I'm changing as fast as I can!
Patrice Lewis
Nov 08, 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80410
Well, on the bright side, there were no riots in the streets following Tuesday's election. This is good.
On the other hand, Obama got elected president. We also have a Democrat majority in the Senate. Therefore, we must prepare to "change." This is bad.
I truly believe we are heading into one of the most divisive times in our nation's history, and it won't have anything to do with skin color. (How tired I am of hearing that argument.) It will have everything to do with socialism vs. free-market economics. Dependence vs. independence.
During a recent history lesson with my homeschooled daughters, we discussed some of the highlights of ancient Greek civilization and its contributions to our current culture. I told the girls about Hippocrates and the Hippocratic oath, a portion of which can be summed up as "First, do no harm."
Maybe this could apply to the Obama administration. First, do not harm us.
Unfortunately, new presidents merely take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and we all know how well that oath is fulfilled. So a plea to "do no harm" will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears.
By implication, we can assume that the "changes" that will be forced upon us in the next four years will harm us. More than ever before, now is the time to cultivate personal independence – or as much as you can in our fettered condition. The less you need the government, the more you weaken it. The more dependent you are on government, the more power it has.
It was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (1939-1975) who said, "The right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." Keep that in mind as you consider the following suggestions.
(1) Prepare to hunker down. Interpret this as you will.
(2) If you have any, hide your money – otherwise it will be spread around. The best way to spread your own wealth on your own terms is to hire people to work for you. But of course, you knew that already.
(3) Take your kids out of public school. Schools are going to become nothing but Marxist pressure cookers. They're already socialist indoctrination centers. Have you any idea what they're teaching in kindergarten these days, much less high school? Better find out.
(4) If you're Joe the Plumber, hide. Quickly. Otherwise your life for the next four years will be a living hell. Obama supporters have demonstrated they like to retaliate, so you're not safe.
(5) Buy guns and ammunition. Especially ammunition. The tools necessary for self-defense and to keep our government under at least a modicum of control are going to quickly become unavailable. Perhaps not banned outright – that would cause riots – but the taxes on these tools of self-reliance will be raised so high that the effect will be the same.
(6) Don't surrender to guilt. Opposing the new world order coming your way is not selfish. The "best interests of all" are code words for state slavery. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is the death of liberty and the definition of Marxism. Duh.
(7) Stockpile some resources, because it's only a matter of time before our terrorist enemies (who are delighted with the outcome of the election) will launch something nasty our way. Terrorists love weak or untried rulers because they prefer to strike vulnerable targets. We just bared our throats.
(8) Move. Whatever your political affiliation, it's always best to live in a place with like-minded people. (Idaho might be worth considering.) Just make sure the place you move to has people whose concepts of liberty agree with yours.
(9) Start looking for other news sources, because it's very likely that your favorite conservative radio talk-show host will go out of business once the (ahem) "Fairness" Doctrine gets re-implemented.
(10) Buy light bulbs. There is no possible way our new green president will lift the absurd imminent ban on incandescent light bulbs. Unless you want your home to look like the inside of a train station lavatory in 2012, you'd better stock up on incandescents while you can. (Obviously lights bulbs are a metaphor for all the "for your own good" changes that will be shoved upon us.)
(11) Go to church. All the morals and values that we once cherished in this country – traditional marriage, sanctity of life, family values – are going to become so condemned that churches will be our only sanctuaries.
(12) Strengthen your family, your community, your state. Obama has said that an economy is built from the bottom up. In that he is entirely wrong (poor people don't hire – only rich people do that). But liberty most certainly IS built from the bottom up. Start by strengthening yourself. Next, your family. Support your neighbors. Build your community. Get involved with your state. The days of sitting on your hands must be over.
(13) Find another job. Or preferably, several. Don't give up your current job, of course, but as the economy continues to nosedive, it is best to cultivate your marketable skills and diversify your income sources. The more income irons you have in the fire, the better.
(14) Never never never never trust that the upcoming administration will do anything in your best interest. If the government offers you something that seems too good to be true, assume that it is. Education, medical care, housing and other benefits are never free – they cost something down the line. And the cost is always freedom. Take warning.
