's full disclosure of the which assets were in the special purpose vehicle. Thats not to say they are spurious, just thin. Second, it seems that the SEC went directly from the investigation stage to litigation. The usual practice is to attempt to negotiate a settlement before filing suit. Now, up until this point, you and I are on the same page. And then we depart.

    The notion that this lawsuit is an effort to manufacture a 'crisis' in order to create an environment conducive to passing reform is utter nonsense. Please tell me, on what planet have you been living on over the past 2 years? There already WAS a crisis, its called the 'Great Recession.' Obama doesn't have to create a crisis, it was here before he got elected. And all this coming from a former securities lawyer, give me a break! You know full well that financial reform is in response to the recession, not in response to this lawsuit.

    If anything, Obama influenced the SEC to bring or at least to fast track this suit to make it look like he is being tough on Wall Street. Oooohhh, Obama is acting like a politician! Sorry to tell you sir, that doesn't mean the world is going to end.

    Finally, Goldman civil action or not, I think its pretty obvious that the financial industry should be reformed in one way or another after what has transpired since 2008. As blogger with experience in the financial industry, on the legal side of things no less, you would serve yourself and your readers better if you proposed ideas for reform, or critiqued the current reform proposals. But please spare them, and all of us, from your black helicopter, 'America is coming to an end,' and 'it's socialism' rants. The financial industry has been regulated since the 30's. Regulation does not equal socialism. Financial regulation actually ensures the continued functioning of our capital markets, which are the core of our capitalist system. Those markets were dealt a severe blow as a result of deregulation. How they should be regulated is a different question. Its as simple as that.

  15. I wonder just how souless and willfully ignorant ignorant one has to be to believe that our healthcare and financial systems are not in crisis.



  16. Yes, it was political. The left is good at that. As far as Goldman being punished, I say get a line going BUT START with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae. Have Congress clean their own house before calling others greedy and corrupt.

    And yes, I have a problem with wealth re-distribution. I ask you what have YOU done to deserve someone else's cash except get born, eat enough food to remain alive and not do anything stupid enough to get your killed up to this point? Seriously.

    I would much rather design the system where you and I had a chance to invent, or work hard, or just have jobs that gave us a chance to live our dreams. With all the regulations, rules, taxes and now socialized healthcare on the horizon, your days of being free enough to be another Bill Gates or even a George Soros are over.

    From now on, if the leftist elites have their way only the people they chose to rise out of the drones to the higher strata will be able to do so.

    Is that really the "wealth distribution" you seek? Look at history, look at Europe, look at South America all forms of government heavy socialism, some using that type of government for a hundred years. Is it really that good there vs. here?

    Worse, all those PET scans, new meds, new inventions will slow down or stop. Man, it took three nations in Europe to work together to build one half-assed jet plane. Is that who we are?

    Hardly. Get government out of the way, BUT make sure if somebody is cheating they get held responsible.

  17. "It would be easy to cheer as the Obama administration seeks to take down Goldman Sachs. After all, Goldman Sachs has become a proxy for Wall Street, since so many of the old icons no longer exist or have been consumed as a result of the 2008 credit crunch."

    Except that Goldman Sachs is actually a proxy for the Administration, and the whole exercise is Kabuki. Once you see that both players are the left and right hands of the same entity, you start going, "oh, then whose pocket is being picked while they squabble?"

  18. This is typical government stupidity.

    Madoff swindles individual investors for anywhere from $12 to $20 billion, that money is never going to be repaid, and the SEC yawns for 8 years, even as a whistle blower tries to lead them right to the crime.

    But now here is Goldman Sachs, a company that could pay back 100 times any losses in the relevant transaction, and the SEC charges in and sues it with a measly civil complaint and it gets all the gravity and fanfare of the Nirenberg Trials.

    If you need any more clear reason why the government should only run the absolute necessities, you couldn't get a better one than these two transactions.

    With the government, its always too little to late.

  19. Please someone mention the role of government via CRA, Fannie, et al, in this mix. GS and co were acting rationally to the input from government entities, most especially those in congress pushing for social justice by making sure anyone who wanted a house could have one. Rating agencies let everyone down and so did regulators, but most especially Barney F. and co., including all Clinton's crowd who ignited the whole runaway sub prime mortgage debacle. Pox on all your houses.

  20. I'm really at a loss to understand the perspective from which you understand the recent SEC suit against Goldman Sachs.

