November 30, 2008
One of the things I enjoy most in this world is saying ``told ya so!`` Well, this piece in Russiblog proves me right!
I argued in Drill Here Drill Now Helped End the Russo-Georgian War, my piece at Pajama`s Media, that the slide in oil prices, started by the efforts of Republicans to threaten competition by drilling offshore and in ANWAR, has seriously hurt the Russian economy, and that is the reason they have backed off in Georgia. Many commentors-including a bunch at Free Republic-scoffed, claiming that the war was immaterial to the Russians financially. Well, they are obviously wrong.
Here is the article in it`s entirety:
« Russia Mourns Aeroflot Plane Crash Victims | Main | Russian Markets' Historic Rebound »
September 17, 2008
Market Failure in Russia: America’s Problem, Nobody’s Problem or Doomsday?
Russia and the rest of the world have both suffered a terrible week in their stock markets
A misleading calm prevailed in Russia this week after two days in which the Russian stock market crashed and another two days in which the market was closed. The recent plane crash in Perm, the worst in years, was bigger news in Russia than the sinking markets. Russia's news media presented plummeting share losses in a matter of fact manner, while wondering how the Russian government was going to respond to this harsh new economic reality. Markets remained closed on Thursday.
Russian markets fell 17 percent Tuesday, the biggest drop since 1998, bringing market levels to their lowest point since 2005. Gazeta.ru published these illustrative numbers at the moment of the unscheduled early closures of the dollar-denominated MICEX and ruble-denominated RTS stock exchanges: shares of VTB dropped by 32.5%, Sberbank (the largest bank by deposits in Russia) 20.9%, FSK 27.6%, Transneft 24.1%, Tatneft 15%, Lukoil 13.5%, Norilsk Nickel 8.2%, Severstal 8.7%, Gazpromneft 8.2%, etc.
Wednesday brought some clarity when Russia’s Central Bank announced that, starting on September 18, the rates of the minimum obligation reserves for credit organization dealing with private parties (in rubles) will be lowered by 4 percent, from 5.5% to 1.5%, while for obligations of non-residential banks (in rubles and foreign currencies) the rates will drop from 8.5% to 4.5%, and for all other obligations, from 6% to 2%. Later, starting in 2009, these rates will be slowly increased.
Overall, Russian experts were quoted as praising these actions. ``Central Bank did exactly what the market was expecting it to do, but almost too radically -- 4 percent points is too much liquidity,`` said Elena Sharipova, an economist with Renaissance Capital, one of the leading investment banks in Russia. ``We are expecting that tomorrow there will be 200-250 billion of additional rubles ($8.4 $10.4 billion). That’s a noticeable injection. The rate cuts will affect all the banks -- small, medium and large ones. Everyone is going to get money proportionally to their reserves,`` she said.
``Russia's government will lend the country's three biggest banks, OAO Sberbank, VTB Group and OAO Gazprombank, as much as 1.13 trillion rubles ($44 billion) for at least three months to boost liquidity,`` reported Bloomberg.
Some experts say that a lot of what has happened to the market is the Russian government’s fault. ``Our government did too much for this crisis to happen,`` said one analyst who was quoted anonymously in an interview with Gazeta.ru.
Said another economist, also quoted anonymously, ``Just remember the not-so-careful statements about metallurgical companies and the indecisiveness regarding the tax cuts. All this negativity had a strong impact on the investment climate for foreign investors. We entered unprecedented situation because of the concerns regarding [the bankruptcy of] Lehman Brothers and AIG and the consequences for the entire investment and insurance markets.``
No news agency in Russia directly linked the market failure to the war in Georgia, despite the fact that a huge outflow of foreign capital followed the recent rise of international tensions in the Caucuses. The usually anti-government newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets [Moscow Komsomol - not to be confused with the popular tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda - RB] published a short front page article titled USA is Satisfied with the Failure of the Russian Market and Withdrawal of the Capital from Russia. The MK mocked William Burns, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, for saying that Russian markets were paying for the ``unwise decision of the Russian government to invade Georgia.`` According to Burns, in part due to the war in Georgia, the Russian stock markets lost a third of their value. However, the Russian stock market began its decline well before the war started in August, and was already showing signs of volatility even as global oil prices reached unprecedented levels in July 2008.``
I love being right!