Obviously this list barely scratches the surface. If you use your head, you can think of many more. But better hurry up. Change is coming, like it or not.
But the thing about "change" is that it can work both ways. The ordinary Joe Plumbers of this country can change, too – and it may not be in the direction the government will like.
Tough patooties.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Great Depression of 2008
The Great Depression of 2008
Leeroy F. Dermit
Sep 27, 2008
http://www.leeroyfdermit.com/2008/09/
great-depression-of-2008.html
On issue after issue, every time I dig deeper and think for myself, I discover that government is the cause – not the cure, but if free markets are so great, then how have we come within days of another Great Depression? Is it really about free markets vs. regulation? Is it naked short sellers? How big a factor is consumer and business confidence? Do the media and politicians really understand economics? Could there be economic terrorism afoot?
Conventional Wisdom
The conventional wisdom just doesn’t add up.
The conventional wisdom is that America has been in recession since late 2007, and that the cause is 20 years of Republican deregulation. Deregulation supposedly caused a recession by causing the prices for oil, steel, copper, etc. to soar, by allowing some greedy people to sell loans to some people who couldn’t afford them, and by allowing some people to more easily bet that stocks will go down (naked short sellers).
By August 28th, I had lost 3% of my savings, so how had I lost 53% of my savings by October 10th?
The conventional wisdom is obviously a myth, so we are going to have to look at a lot of facts and think for ourselves.
Free Markets
The argument for deregulation, free markets, competition, etc. is that although problems (both internal and external) can occur at all levels and at all times, for each kind of problem, some competitors will have made the right decisions to survive while those who made the wrong decisions will fail. Failure makes room for new competitors. Also, competitors can learn from past mistakes. Therefore, while every kind of problem big and small can happen once, free markets continually adapt and improve, and thus a future recurrence of that problem is unlikely. Free markets are thus more likely to serve customers best.
Unlike businesses and private organizations, government is a monopoly that forbids competition and forces us to buy its services, and thus government is less accountable and less adaptable than businesses. Therefore, government can afford to be inefficient and can make the same mistakes over and over again. Government is thus more likely to cause a problem than to solve one.
This is a pretty good summary of the argument for free markets.
Liberal Fascists
The argument for regulation may have been best summarized by Mario Palmieri (“The Philosophy of Fascism”, 1936):
Economic initiative cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private individual interest. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it.
I used to think that regulation was the new form of socialism, but then I read this quote, and now I see that the Democrats are not really socialists – but are fascists. Therefore, we could accurately refer to the Democrats as socialists or as fascists – but let’s not get sidetracked.
American Capitalism
America does not really have free markets (a.k.a. capitalism). We have the second highest business taxes in the world, a ton of regulations, a load of frivolous lawsuits, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Securities Exchange Commission, etc.
The trend is not purely deregulation either. We now have Sarbanes Oxley, a resurgence of The Community Reinvestment Act, etc.
Of course, we do have some scary deregulation too. For example, we now have naked short sellers.
The Community Reinvestment Act
Everybody knows that banks gave loans to people who could not pay them back, and that this supposedly wouldn’t happen in a free market – which is true. However, we don’t have a free market.
The government instituted the community Reinvestment Act which ordered Fannie Mae to encourage banks to give loans to poor people and minorities regardless of credit worthiness – because that is fair, and socialism is fair if it is anything.
Freddie Mac was charged with converting these subprime loans into Mortgage Backed Securities.
Don’t take my word for it. Wikipedia says:
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."
What did the Bush Administration do?
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.
What did Obama do? Obama worked with ACORN to train activists to pressure banks to make bad loans. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. I got this fact from a very revealing article about Obama/ACORN at: Obama helps ACORN set up Homeowners for Failure.
Clearly, the CRA is an example of increasing regulation (and Democrats) contributing to the current financial crisis.
Fannie Mae
To better understand how the government (not Wall Street) is a major cause at the center of the subprime mess, it is helpful to first understand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are basically an arm of the Democratic party.