    I think I understand your perspective, and I'll grant someone can hold it in good faith.

    But I don't understand your inability, given the public information available, to at least grant the possibility that Obama is a demogogic socialist who has wants to "transform" America in a way that redistributes wealth and power.

    Start with Obama's early associations -- no one with an open mind can merely handwave these away as irrelevant. Nor is it intelligent to lightly dismiss his recorded comments of wanting to "spread the wealth around" and laments that the Warren Court did not go far enough in redistributing wealth.

    Nor the fact that the man's first order of business -- during a terrible recession -- was not to increase employment, but to create a massive new government entitlement. All the while, belittling and mocking his political opposition -- so much for being a uniter and president of all the people, while record numbers of Americans are on food stamps and unemployed and worried about the future.

    I do understand your perspective. I just don't understand why it's the only one you can comprehend.

  21. The whole thing with Goldman is a rigged 'show' trial": lower level people will be prosecuted, the company will pay a fine, and will support the new financial regulations.

    No financial business has supported Obama as much, or is as close to the Obama regime, as Goldman Sachs. In fact, one could probably make a plausible case that Goldman Sachs alumni in government gave us the crisis, or, at the very least, were working against the interests of the Bush administration and the country by the end of 2007. The loyalties of people like Paulson were clearly with their Goldman colleagues, not with the country.

    I say REALLY take Goldman down. I'm a Wall Street lawyer and have had a financial service practice for almost 30 years. I have watched the transformation of the industry - and done well from it - and have watched its climbing into bed first with Clinton and then with Obama.

    These investment bankers no longer do very much real investment banking, or even real financial intermediation. Increasingly, they're using political influence and inside knowledge to create profits. They're managers now, not owners as they were are recently as 10-15 years ago, and their interests do not align with the creation of wealth for customers, only with their own incentives.

  22. I agree with Cato and some of the others, it is just for show. But why?

    Simple. In a European statism model of government the system is like this: There is government which consists of a thin strata of elites of like mind- from the same background or school or family- who pick and choose the people allowed to rise to their level. Those elites are supported by a large bureaucratic administrative government that runs the country. On their side are large unions filled with government workers, beholden to the "state" for their livelihood. The elites also run large corporations, the only corporations "allowed" to exist by the government, thus eliminating all the smaller competition (think H&R Block vs. mom and pop tax specialists). All the upper strata does to maintain the system is hop between the pubic and private sector, making policies and laws that favor their chosen corporations and unions, then working for those same entities in order to make their money. (Paulson and Goldman Sachs for example)

    The rest of the population are basically drones, educated enough so they can be plugged into the society where the elites think they need to go. The drones work all their lives for little chance of advancement, or wealth and no chance for upper mobility. If they want up, they have to ask to be allowed up. They have to be allowed to have their kids go to an upper crust school, or get a job inside a corporation with some chance of advancement.

    That way everything is managed and controlled by a few people who think they are smarter than us, and should be compensated accordingly.

    The first time I was aware of this mindset was when HRC first purposed healthcare and college reform back in the nineties. She faced the same issues they face now, but did not have the cover of the compliant media, liberally dominated Congress and dumbed down and scared population. Back then the issue of "where do we get the doctors?" came up. HRC's answer was they were going to simply mandate students to go to medical school. You need doctors? No problem. Just pick out the qualified students and tell them, "You want to work? Then you are doctors, this group are GP's, this group are going to be surgeons, etc."

    She also said that even though college is a good thing, not all people should go. Some simply don't "qualify". See that is simple too. People like her daughter do qualify and will get the best of the best. However, some people don't and they should be content to go to technical school to learn how to be a mechanic and be able to repair the BMW HRC's daughter drives. Who chooses for them? The elites. One way will be to "nudge" you by controlling your access to college loans. Oh, thought that was a good idea at the time? Hope not now. They will also "nudge" you with the single payer system in healthcare to join unions, get jobs and eventually give up weapons.

    It is not as though they created this concept out of whole cloth. It was in place in the USSR, Mao's China and is in place in certain European nations now at some level.

    Think I'm crazy? Remember who these people are. Also for all you liberals out there that think this will somehow even things out, remember YOU are drones too. Liberal, Kool-aid drinking, "useful idiot" drones, but drones nevertheless. And that should drive you as nuts as it does the rest of us. Liberal or not, in your DNA you are an American, not Chinese, or Russian or old style European.