It amazes me how liberals-and their lapdogs in the media-can twist any issue to their advantage. Take this piece from the Christian Science Monitor; it manages to falsely claim that 1.the issue of Barack Obama`s citizenship is a quack conspiracy theory 2.that the issue has been settled by ``independent`` media sources and 3.manages to bash the Electoral College in the process.
So, anyone who thinks a candidate should prove his eligibility to be President is not someone standing for the rule of law, but a nut job in denial of reality. Furthermore, they manage to make the College of Electors out to be some foolish antiquated system rather than a fundamental restriction on demogoguerie and a cornerstone of Federalism.
You`ve got to hand it to them; they can always find a way to turn lemons into lemonade.
That the media has applied virtually no effort to finding out who Barack Obama is, has ignored vitally important things about him such as his ties to terrorists, communists, and race-baiters, does not enter into it, in the CSM view; he has been ``vetted`` by a media overcome with psychosexual orgasms and messianic fervor for this man who they see as our savior and lord.
And, in typical liberal fashion, the article does not discuss the nature of the evidence against Obama, prefering to turn to the attack against those who are making the claim. Why doesn`t this article explain the reasons WHY the Certificate Obama released is questionable? Why don`t they explain why Obama may not be eligible for the Presidency?
No. Instead they attack the people keeping this thing alive, and attack the Electoral College, which they hate. This is the very reason the Founding Fathers put the Electoral College system in place in the first place; to rectify any mistakes and to act with deliberation rather than passion. Should something dramatic come out, the duty of the Electors is to overturn the popular election. That is as it should be.
This is about the Rule of Law. If we ignore the Rule of Law here, why not somewhere else? If we say Obama doesn`t have to prove his citizenship, why have citizenship requirements at all? Why have age restrictions, or expect our President not to be a felon?
In a way, the fact that the Christian Science Monitor has to do a hit piece like this suggests that there is a dangerous fire smoldering here. They may be getting a tad concerned...
I think it likely that Obama has some secret he wants to keep hidden-perhaps his father isn`t really his father? Perhaps it can be proven he was a Muslim? The public has the right to know, yet the media refused to cover any of these issues. We still do not know who this guy is, despite a long and generally painful campaign.
It`s time for some answers.
Hat tip: Steve Rankinmore...
It should surprise no-one that abortion and mental health problems go hand-in-hand; after all, people who kill other people in car accidents are often devastated, and that from something not intended. An abortion is planned and premeditated, and the woman`s body has undergone physiological changes preparing to bring a new life into this world. OF COURSE that is going to cause mental health problems! Post-pardum would logically have nothing on ripping the infant from the womb.
This piece from Lifenews makes the case:
New Study: Direct Link Between Abortion and Mental Health Problems
Washington, DC -- A new research study featuring numerous
controls and a national data set finds a link between abortion
and psychiatric disorders. The study directly contradicts the
report the American Psychiatric Association released in August
claiming abortion causes no mental health issues for women.
The research team found induced abortions result in increased
risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety
to depression to substance abuse disorders.
Ultimately, the authors write that abortion is directly
"responsible for more than 10% of the population incidence of
alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic
disorder, agoraphobia, and bipolar disorder" among all Americans.
Full report at LifeNews.com at:
Here`s a good critique of the Obama`s Global Warming schemes:
The Sunday Telegraph, 30 November 2008
By Christopher Booker
If the holder of the most powerful office in the world proposed a policy guaranteed to inflict untold damage on his own country and many others, on the basis of claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies, we might well be concerned. The relevance of this is not to President Bush, as some might imagine, but to a recent policy statement by President-elect Obama.
Tomorrow, delegates from 190 countries will meet in Poznan, Poland, to pave the way for next year's UN conference in Copenhagen at which the world will agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. They will see a video of Mr Obama, in only his second major policy commitment, pledging that America is now about to play the leading role in the fight to "save the planet" from global warming.
Mr Obama begins by saying that "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear". "Sea levels," he claims, "are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we've seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Far from the science being "beyond dispute", we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore's wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts. Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.
It is true that average sea levels are modestly rising, but no faster than they have been doing for three centuries. Gore's film may predict a rise this century of 20 feet, but even the UN's International Panel on Climate Change only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches. The main focus of alarm here has been the fate of low-lying coral islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu.
Around each of these tiny countries, according to the international Commission on Sea Level Changes and other studies, sea levels in recent decades have actually fallen. The Indian Ocean was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since. Satellite measurements show that since 1993 the sea level around Tuvalu has gone down by four inches.