Sarbanes-Oxley
Part of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation (instituted to prevent another Enron) requires the use of Mark-to-Market accounting – even in cases such as those instruments created by government institution Freddie Mac known as Mortgage Backed Securities (perhaps an unintended consequence?). Therefore, MBSs are treated just like stock even though there are real houses with their own market values as collateral for them, and thus at the end of a day, if the market value of those MBSs (not the houses) is too low, then a bank may not have enough money to pay the margin call unless they sell enough assets at a huge loss. In July This happened to Merrill Lynch who had to sell 30.6 billion dollars worth of MBSs for 6 billion. The houses alone were worth 25 billion.
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis.
The Fed did It
As we all know, Alan Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates in a largely successful (although now temporary) attempt to bring us out of the great Clinton.com crash at the end of the Clinton administration, which of course continued into the Bush administration.
Low rates obviously contributed greatly to the housing bubble. Low rates also increased the supply of dollars through increased borrowing, which thus weakened the dollar.
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis, and guess what – they’re doing it again!
The Cities did it
Perhaps the other main contributor to the housing bubble (in addition to the Fed) is the rapidly growing trend of local government intervention known as Managed Growth. It takes many forms, but Managed Growth typically is where a city restricts permits for new houses and buys up land along its outskirts to prevent development there too.
Note that cities such as Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas did not employ managed growth and thus continued to have steady housing appreciation consistent with previous decades. Consequently, housing prices in these cities did not fall (except for a little bit very recently).
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis, and guess what – they’re still doing it!
It’s Confidence Stupid
By all accounts, the overall problem in the market that has suddenly turned the problems of a few banks and home owners into another Great Depression – is a loss of confidence.
Just a few months ago, most businesses were still having record profits, but if consumers and businesses lose confidence and fear a recession, then they will spend less and pay down debt – which will cause a recession!
Markets Succeed where Governments Fail
What did happen was that Russia invaded Georgia, and Obama was utterly powerless to do anything about it. The US government was utterly powerless, and the European Union was just as powerless.
However, another force more powerful than the US Government, the European Union, and even more powerful than Barack Obama … forced Russia to promptly withdraw from Georgia.
In a nutshell, Putin had been acting aggressively, such as flying nuclear bombers to the edge of Alaskan airspace, then he invaded Georgia, and his agression caused foreign investors and businesses to flee Russia. Whereas, the governments of America and Europe failed to influence Russia in the least, market forces brought the conflict to a prompt end.
The conventional wisdom is that government solves problems created by markets, but we now see that markets solve problems created government – such as war.
Conclusion
I know it is hard to stop thinking about those naked short sellers, but the reality is that politicians, government, laws, regulation, etc. are the cause of the current economic crisis. The media and the Democrats call for more government, and no strong voice has countered them, but we now know that government is a problem masquerading as its own cure.
Neither political party has shown the slightest understanding of economics. The Democrats, the media, and Obama blame deregulation, and all John McCain can do is look guilty. I thought he was going to cry at the beginning of the first Presidential debate. PULEEEASE!
I know of precisely ONE politician who understands – Ron Paul.
You won’t hear any of THIS on MSNBC. Does that make Keith Olberman the – WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD? J
Let’s summarize:
The conventional wisdom is that Republicans, free-markets, and deregulation caused the current economic crisis; whereas, the reality is that Democrats, government, and regulation caused the current economic crisis.
1. Alan Greenspan helped cause a housing bubble when he lowered interest rates in a largely successful attempt to bring us out of the crash at the end of the Clinton administration.
2. Managed growth laws by local governments also contributed greatly to the housing bubble.
3. The Community Reinvestment Act caused a proliferation of subprime loans, which implicates Clinton, Obama, ACORN, Fannie Mae, and the whole Democratic Party.
4. The Democratic Party and most of the mainstream media have been working diligently to spread fear and reduce confidence, and fear causes recessionary behavior.
5. The new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations caused the new government mandated Mortgage Backed Securities to be valued at the market price (Mark-to-Market) at the end of each day, which caused banks to go under with little forewarning.
6. The war in Iraq has played a small role, but has reduced confidence in America and the dollar.
7. Markets solve problems, like the Russian invasion of Georgia, where governments are powerless.
The Future
Maybe once the people learn the reality, they will have a greater desire for freedom.
The promise of reality is freedom.
