It seems like Obama was making a decision about sending more troops, or something, but he had to wait until a real election was held, but then the guy with two like names backed out and the election went to the drug-dealer, then...well, then there was silence.

Did the war end? Or did we get, like, real busy and stuff?

The unemployment rate rose to 10.2, but don't worry -- Obama is going to build infrastructure.

Obama did say he would consider lowering business taxes -- you think? Why didn't someone think of this earlier? Uh, President Obama, your Sirship, you...uh...don't need to consider it, you...uh...just need to...uh...DO IT!

It's almost a hopeless case because we have given government so much power to control these areas of concern, that all people can see is what has happened due to government intervention. It would take a genius imagination to go back to the beginning and imagine other routes to the same results, or much better results. You would have to assess the effectiveness of all the areas of government intervention, then build a fictional alternative -- "fictional", because in most of these areas of concern the private sector was never allowed to, or never forced to, deal with the problems.

This would be a herculean task, although many libertarian writers have shown how some alternatives would work -- writers such as Rothbard and Friedman. But to address all government interventions would be a lifetime task, and even then people would have a difficult time understanding the alternative vision, because they are trained from childhood to accept government intervention as vital. Another herculean task is the one presented to libertarian-leaning policy makers who promote privatization for this or that -- for every area of concern which would be better off privatized, there are thousands of bureacrats dependent on a government program connected to the concern, politicians who are trying to save their power-base, and perhaps millions of dependent citizens who are afraid of change and don't want to risk losing something the government has provided.

I have no idea how government can ever be limited as it should be limited short of a collapse and rude national awakening. Our government is presently driving the country to financial disaster, and we can no loger pretend it's not an all-out attack on the free market -- between the energy efforts and healthcare reform we're talking long term, permanent costs, not just one or two time bailouts or a stimulus package here and there. Plus, with the attack on free enterprise, unemployment is likely to be high for a long time, costing us much more in benefits to support the out-of-work, with permanent unemployment rising. Safety net costs will go through the roof. It also appears we're politically stuck in two wars which will require long-term maintenance.

Baby boomers are retiring, so SS and Medicare will sink even further in the bog of unfunded liabilities. With government regulating the financial industry into stupor, lenders are going to be skittish and very conservative. Capitalism is being strangled and government spending is rising at record levels. This can't be sustained, and if government tries to soak the rich, money will flee even faster. The big question is -- Who is going to pay for all this? More and more young people are leaving high school with no marketable skills, barely able to read and write. It's incredible that small and medium size businesses are not organizing people to take to the streets -- but, so far, I don't hear any loud reaction.

I'm afraid people are stunned and hoping it will all go away, but from all the evidence it's only getting worse. More and more people are becoming dependent on government assistance and this is not good. We need another revolution, but most intelligent people are capitulating to power, playing the political game and burying their heads in the sand. A nation full of competent men and women, and we're being led by a handful of new age techno-fascists. The only ray of hope has been the Tea Party movement but it should be quadruple its size. This is no time for a replay of intellectuals slobbering over Stalin -- and, no, I'm not comparing Obama to Stalin, just weak intellectuals to weak intellectuals.

We're in a period where ordinary people are protesting, doing something they've never done before, participating in politics as free people should, and the intellectuals are trying to ridicule them into silence. Anyone who chooses the corrupt status quo of state power over people who want to limit the size of an over-reaching government are complicit in the destruction of liberty -- the media, Hollywood, representatives, big corporations, academics, unions, and every man and women who remains silent because they are afraid of losing some bauble from the gift-givers in D.C., they are all complicit.

Big corporations are hiding from competition behind the skirt of the state, comfortable in their international business, unconcerned with the damage done to the American economy, but when government gets desparate for money they will drain these sorry rent-seekers like hogs on a hook at the slaughter-house.

Just look at how Pelosi and Obama have strong-armed the insurance industry and shackled the finance industry, plus what they are in the process of doing with the auto-industry. Whatever company gets in their sights will be at risk. But, these companies asked for it -- when you make a deal with the devil you have to read the fine print.