    At least that is my opinion. Also remember, I'm not even addressing the other part of this equation, the radical left that simply hates this nation and the mercenary sector intent on robbing you blind.

  23. I also agree with Archer52.

    However, let me be clear that I think the fraud being prosecuted at Goldman is real, and that it may well reach much higher up into the bank and that it infected Lehman and many other banks. That's what I mean by saying "REALLY" take Goldman down.

    This prosecution - civil and narrowly focused - is intended to fool the rubes, as it were, and to give the appearance of doing something about a very real problem. And, of course, the doing something will be the Obama financial takeover tying the world of finance and politics even more closely.

  24. Given the magnitude of the political donations made from the upper ranks of Goldman Sachs to the Obama campaign, I suspect it will all come to nought...except for the PR used to push the legislation. I'm with you, Cato Renasci.

    I think it would be an interesting experiment in economics to allow the Democrats enough rope to hang the financial industry like they say they want. Should have an interesting impact on the (so called) economic recovery.

    David Patrick Green: Amusing to read the words of someone intent on taking other people's money through force of government call the victims "self righteous." Sorry to be the one to tell you that you were born in the wrong time. That ridiculous paen you just wrote would have been better suited to th 1930s or for a brief period in the 1960's. Get a job.

  25. Ok Salt Lick, I'm going to try and address what you said one thing at a time:

    "But I don't understand your inability, given the public information available, to at least grant the possibility that Obama is a demogogic socialist who has wants to "transform" America in a way that redistributes wealth and power."

    For the most part, I agree with you. All except the part about Obama being a socialist demagogue, but that is neither here nor there. Obama does want to change America and yes, he wants to do it in a way that redistributes wealth and power. If you think about it, its hard to imagine any politician changing any social system without 'redistributing' wealth and power. Former President Bush also redistributed wealth and power. He passed tax cuts for the wealthy and kept the capital gains tax down, leaving the very wealthy with more money to increase their power. Was that expensive? Yes it was.

    Obama passed health care reform which means that the better off in society will now be responsible for contributing to a program that provides health care for people who can't afford it. If you really think that is the definition of socialism, what do you think about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.? Is this going to be expensive? Yes it will be.

    What you must really be concerned about is the direction of redistribution, not redistribution itself. Do you prefer redistributing to the wealthy, like President Bush did? Thats fine. There are arguments for that, especially if you are rich. But as we've seen, it creates greater economic inequality, which breeds social ills, and shrinks the middle class.

    "Nor the fact that the man's first order of business -- during a terrible recession -- was not to increase employment, but to create a massive new government entitlement. All the while, belittling and mocking his political opposition -- so much for being a uniter and president of all the people, while record numbers of Americans are on food stamps and unemployed and worried about the future."

    Your comment that the government should increase employment puzzles me in light of your strong dislike of all things government. The unemployment we are experiencing today is a direct result of lax regulatory policy regarding the financial markets, which encouraged reckless risk taking, created a major housing bubble, and led to its bust. What in your anti-socialist opinion, should the government do to create jobs? I would guess that if Obama tried to create some sort of depression era work corps, you would cry foul and lament the reign of the socialist demagogue, comrade Obama.

    Furthermore, the first thing he did in office was not to pass health care, but to pass the bailout. Now, no one likes the bailout, but I think you have to admit that it was necessary to keep the crisis (no, not the one Obama 'created') from getting larger.

    Finally, you express empathy towards your fellow Americans who are out of work and on food stamps. I would wager that these same Americans can't afford health insurance. Doesn't your empathy for these people make your opposition to health care reform a little contradictory? You can't feel bad because they are out of work and on food stamps and be angry at the government for not creating jobs for them, and be angry at the government for passing a law that will give them access to healthcare at the same time, can you? This is another attitude I can't understand. Maybe you could explain?

  26. Terrific post! Rush is talking it right now!

  27. Congrats for the mention of this post by Rush Limbaugh!

  28. Rush Limbaugh is talking about your post. Watch for a traffic explosion!

  29. You just got a nice shout out from Rush.

  30. 12:29. Listening to Rush mention your name and this post, Professor.

  31. Congrats on the Rush mentions - and they've been off and on for 45 minutes so far!

  32. I heard you on Rush and am proud to say I knew you when!

  33. jsm99, here's a little primer on capitalism:

    Bush's tax cuts benefitted everyone in the US who participates in the investment markets, which is half the adults in this country. Therefore our investments grew which enabled companies to grow and add more jobs, which benefitted everyone else. You seem to think if some people are rich, other people must be poor. This presumes a static pie which everyone takes a piece of. The pie is not static, it expands through innovation building on innovation, or we would still be living in hunter-gatherer tribes. Rich people don't hurt you, they help you by spending money, either on investment or by buying things, thereby creating wealth for others.