Leeroy F. Dermit
Sep 27, 2008
http://www.leeroyfdermit.com/2008/09/
great-depression-of-2008.html
On issue after issue, every time I dig deeper and think for myself, I discover that government is the cause – not the cure, but if free markets are so great, then how have we come within days of another Great Depression? Is it really about free markets vs. regulation? Is it naked short sellers? How big a factor is consumer and business confidence? Do the media and politicians really understand economics? Could there be economic terrorism afoot?
Conventional Wisdom
The conventional wisdom just doesn’t add up.
The conventional wisdom is that America has been in recession since late 2007, and that the cause is 20 years of Republican deregulation. Deregulation supposedly caused a recession by causing the prices for oil, steel, copper, etc. to soar, by allowing some greedy people to sell loans to some people who couldn’t afford them, and by allowing some people to more easily bet that stocks will go down (naked short sellers).
By August 28th, I had lost 3% of my savings, so how had I lost 53% of my savings by October 10th?
The conventional wisdom is obviously a myth, so we are going to have to look at a lot of facts and think for ourselves.
Free Markets
The argument for deregulation, free markets, competition, etc. is that although problems (both internal and external) can occur at all levels and at all times, for each kind of problem, some competitors will have made the right decisions to survive while those who made the wrong decisions will fail. Failure makes room for new competitors. Also, competitors can learn from past mistakes. Therefore, while every kind of problem big and small can happen once, free markets continually adapt and improve, and thus a future recurrence of that problem is unlikely. Free markets are thus more likely to serve customers best.
Unlike businesses and private organizations, government is a monopoly that forbids competition and forces us to buy its services, and thus government is less accountable and less adaptable than businesses. Therefore, government can afford to be inefficient and can make the same mistakes over and over again. Government is thus more likely to cause a problem than to solve one.
This is a pretty good summary of the argument for free markets.
Liberal Fascists
The argument for regulation may have been best summarized by Mario Palmieri (“The Philosophy of Fascism”, 1936):
Economic initiative cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of private individual interest. Open competition, if not wisely directed and restricted, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it.
I used to think that regulation was the new form of socialism, but then I read this quote, and now I see that the Democrats are not really socialists – but are fascists. Therefore, we could accurately refer to the Democrats as socialists or as fascists – but let’s not get sidetracked.
American Capitalism
America does not really have free markets (a.k.a. capitalism). We have the second highest business taxes in the world, a ton of regulations, a load of frivolous lawsuits, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Securities Exchange Commission, etc.
The trend is not purely deregulation either. We now have Sarbanes Oxley, a resurgence of The Community Reinvestment Act, etc.
Of course, we do have some scary deregulation too. For example, we now have naked short sellers.
The Community Reinvestment Act
Everybody knows that banks gave loans to people who could not pay them back, and that this supposedly wouldn’t happen in a free market – which is true. However, we don’t have a free market.
The government instituted the community Reinvestment Act which ordered Fannie Mae to encourage banks to give loans to poor people and minorities regardless of credit worthiness – because that is fair, and socialism is fair if it is anything.
Freddie Mac was charged with converting these subprime loans into Mortgage Backed Securities.
Don’t take my word for it. Wikipedia says:
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."
What did the Bush Administration do?
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.
What did Obama do? Obama worked with ACORN to train activists to pressure banks to make bad loans. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. I got this fact from a very revealing article about Obama/ACORN at: Obama helps ACORN set up Homeowners for Failure.
Clearly, the CRA is an example of increasing regulation (and Democrats) contributing to the current financial crisis.
Fannie Mae
To better understand how the government (not Wall Street) is a major cause at the center of the subprime mess, it is helpful to first understand that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are basically an arm of the Democratic party.
Sarbanes-Oxley
Part of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation (instituted to prevent another Enron) requires the use of Mark-to-Market accounting – even in cases such as those instruments created by government institution Freddie Mac known as Mortgage Backed Securities (perhaps an unintended consequence?). Therefore, MBSs are treated just like stock even though there are real houses with their own market values as collateral for them, and thus at the end of a day, if the market value of those MBSs (not the houses) is too low, then a bank may not have enough money to pay the margin call unless they sell enough assets at a huge loss. In July This happened to Merrill Lynch who had to sell 30.6 billion dollars worth of MBSs for 6 billion. The houses alone were worth 25 billion.