The problem now is that it's doubtful we can stop this. One thing is for sure -- docility, capitulation and compromise will not help matters.

There are probably some broad divisions which can be made, like those who favor an interventionist government because of whatever benefit they're getting from government, and then those who don't really get any extra benefits (other than the normal government services that apply to everyone) from government who prefer that the state not interfere in our lives.

These divisions have existed for quite some time, and not all those who prefer less government intervention have been politically active -- they've simply cursed a little at times when the subject comes up, but mostly they go about their business and think very little about government - however, now that the progressives have power and they are intervening in major ways, and now that the Information Age is wide open, people are realizing just how nannyish and dangerous big government has become.

Yes, there is the radio talk-show group, although they are not monolithic, and, yes, there is a conservative base which has relatively similar ideas about politics, and, yes, there are white racists who blame minorities, although they are a fringe element, and the race element is manifested in different ways, not all a simple hatred of people of color, but rather a sense of reverse discrimination, plus there are independent people of color, and, yes, there are libertarians who, of course, want a limited government, but libertarians are varied and some lean left, and, yes, there are some who are rich businesspeople, but they don't think and act alike -- on and on. So, the independent movement is not so easy to buttonhole.

The independent movement, if you can really call it a movement at this stage, is beginning to coalesce around a few ideas -- out of control spending, too much government power, high taxation in many areas and fear of taxes going higher all over the country, unemployment, bailouts of big corporations and corruption.

I certainly wouldn't look at the increase in independents as just a conservative movement related to the Republican Party. There are political figures who would like to co-opt independents for their own purposes, but independents are too diverse to define as a political group, and it's best to see independents as representative of the private realm, not necessarily seeking power, but, rather, seeking to limit power by insisting on change in Washington D.C.

Many independents thought they were getting change with a new type of president in Barack Obama, but increased government power isn't what they had in mind. It speaks to the political naivette of many people that they thought Obama would clean up Washington and bring in a new style of responsible governance -- but people are quickly getting a lesson on politics and a refresher course on the Constitution. Many people don't like what America is becoming -- they had been asleep, and now they are waking up.

Those isolated in political intrigue in Washington D.C. don't understand the independent movement and see conspiracies behind every placard -- they are convinced that evil capitalist forces are at work putting forth an army of conservative soldiers to destroy Obama. The conservative movement makes up only a portion of the independents and they are not brain-dead foot-soldiers, just, for the most part, ordinary conservative Americans concerned about government over-reach, but it's a mistake to see this as a classical conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat battle for political control. An apolitical movement is forming which transcends the old political divisions, and this movement makes up what used to be called the Silent Majority -- it's a diverse group with very few political demands, and very few special interests. This awakening has more to do with the private realm being left alone, a desire for a vibrant economy and the limitation of government power. Government is held responsible for unemployment and people are sick of big corporations being favored at the expense of small businesses and jobs.

It's also not traditional class warfare -- it's a war between the people and the government. Although the economy is the biggest concern, it's quickly becoming a moral issue of liberty vs domination.

The country is tired of big spending, big programs, redistribution, unemployment, taxes, and over-reach in general.

It's too bad Hoffman didn't win, but the other two elections, with McDonnell and Christie winning, and Hoffman's good showing, send a clear message -- the resistance has just begun. The country is fired up and the independent movement is growing.

We'll see how the Republican Party reacts. Republicans have a chance to become the limited government party, but, first, the moderates have to get on board. It's good to see libertarian influence having an effect, but if the party splits down a statist/limited government line, there could be a big battle ahead, and if the big money goes toward the statist-leaners, there will support for a third party -- even if a third party doesn't have a chance. People are not in the mood to be sold out again.

However, the real question is -- how will Democrats act? Will the Democrats unite under progressivism, or will they split, too? It's going to be interesting.

There's something wrong with a person who spends a hundred million dollars of his own money to be mayor, even if he does have plenty of money -- he could have done something a lot more productive with that cash. I would never vote for anyone who wants to be in power that badly.