It was a revelation of sorts.

In listening to a news report about how the Big Three automakers in Detroit are asking for another bailout, we started thinking about the nature of these bailouts. What are they, exactly?

These “bailouts” are the giving of government money to struggling industries and businesses. The government doesn’t have the money right now, so they borrow it from other countries (like China and Dubai) in the form of 20-year U.S. Treasury Bills. These are paid back by… taxpayer dollars. And those who pay the most in taxes are the people who are responsible and successful, be they corporations or individuals.

So, we are taking money from companies and people who are responsible, successful, smart, and classified as “rich” by politicians, and giving it to companies who are irresponsible, unsuccessful, have made bad business decisions, and as a result are on the brink of failure.

Isn’t the proper course of nature for these beleaguered companies and industries to fail? Is it not in our best interests for them to fail?

By taxing those who are successful and responsible, we are punishing them for doing the right thing, for running their businesses and living their lives in a responsible way. So before any new tax plan even goes into effect, we are already redistributing the wealth of the successful and responsible to the companies and industries who — through their own irresponsibility — are least deserving of it.

With the election over, and the Democrats now controlling Washington D.C., the United States is in for an express ride into socialism, with liberal-progressive fascist captains at the helm.

Under fascism, like all oppressive and tyrannical regimes, it is essential to control the media. If you control the media, you control public perception. And perception is reality. Just ask Stalin & Mussolini.

The muzzling of dissent will likely come in a number of phases.

The first to go will be interviews and face time with anyone who would be critical of the Obama administration. News stations and reporters who ask probing questions critical of the administration would be blacklisted. Preferential treatment will be given to media outlets that do everything possible to help the administration. These things have already been happening during the Obama campaign:

• In Missouri, the Obama campaign used lawyers to combat “misleading” TV ads
• In Orlando, WFTV’s Barbara West conducted an interview with Vice Presidential running mate Senator Joe Biden where she asked some pointed questions about Obama’s “spreading the wealth around” comment. After the interview, the Obama campaign pulled a follow-on interview with Joe Biden’s wife, Jill Biden, stating “This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election.” Barbara West and her husband are now the subject of intensive investigations by the Obama campaign in an effort to discredit her in any way possible.
• Similar treatment happened to the Philadelphia, PA, station that also grilled Senator Biden.
• WGN Radio in Chicago aired an interview with Stanley Kurtz. The interview was highly critical of Obama. The result? The Obama campaign sent an email to supporters, urging them to call the radio station to complain: “Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.” In other words, call the radio station to stifle any sort of dissenting views or information.
• The media in general is covering for Obama, from covering his & Joe Biden’s numerous gaffes, to ignoring his stammering and stuttering, and outright ignoring their purpose of doing due diligence in vetting his past. The LA Times refused to release a video where Obama gave a speech at a party for PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. 
• Obama got annoyed with the press while in public with his daughter and told them “Leave us alone. Come on, guys.” (Observation: Has there ever been a President who acted this way? Our memories only go back to Reagan, and we can’t recall anyone else acting like this. It was pretty much assumed that as President, you entire life is now public, especially when you’re out in public. — Ed)
• If you’re a journalist who happens to work at a newspaper who endorsed Obama’s opponent? You get kicked out of the press pool.
• And if you’re an average citizen, like Joe the Plumber, who happens to ask a direct and honest question to Mr. Obama, a question he was obviously unprepared to answer with a scripted message, and a question that resulted in an answer that caused much political embarrassment, prepare yourself to have your life investigated by government employees. The Patriot Act has nothing on this kind of treatment.

The next thing to go will be talk radio, by means of the re-imposition of the innocent-sounding “Fairness Doctrine.” The purpose was — and is — to silence conservative talk radio. While few Democrats will talk about this, it is certainly on the agenda. First, Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico was interviewed on the radio in mid-October:

Then, on election day, Senator Charles Schumer also called for its return. The Fairness Doctrine basically stated that equal airtime must be given on radio stations to opposing views. This sounds like a good thing, but in reality it never worked. Radio stations were so worried about “equal airtime” that they aired no political talk at all. In addition, this runs counter to free-market principles of supply and demand: where there is a demand for something, the free market will supply it. The bankrupt failure of syndicated liberal talk radio station Air America is the perfect example of this: despite millions of dollars, Air America failed due to lack of demand. In the meantime conservative talk radio is flourishing due to increased demand. Some markets actually added additional conservative talk radio stations after Air America’s demise, to supply the greater public demand for conservative wit and wisdom.

Speaking on issues of supply-and-demand, newspapers and network TV news shows are floundering badly. This is due to two reasons: first, the public’s growing distrust of the media’s integrity following “Rathergate” in 2004, and second, the swelling numbers of people turning to the internet for their news. Sites like YouTube and popular sites and blogs give people endless abilities to sort, sift, locate, and consume whatever flavor of news that they personally like and have come to trust. It was an internet site and dozens of blogs that popped the “Rathergate” bubble and did the investigative journalism that the mainstream news media refuses to do. While there is a bit of effort involved in separating the wheat from the chaff in divining what is simply biased blogging versus honest reporting, the beauty of the internet is the ease it affords people to go searching for information and alternate viewpoints, and the speed in which people can get information and forward it to their friends. This rise of a news medium outside their control will certainly be viewed by an Obama administration as a danger, and dealt with accordingly. It would be of no surprise if the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine was written in such a way that it included web sites such as this one. Also a possibility — and just as chilling — is a government “bail out” of the news industry. At that point they may as well change the name of the New York Times to Pravda.

With the media firmly under control, any amount of mischief could — and will — occur, liberty be damned.

Frightening times lie ahead.

Prepare.

Read:

A “Civilian National Security Force that is just a strong, just as powerful, just as well funded” as the U.S. military?

For what purpose, Mr. Obama?

We have police. We have the National Guard. And we have millions of firearms in the hands of responsible, law-abiding, America-loving citizens. What would we need a “Civilian National Security Force” for, pray tell?

Obama also advocates “Universal Voluntary Public Service” for youths, which is a “boot camp” of sorts. His close association with homegrown terrorist Bill Ayers — who believes, and has taught, that the purpose of school is to radicalize the youth — has been downplayed by the media. But it cannot, and should not, be overlooked.

Let us learn some lessons from history. There were radicalized youth in the past, who had been indoctrinated with the political ideology of their party’s leader. There was also a “Civilian National Security Force” before, too. The year: 1939. The country: Germany. The parallels between the Hitler Youth and brownshirts and what Obama has proposed and engaged in are frightening indeed.

Beware, dear readers, that one of the first things the Nazi party did upon seizing power was to use the SA to round up the guns possessed by the civilians, since disarming the populace essential to enslaving them.

Beware.