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis.
The Fed did It
As we all know, Alan Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates in a largely successful (although now temporary) attempt to bring us out of the great Clinton.com crash at the end of the Clinton administration, which of course continued into the Bush administration.
Low rates obviously contributed greatly to the housing bubble. Low rates also increased the supply of dollars through increased borrowing, which thus weakened the dollar.
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis, and guess what – they’re doing it again!
The Cities did it
Perhaps the other main contributor to the housing bubble (in addition to the Fed) is the rapidly growing trend of local government intervention known as Managed Growth. It takes many forms, but Managed Growth typically is where a city restricts permits for new houses and buys up land along its outskirts to prevent development there too.
Note that cities such as Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas did not employ managed growth and thus continued to have steady housing appreciation consistent with previous decades. Consequently, housing prices in these cities did not fall (except for a little bit very recently).
Again, we see that government intervention itself has contributed to the current economic crisis, and guess what – they’re still doing it!
It’s Confidence Stupid
By all accounts, the overall problem in the market that has suddenly turned the problems of a few banks and home owners into another Great Depression – is a loss of confidence.
Just a few months ago, most businesses were still having record profits, but if consumers and businesses lose confidence and fear a recession, then they will spend less and pay down debt – which will cause a recession!
Markets Succeed where Governments Fail
What did happen was that Russia invaded Georgia, and Obama was utterly powerless to do anything about it. The US government was utterly powerless, and the European Union was just as powerless.
However, another force more powerful than the US Government, the European Union, and even more powerful than Barack Obama … forced Russia to promptly withdraw from Georgia.
In a nutshell, Putin had been acting aggressively, such as flying nuclear bombers to the edge of Alaskan airspace, then he invaded Georgia, and his agression caused foreign investors and businesses to flee Russia. Whereas, the governments of America and Europe failed to influence Russia in the least, market forces brought the conflict to a prompt end.
The conventional wisdom is that government solves problems created by markets, but we now see that markets solve problems created government – such as war.
Conclusion
I know it is hard to stop thinking about those naked short sellers, but the reality is that politicians, government, laws, regulation, etc. are the cause of the current economic crisis. The media and the Democrats call for more government, and no strong voice has countered them, but we now know that government is a problem masquerading as its own cure.
Neither political party has shown the slightest understanding of economics. The Democrats, the media, and Obama blame deregulation, and all John McCain can do is look guilty. I thought he was going to cry at the beginning of the first Presidential debate. PULEEEASE!
I know of precisely ONE politician who understands – Ron Paul.
You won’t hear any of THIS on MSNBC. Does that make Keith Olberman the – WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD? J
Let’s summarize:
The conventional wisdom is that Republicans, free-markets, and deregulation caused the current economic crisis; whereas, the reality is that Democrats, government, and regulation caused the current economic crisis.
1. Alan Greenspan helped cause a housing bubble when he lowered interest rates in a largely successful attempt to bring us out of the crash at the end of the Clinton administration.
2. Managed growth laws by local governments also contributed greatly to the housing bubble.
3. The Community Reinvestment Act caused a proliferation of subprime loans, which implicates Clinton, Obama, ACORN, Fannie Mae, and the whole Democratic Party.
4. The Democratic Party and most of the mainstream media have been working diligently to spread fear and reduce confidence, and fear causes recessionary behavior.
5. The new Sarbanes-Oxley regulations caused the new government mandated Mortgage Backed Securities to be valued at the market price (Mark-to-Market) at the end of each day, which caused banks to go under with little forewarning.
6. The war in Iraq has played a small role, but has reduced confidence in America and the dollar.
7. Markets solve problems, like the Russian invasion of Georgia, where governments are powerless.
The Future
Maybe once the people learn the reality, they will have a greater desire for freedom.