Coastlines are not "shrinking" except where land is subsiding, as on the east coast of England, where it has been doing so for thousands of years. Gore became particularly muddled by this, pointing to how many times the Thames Barrier has had to be closed in recent years, unaware that this was more often to keep river water in during droughts than to stop the sea coming in.
Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century's 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.
Mr Obama has again been taken in over hurricanes. Despite a recent press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claiming that 2008's North Atlantic hurricane season "set records", even its own release later admits that it only tied as "the fifth most active" since 1944. NOAA's own graphs show hurricane activity higher in the 1950s than recently. A recent Florida State University study of tropical cyclone activity across the world (see the Climate Audit website) shows a steady reduction over the past four years.
Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Mr Obama floats off still further from reality when he proposes spending $15 billion a year to encourage "clean energy" sources, such as thousands more wind turbines. He is clearly unaware that wind energy is so hopelessly ineffective that the 10,000 turbines America already has, representing "18 gigawatts of installed capacity", only generate 4.5GW of power, less than that supplied by a single giant coal-fired power station.
He talks blithely of allowing only "clean" coal-fired power plants, using "carbon capture" - burying the CO2 in holes in the ground - which would double the price of electricity, but the technology for which hasn't even yet been developed. He then babbles on about "generating five million new green jobs". This will presumably consist of hiring millions of Americans to generate power by running around on treadmills, to replace all those "dirty" coal-fired power stations which currently supply the US with half its electricity.
If this sounds like an elaborate economic suicide note, for what is still the earth's richest nation, it is still not enough for many environmentalists. Positively foaming at the mouth in The Guardian last week, George Monbiot claimed that the plight of the planet is now so grave that even "sensible programmes of the kind Obama proposes are now irrelevant". The only way to avert the "collapse of human civilisation", according to the Great Moonbat, would be "the complete decarbonisation of the global economy soon after 2050".
For 300 years science helped to turn Western civilisation into the richest and most comfortable the world has ever seen. Now it seems we have suddenly been plunged into a new age of superstition, where scientific evidence no longer counts for anything. The fact that America will soon be ruled by a man wholly under the spell of this post-scientific hysteria may leave us in wondering despair.
Hat tip: CCNET
November 29, 2008
Recently, a Russian analyst declared that the United States was finished, and would partition shortly. This piece in Drudge comes originally from RIA Novosti, by the way, and is based on information that had been leaking out from Pravda.
Here is the meat of it:
``Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.``
Now, there are multiple reasons why this analysis is wrong; the financial problems barely amount to a recession, much less a depression, and this nation has weathered far worse, such as the Carter catastrophe and the Great Depression (plus many smaller depressions prior to 1929). America does face serious challenges, but to declare the U.S. DOA based on this is weak. Oh, and millions of citizens have lost SOME savings, but hardly all of it.
Industry collapses all of the time; the same arguments could be applied to blacksmiths, candlestick makers, railroad workers, shipbuilders, tailors, etc. With every technological advance some form of employment is negatively effected. My wife took a course in keypunch decades ago, but never got a job because of the switch to magnetic tape. There may be pain, but we adjust, and new industry comes in to replace the old. The Luddites tried in vain to freeze industry so as not to lose jobs and suffer the dislocations that resulted from advancements in industry, but in the end everyone found new work. Consider the pain of losing the family farm today. Farmers don`t get to live like their grandparents, and may well have to move to the cities, but they manage and life goes on. The notion that America will die because Detroit suffers a depression is silly.
There is ALWAYS some degree of dissatisfaction.
About a ``vulnerable political setup``, the guy has not done his homework on the U.S.; America was purposely set up with a vulnerable political setup-that is called Federalism. We do not have unified national laws for that very reason-the States are intended to check the power of the central government. Ditto division among political elites. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton dead over such political divisions! Thomas Jefferson was accused of impregnating a slave girl (something akin today to calling the guy a pedophiile) and, in fact, Chester Arthur WAS called a pedophile. Does that sound like unity among the political elites to you?
I love the prediction for the future! ``Growing Chinese Population`` on the West Coast?! This illustrates the ignorance of this analyst about America; if anything, the West Coast would become a part of Aztlan, the Hispanic nation that would be carved out of the Southwest. Texas, too, could end up part of Aztlan. Does he think New England and Georgia would be part of the same country? Maybe not, but his notion of an Hispanic South is silly. He manages to lump the midwest into two groups, one largely Native American (huh?) and the other joining Canada. Where will Indiana, Missouri, or Nebraska wind up?
