The Union of American Socialist States circa 2009

I found this old front page news story of the conviction of Al Capone but notice below in small letters is a story about the death of Thomas A. Edison. The passing of a giant of an inventor got smaller headlines than the conviction of a crook. But our government's crimes against America are of such proportions that these modern day crooks deserve similar headlines to Capone's. Today's major headline should read:
"The US Government Makes a Sharp Turn to the Left".

We should call our country: Union of American Socialist States

Or the UASS - Classy abbreviation - huh? It's closer to the truth after all. Walter Williams writes about this turn to communism/socialism: weep for our beloved land of the free and brave.

...The government is not saving Main Street--it is confiscating it and nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens "equity positions" and "profits" in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Who is to run this new communist state--"Hank" Paulson and his Legions of Morale Conditioners? My congressman thinks that this serves "the public interest," but that private enterprise does not.
Why then do we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies? Why should those companies "resist" his regulations? Is he not simply following the Paulson plan for the "public interest"?

History demonstrates the consequences of such coercions. The Great Depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929 was caused by a string of obnoxious legislation, and was then cruelly extended by massive government interference. Contrary to prevailing, but long-discredited, opinion, the government did not save us from that mess. It created, and prolonged, it. Twenty years earlier, JP Morgan had ended the panic of 1908 in a few weeks--but bankers in 1929 could not so act. Today, Morgan would have been jailed for the private pooling of assets he arranged.

Is it not true that AIG was told by the Attorney General of New York that it would not be allowed to sell sound assets in order to save the holding company? Who is to blame for the collapse of a huge, and largely sound company, excpet those who forbid its executives from acting? And if this crisis spreads, who will be to blame--those executives who were not allowed to act on their best judgments, or those politicians who wrote the regulations?... (Read Capitalism Magazine)