The promise of reality is freedom.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Socialism We Can Believe In
Socialism We Can Believe In
Ben Johnson
Oct 29, 2008
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/
Read.aspx?GUID=80B64E8F-3866-430D-842A-E8986E27E927
Now that a 2001 public radio interview has surfaced to confirm The One has plotted to redistribute middle class wealth since the beginning of his political career, the media are in overdrive to save their savior. In a burst of “news” stories culled directly from the talking points of the George Soros-funded Media Matters, a string of reporters have accused the McCain/Palin campaign of misrepresenting Obama’s statements and ideology. In the process, these impartial journalists and analysts for the nation’s most prestigious media outlets have obfuscated more than McCain could manage in his most imaginative “rhetorical flourish.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in identical fashion to other irrefutable scandals, such as his candidate’s longtime association with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright: he channeled the Wizard of Oz. “This is a fake news controversy,” he said, “drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.” After shooting the messengers, the campaign, and its allies at Media Matters, claimed Obama had merely been offering an intellectual assessment of civil rights strategy – and in no way advocating (perish the thought!) the Supreme Court redistribute wealth. In his only remark addressing the content of the tape, Burton asserted, “In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.” [Bill Burton later got into an on-air tiff with Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, ironically charging her network with having “an agenda.”]
Soon, his words found their way into the mouths of multiple unbiased, independent journalists.
The Washington Post awarded the McCain campaign “two Pinocchios” for lying about the tape. “Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said,” the Post contended. The paper concluded, “The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an [sic.] ‘wealth redistribution’ role for the Supreme Court.”
Obama made his now-infamous comments on “Odyssey,” a program hosted on the Chicago NPR station WBEZ-FM. Chicago Public Radio quickly rolled into full protection mode, with CPR’s Ben Calhoun claiming someone on YouTube “posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements…Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented.” He adds, “ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.”
Others went further in defending the pure common sense of Obama’s call for “economic justice.” Andrew Sullivan blogged, “it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism. Is this really all McCain has left?”
Yet no one could equal NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who said, with a straight face, that Obama took “a strict constructionist view.” Mitchell added, “he was saying the courts were not in that business and shouldn’t be in that business.”
The world’s largest news agency joined the fray. The Associated Press charged, “Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama.” The story implies his comments dealt only with civil rights strategy, not the court. It added, “Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, ‘how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity.’” Thus, “redistribution” simply means equal schooling; who could be against that?
In all these cases, one is left with the impression his is merely a meandering historical argument of refined legal theory, using highly specified language that does not mean what it sounds like. Normal people like Joe the Plumber cannot possibly comprehend it. However, all these media reports distort the facts and leave a false impression that covers up the explosive revelation contained in his own words: Barack Obama believes the Constitution embodies a “fundamental flaw” in the fabric of America “that continues to this day,” has pined for “economic justice” for at least a decade, seeks political power to implement “wealth redistribution” with the aid of Congress, implies the Supreme Court should “break free” from the “constraints” of the Founders, believes public financing of abortion is an “important” aspect of the struggle, and has promised an “activist” Executive Branch to enforce his socialistic vision.
Yet the view that slavery lingers in 21st century America is perhaps the most contemptuous thing one can say about a country that lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting a war to end slavery, endured massive social upheaval to bury Jim Crow, transferred untold trillions of dollars of wealth so that we would “wipe away the scars of centuries,” then welcomed the son of a Kenyan Muslim reared in a foreign land and are presently entertaining a national debate about elevating him to the most powerful office in the world.
It is, however, precisely what is to be expected from an individual reared by an “unreconstructed liberal” mother of the ‘60s era, an individual who consciously sought out Marxist professors – both as college instructors and as sponsors for his career in Chicago politics.
Far from an insignificant and highly theoretical bout of legal navel-gazing, this 2001 interview provides a clear glimpse into the ideology Obama wishes to implement. For this reason, the transcripts must be assailed – with those news outlets that report them.
After all, he does not have the luxury of saying he made these comments when he was naïve and inexperienced, because he is still naïve and inexperienced. Further, reparations based on race, sex, class, or sexual orientation still lie at the heart of his judicial philosophy. His only option is to deny the words on the page. His fan base in the media has gotten ahead of him on the matter. Will he be successful in his effort to deny his own views and thereby get an opportunity to implement them?
Next Tuesday, we may find out.