Of course, I`m not an analyst, and can claim no pedigree in these matters. But I know someone who can...
Herb Meyer was a top analyst with the CIA during the Reagan years, and was the first person to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. I asked him about this fantastical proposition; here was his reply:
``I've read that piece by the Russian about the looming break-up of the US -- and it reads just like all those books that American leftists write about the looming break-up of the US. If you and I had any sense, we'd write a book entitled American Sunset -- or something like that -- and we'd make a fortune.``
So much for that!
Now, I`ve said in the past that 2008 will be marked as the end of the U.S. AS WE KNOW IT because we are nationalizing industries with this bailout. I stand by that, because it is true; America will not mean the same thing to our grandchildren that it has meant to us. But that hardly means it will not be around, or a leading power in the world for some time to come. Just as Rome remained the superpower in Europe after ``the fall``, so too we will remain. But the silliness of this prediction that America will disappear in the near future is ludicrous. A better case needs to be made. Of course, the Left loves such predictions, because they have been angry at America for decades.
People love to be scared, love the ghost story around the campfire. This is just one more tale of terror, a Halloween spooky story.
Alan Keys discusses his lawsuit demanding Obama release his birth certificate.
Be sure to read through the comment section; there are some gems.
Commenter Dave Wiegal scoffs at this issue about midway through the discussion. He misses the point; this is about the Rule of Law, and whether America`s chief law enforcer can knowingly break it. Accepting the Presidency while being legally disqualified does not give us much confidence. If we are a nation of laws, we have every right to expect our President to be a natural born citizen based on the law at that time. If we ignore this we may as well ignore other laws-such as registering for Selective Services (uh, bad example), filing an income tax return, not advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force (the Smith Act), etc. America has every right to expect her President to be on the right side of the Law. That was the reason for the impeachment of Bill Clinton (not his immoral behavior but his violation of the law) and that is the reason for demanding proof of Obama`s natural born status.
Many thanks to Steve Rankin for sending this our way.
It might be a good time to point out that Bam-Bam has been putting his foot into it, lately, with respect to relations with India. I'll bet you didn't know that. It hasn't been on the news, for some reason...
November 28, 2008
A Human Events Op-Ed, courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:
The Humpty Dumpty Economy
by Mark Skousen
Posted 11/26/2008 ET
``There’s much ruin in a nation.`` ~ Adam Smith
We’ve gone from a Goldilocks economy to a Humpty Dumpty economy. I see years of stagflation ahead. At best, expect a combination of slow growth and renewed inflation over the next few years.
America in 2009 will never be the same. Barack Obama is right when he said that as president he doesn’t look like any of the faces on the dollar bill. We are entering stage two of the New Deal. Obama recently spent time reading about the emergency measures Franklin Delano Roosevelt took when he became president in early 1933.
FDR started his New Deal by declaring a week-long bank holiday. The way things are going, Obama may have to do the same on January 20, only it will be an invisible bank holiday. Today the Feds rescued the nation’s largest bank by making an emergency loan of $20 billion, but more importantly, TARP (the Treasury’s Troubled Assets Relief Program) guaranteed $306 billion in Citigroup’s troubled assets.
Essentially, the Federal government was sending a message to Wall Street: ``We are guaranteeing the assets of all major banks in the United States, starting with the largest.`` That’s why the stock market rallied for the second day in a row. It was like Washington setting a price floor on the economy and Wall Street.
The price for this ``bleeding heart do-gooder`` bailout mentality will be steep. Expect deficits to exceed $1.5 trillion in 2009 and beyond. Much will depend on how many other bailouts the government will undertake. The list of handouts could be long -- commercial banks, insurance companies, auto makers, credit card issuers, states and municipalities.
The new Obama administration and the Democratically-controlled Congress probably can’t say no to the "Big Three" auto makers, since a bailout is really a payback to the UAW. Expect the government to pay for the legacy costs of retiree’s pensions and medical expenses and to get back into the business of running businesses ``too big to fail.`` Failure to rescue Detroit could be the tipping point toward the big D (depression).
Once the economy stabilizes (notice I didn’t say grow), expect Obama to increase taxes on investors and wealthy entrepreneurs in a vain effort to reduce the growing deficit.
The Fed is doing its part by injecting billions (or is it trillions?) into the monetary system through the Discount Window and Open Market Operations.