    Because of Bush's taxcuts we got through the double-whammy of the tech bubble recession AND 9-11 to 2003 where the economy began the longest lasting economic expansion in US history. Millions of jobs were created. many of those people became rich, and many more were enabled to lead middle class lives, and much of that spilled over to help the poor. Poor people get more and more well-off in a wealthy capitalist society, they are only RELATIVELY poorer compared to the rich.

    That's what happens when you cut taxes on investment. Why should you care if someone gets rich if along the way they help raise your standard of living? I don't care if Bill Gates has 5 billion dollars - he created an entire industry which, when you consider its spin-offs, created good employment for millions of people. And he doesn't keep it under a mattress. A wealthy family gives work to architects, airlines, clothing manufacturers, restaurants, yacht designers, marina operators, auto manufacturers, garages, nannies, electronics firms...(I'm just thinking of what a wealthy person buys in general). Even more so, he invests in other companies so they grow and provide yet more direct and indirect jobs. Even more than that, he funds foundations, relief projects, cultural institutions....how much leftist politics do the Tides Foundation, Soros, Parisers, etc fund? A LOT.

    Government can only expropriate wealth from the people who create it. Every tax dollar the government takes, every deficit it creates, sucks money out of the private sector where it can grow. Any welfare or charity or culture the government funds is much less efficient in its use of the funds than private decisions.

    very few people think there should be NO government, but we differ greatly on the proper sphere of government, and what size it should be.

  34. Glad that Rush read your post!! I personally can see that either viewpoint - yours or Rush's - is plausible. Both see the "regime" for what it is - utterly corrupt and in the socialsit/liberal/radical tank. Steeped in Alisky tactics, ready to take over and destroy; the ends justify the means, as the regime would say (Rahm-bo must be smiling like a Cheshire cat!).

    Kudos, Professor!! :D

  35. Also jsm99 and all the other commenters who believe in wealth redistribution:

    I am sick and tired of the smears. The accusations that people against Obama's policies want to oppress the poor, or don't care about the sick (no, Obamacare will not give more and better healthcare to more people), or are racists. The very least you can do, if you are honest, is to acknowledge that we do care as much about making the world a better place, for more people, as you. we just have different ideas of how to make it happen, and BTW the track record of the past 200 years supports our ideas, not yours.

    Every leader who has been successful at getting the people out with the pitchforks against the "rich", and expropriating wealth, has created tyrannies where people are poor and oppressed. Mao, Chavez, Mugabe, Castro, Lenin, Hitler, Saddam .... the list is long. What Obama is doing has been tried. Over and over and over and over. It does not work, except to create a new hereditary elite while everyone else gets poorer, and to deliberately set people against each other, for the leader's aggrandizement.

    If you really want to help those who cannot help themselves, and create employment and expand freedom and culture and community, stop letting these demogogues divert you by blaming the rich, while they pick your pockets. Stop smearing those who believe in the free market. Disagree honestly.

  36. So the longest-lasting economic expansion in US history was 2003-2007, all of four years? I know 1993-2000 seemed to fly by in no time at all, but I wasn't aware that years were actually shorter back then. I'm also amazed at the ability of the Bush tax cuts to grow the economy at a rate lower than the growth rate after the Clinton tax increases. And of course the economy isn't a static pie when it comes to rich people taking from it, but somehow that logic doesn't apply to the public sector. I mean, Bill Gates created an entire industry, and the government could never do something like that, according to a comment I read on THE INTERNET. So now you long for the days of the Bush Jr. administration when the country wasn't being run by an hereditary elite, and think Obama's actions are all too reminiscent of the days when Hitler crushed Europe under the jackboot of a 39% top marginal income tax rate and slaughtered millions of Jews by subsidizing their private health insurance premiums? As a strong believer in a free market supplemented by an effective democratic government, all I ask is that you stop smearing those who believe in facts.

  37. I was so thrilled to hear your post on Rush today, Professor. Kudos for the excellent job you do!

  38. Congrats on the nod from Limbaugh. All of us over at Potluck are waiting with bated breath to hear of the stratospheric feats of your sitemeter!