Ben Johnson
Oct 29, 2008
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/
Read.aspx?GUID=80B64E8F-3866-430D-842A-E8986E27E927
Now that a 2001 public radio interview has surfaced to confirm The One has plotted to redistribute middle class wealth since the beginning of his political career, the media are in overdrive to save their savior. In a burst of “news” stories culled directly from the talking points of the George Soros-funded Media Matters, a string of reporters have accused the McCain/Palin campaign of misrepresenting Obama’s statements and ideology. In the process, these impartial journalists and analysts for the nation’s most prestigious media outlets have obfuscated more than McCain could manage in his most imaginative “rhetorical flourish.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in identical fashion to other irrefutable scandals, such as his candidate’s longtime association with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright: he channeled the Wizard of Oz. “This is a fake news controversy,” he said, “drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.” After shooting the messengers, the campaign, and its allies at Media Matters, claimed Obama had merely been offering an intellectual assessment of civil rights strategy – and in no way advocating (perish the thought!) the Supreme Court redistribute wealth. In his only remark addressing the content of the tape, Burton asserted, “In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.” [Bill Burton later got into an on-air tiff with Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, ironically charging her network with having “an agenda.”]
Soon, his words found their way into the mouths of multiple unbiased, independent journalists.
The Washington Post awarded the McCain campaign “two Pinocchios” for lying about the tape. “Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said,” the Post contended. The paper concluded, “The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an [sic.] ‘wealth redistribution’ role for the Supreme Court.”
Obama made his now-infamous comments on “Odyssey,” a program hosted on the Chicago NPR station WBEZ-FM. Chicago Public Radio quickly rolled into full protection mode, with CPR’s Ben Calhoun claiming someone on YouTube “posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements…Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented.” He adds, “ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.”
Others went further in defending the pure common sense of Obama’s call for “economic justice.” Andrew Sullivan blogged, “it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism. Is this really all McCain has left?”
Yet no one could equal NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who said, with a straight face, that Obama took “a strict constructionist view.” Mitchell added, “he was saying the courts were not in that business and shouldn’t be in that business.”
The world’s largest news agency joined the fray. The Associated Press charged, “Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama.” The story implies his comments dealt only with civil rights strategy, not the court. It added, “Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, ‘how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity.’” Thus, “redistribution” simply means equal schooling; who could be against that?
In all these cases, one is left with the impression his is merely a meandering historical argument of refined legal theory, using highly specified language that does not mean what it sounds like. Normal people like Joe the Plumber cannot possibly comprehend it. However, all these media reports distort the facts and leave a false impression that covers up the explosive revelation contained in his own words: Barack Obama believes the Constitution embodies a “fundamental flaw” in the fabric of America “that continues to this day,” has pined for “economic justice” for at least a decade, seeks political power to implement “wealth redistribution” with the aid of Congress, implies the Supreme Court should “break free” from the “constraints” of the Founders, believes public financing of abortion is an “important” aspect of the struggle, and has promised an “activist” Executive Branch to enforce his socialistic vision.
Yet the view that slavery lingers in 21st century America is perhaps the most contemptuous thing one can say about a country that lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting a war to end slavery, endured massive social upheaval to bury Jim Crow, transferred untold trillions of dollars of wealth so that we would “wipe away the scars of centuries,” then welcomed the son of a Kenyan Muslim reared in a foreign land and are presently entertaining a national debate about elevating him to the most powerful office in the world.
It is, however, precisely what is to be expected from an individual reared by an “unreconstructed liberal” mother of the ‘60s era, an individual who consciously sought out Marxist professors – both as college instructors and as sponsors for his career in Chicago politics.
Far from an insignificant and highly theoretical bout of legal navel-gazing, this 2001 interview provides a clear glimpse into the ideology Obama wishes to implement. For this reason, the transcripts must be assailed – with those news outlets that report them.
After all, he does not have the luxury of saying he made these comments when he was naïve and inexperienced, because he is still naïve and inexperienced. Further, reparations based on race, sex, class, or sexual orientation still lie at the heart of his judicial philosophy. His only option is to deny the words on the page. His fan base in the media has gotten ahead of him on the matter. Will he be successful in his effort to deny his own views and thereby get an opportunity to implement them?
Next Tuesday, we may find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)