Both fiscal and monetary policy are highly inflationary. Initially, the impact will be a stock market recovery, but the long term impact is more inflation and much higher gold prices (the ultimate inflation hedge).
FDR also took the United States off the gold standard and forced Americans to turn in their gold. Thankfully, nobody is talking about gold confiscation right now, although if ``speculators`` (gold bugs) double or triple the price of gold, don’t rule out this possibility.
I just returned from a trip to Bogota, Colombia, where I gave a lecture on the financial crisis. I said that America started this crisis, and America can end it. It requires the U.S. government to (a) establish a long-term stable monetary policy, with neither easy money or tight money -- the Fed should adopt a Goldilocks ``just right`` monetary policy, a steady monetary rule that stabilizes the price of gold; (b) pass a flat tax that becomes permanent and dependable; (c) institute just and tolerable ``rules of the game`` so that business and financial institutions can make long-term plans for success; and (d) adopt an open and non-interventionist foreign policy.
Adam Smith said it best: ``Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, [sound money], and a tolerable sense of government.``
Tragically, America could go in the opposite direction toward a road to serfdom if we are adopt a constant policy of war, taxation, inflation, and over-regulation.
History is holding its breath to see which way we will go.
Mr. Skousen is a renowned financial economist, author and university professor. He has been the editor of the financial advice newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, for 28 years. Two of his books highlight Milton Friedman's career: "The Making of Modern Economics" and "Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes?." Check out his latest books, ?Investing in One Lesson? and "EconoPower: How a New Generation of Economists is Transforming the World." He is the producer of FreedomFest, the world's largest gathering of free minds, in Las Vegas every July.
November 27, 2008
November 11, 1620
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.
Mr. John Carver,
Mr. William Bradford,
Mr Edward Winslow,
Mr. William Brewster.
Mr. Samuel Fuller,
Mr. Christopher Martin,
Mr. William Mullins,
Mr. William White,
Mr. Richard Warren,
Mr. Steven Hopkins,
Mr. John Allerton,
There's a section of the Constitution that will prevent Hillary from becoming Secretary of State -- assuming that it is observed. We already know that Obama thumbs his nose at the Constitution when he feels like it, however. And this particular rule has already been ignored, in the case of Lloyd Bentsen (in the first Clinton administration).
It took Debbie Schlussel about a year to get a copy of Barack Obama's Selective Service registration form and it has what appears to be irregularities. If the two document images included in this email are not visiable, simply go to the link below. There you can also see a very long comments section replete with experienced adults who further question the authenticity of his records.
The Sonoran News of Arizona http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2008/081126/FrntPgRegister.html, in linking to the Schlussel article and summarizing it, makes the additional claims that 1) Someone who didn't register for the draft is not eligable for FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT and 2) Obama's registration has a date stamp from 1980 using the term "USPO" (United States Post Office), an agency which changed its' name formally in the early 1970s as "USPS" (United States Postal Service).
Once again, you couldn't get a job painting a line down the middle of a road in Indio, CA or Springfield, MO or Ithaca, NY with Obama's flimsy level of documentation proof vs. what is now required by the Homeland Security Dept. And you couldn't register a boy for Little League with a mere "Certificate of Live Birth."
Jack Kemp, not the politician
The Schlussel article:
November 13, 2008
Also, here is a summation of the problems with Obama`s registration on Youtube:
The best gifts are the ones that keep on giving; with that in mind, we should all be excited about this new Christmas gift!
Planned Parenthood Christmas Gift Certificates OK for Abortions
Indianapolis, IN (LifeNews.com) -- In what could easily become
the most offensive Christmas offer ever a Planned Parenthood
affiliate is offering Christmas gift certificates. Purchasers can
use them to give the gift of abortion even though the group
claims that's not its purpose or intent.
Full story at: http://www.LifeNews.com/state3669.html
Now THAT is certainly in the spirit of the season! Buy the gift of death! Sure to please that hard to get for pregnant woman in the family; a lasting treasure of post abortion syndrome and unbearable feelings of guilt that will last a lifetime!
November 26, 2008
Barack Obama must be the Messiah; he has his own Star of Bethlehem!
Wil Wirtanen forwards this piece by the endlessly wise Thomas Sowell:
"Jolting" the Economy
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Barack Obama says that we have to "jolt" the economy. That certainly makes sense, if you take the media's account of the economy seriously-- but should the media be taken seriously?
Amid all the political and media hysteria, national output has declined by less than one-half of one percent. In fact, it may not have declined even that much-- or at all-- when the statistics are revised later, as they very often are.
We are not talking about the Great Depression, when output dropped by one-third and unemployment soared to 25 percent.
What we are talking about is a golden political opportunity for politicians to use the current financial crisis to fundamentally change an economy that has been successful for more than two centuries, so that politicians can henceforth micro-manage all sorts of businesses and play Robin Hood, taking from those who are not likely to vote for them and transferring part of their earnings to those who will vote for them.
For that, the politicians need lots of hype, and that is being generously supplied by the media.
Whatever the merits of trying to shore up some financial institutions, in order to prevent a major disruption of the credit flows that keep the whole economy going, what has in fact been done has been to create a huge pot of money-- hundreds of billions of dollars-- that politicians can use to give out goodies hither and yon, to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.
No doubt we could all use a few billion dollars every now and then. But the question of who actually gets it will be strictly in the hands of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is one of the few parts of the legacy of the Bush administration that the Democrats are not likely to criticize.
Much as we may deplore partisanship in Washington, bipartisan disasters are often twice as bad as partisan disasters-- and this is a bipartisan disaster in the making.
Too many people who argue that there is a beneficial role for the government to play in the economy glide swiftly from that to the conclusion that the government will in fact confine itself to playing such a role.
In the light of history, this is a faith which passeth all understanding. Even in the case of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increasing numbers of economists and historians who have looked back at that era have concluded that, on net balance, government intervention prolonged the Great Depression.
Many of those who have, over the years, praised the fact that this was the first time that the federal government took responsibility for trying to get the country out of a depression do not ask what seems like the logical follow-up question: Did this depression therefore end faster than other depressions where the government stood by and did nothing?
The Great Depression of the 1930s was in fact the longest-lasting of all our depressions.
Government policy in the 1930s was another bipartisan disaster. Despite a myth that Herbert Hoover was a "do nothing" president, he was the first President of the United States to step in to try to put the economy back on track.
With the passing years, it has increasingly been recognized that what FDR did was largely a further extension of what Hoover had done. Where Hoover made things worse, FDR made them much worse.
Herbert Hoover did what Barack Obama is proposing to do. Hoover raised taxes on high-income people and put restrictions on international trade, in order to try to save American jobs. It didn't work then and it is not likely to work now.
Perhaps the most disastrous of all the counterproductive policies of the federal government was the National Industrial Recovery Act under FDR, which set out to do exactly what the politicians today want to do-- micro-manage businesses.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared that Act unconstitutional, sparing the country an even bigger disaster.
Today, it is unlikely that the courts will let anything as old-fashioned as the Constitution stand in the way of "change." In short, the economy today has some serious problems but things are not desperate, though they can be made desperate by politicians.
Here's a guy who knows who Che was. That's a photo of the statue I took in the story.
November 25, 2008
New York Honors Che Guevara with a Statue
By Humberto Fontova
On Friday November 21st, while strolling through Central Park's Doris C. Freedman Plaza, Commentary Magazine's online editor Abe Greenwald noticed a statue and did a double take. "Is that...Che Guevara?"
Indeed! There was no mistaking it: a statue of "El Che" by German artist, Christian Jankowski. Upon investigating the matter, Abe Greenwald learned that, "the sculpture is not intended to depict Che Guevara," but rather a street performer from Barcelona's Las Ramblas who idolizes Che Guevara and makes a living mimimg him. "Which I'm sure makes all the difference in the world to the families of Che's victims," Mr Greenwald wisely adds. " There's no mistaking who that statue depicts."
Most New Yorkers seem unaware that but for the grace of God thousands of them would have been Che's victims too.
"If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims."
- Ernesto 'Che" Guevara, November 1962.
Imagine a monument to Hideki Tojo at the Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor. Imagine one to Luftwaffe Chief, Herman Goering in London's Hyde Park. Heck, imagine one to Osama bin Laden in New York. In the fall of 1962 only Khrushchev's prudence and the FBI's competence saved New York from a Che-instigated murder toll that would have dwarfed Pearl Harbor's, London's during the Blitz , and 9/11's -- combined. The planning and will for the fiery mass-murder of thousands of New Yorkers were certainly there, only the means were foiled at the last minute. Morally speaking, this leaves the man honored in Central Park's Doris C. Freedman Plaza (from Nov. 20th 2008 till May 2009) culpable of crimes bin Laden envisions only in his sweetest dreams.
"The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!" raved Ernesto "Che" Guevara in 1961. "Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination. We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies' very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we'll destroy him! We must keep our hatred against them [the U.S.] alive and fan it to paroxysms!"
Compared to Che Guevara, Ahmadinejad sounds like the Dalai Lama. After his 'whoopin 'hollerin reception at the U.N.'s General Assembly in December 1964, New York society's reception for Che Guevara -- with cocktail parties at "Bobo" Rockefeller's Manhattan suite and softball interview on Meet the Press -- shamed the sorry treatment accorded Ahmadinejad on his visit last year. If only Ahmadinejad had planned to incinerate his hosts (then boasted about it) he might have gotten a much warmer reception in New York. 40 years later he might even get a statue.
On Nov. 17, 1962, J. Edgar Hoover's FBI discovered that Che Guevara's bombast had substance. They infiltrated and cracked a plot by Cuban agents that targeted Macy's, Gimbel's, Bloomingdale's and Manhattan's Grand Central Terminal with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set to go off the following week, on the day after Thanksgiving. Che Guevara was the head of Cuba's "Foreign Liberation Department" at the time.
A little perspective: for their March 2004 Madrid subway blasts, all 10 of them, that killed and maimed almost 2000 people, AL-Qaida used a grand total of 100 kilos of TNT. Castro and Che's agents planned to set off five times that explosive power in the three biggest department stores on earth, all packed to suffocation and pulsing with holiday cheer on the year's biggest shopping day. Thousands of New Yorkers, including women and children, actually -- given the date and targets -- probably mostly women and children, were to be incinerated and entombed.
Cuba's agents for this Manhattan Thanksgiving bomb plot were members of the Cuban mission to the United Nations working in concert with members of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, an outfit that became much better known a year later when member Lee Harvey Oswald really racked up some headlines.
Incidentally, at the time of the Manhattan terror plot, the Fair Play For Cuba Committee also included among its members, CBS correspondent Robert Taber, (an early version of Dan Rather who conducted Castro's first network television soft-soaping on Aug. 30, 1957) along with The Nation magazine co-owner Alan Sagner. In 1996 President Clinton appointed the obviously unbiased Alan Sagner head of the head of the scrupulously even-handed Corporation for Public Broadcasting, at a time the FBI had long outed The Fair Play for Cuba Committee as a Castro-funded front group.
Oddly, Alan Sagner, even with his impeccable Clintonista and Castroite pedigree, remains unrecruited by Obama? But it's early yet. Give him time.
Castro and Che planned their Manhattan holocaust short weeks after Nikita Khrushchev had foiled their plans for an even bigger one. "Say hello to my little friends!" they dreamt of yelling at the Yankee "hyenas" in October of 1962, right before the mushroom clouds. But for the prudence of the Butcher of Budapest (Nikita Khrushchev) they might have pulled it off. Guevara's quote at the head of this article is ample proof. Che thought he was speaking off-the-record to Sam Russell of Britain's Daily Worker's at the time.
Despite the diligent work of Camelot court scribes and their ever-eager acolytes in the MSM, publishing and Hollywood, Nikita Khrushchev himself makes hash of their Camelot boosterism. The Butcher of Budapest admitted that Fidel and Che's genocidal fantasy was a much bigger factor in his decision to yank the missiles from Cuba than Kennedy's utterly bogus bluster, threats and "blockade," during those famous "Thirteen Days."
But don't misinterpret Che Guevara's bluster with actual competence, much less courage. His stock in trade was the mass-murder of defenseless men and boys -- bound and gagged is how he demanded his victims. On Oct. 8 1967, upon finally encountering armed and determined enemies, Che quickly dropped his fully-loaded weapons and whimpered: "Don't Shoot! I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
Che Guevara's regime also shattered, through executions, jailings, mass larceny and exile, virtually every family on the island of Cuba.
Many opponents of the Cuban regime qualify as the longest-suffering political prisoners in modern history, having suffered prison camps, forced labor and torture chambers for a period three times as long in Che Guevara's Gulag as Alexander Solzhenytzin suffered in Stalin's Gulag. But please, please, please don't bother looking for any History Channel, NPR, or 20/20 interviews with these heroes. They were victims of the left's premier poster boys, you see.
The regime Che Guevara co-founded stole the savings and property of 6.4 million citizens, made refugees of 20 percent of the population from a nation formerly deluged with immigrants and whose citizens had achieved a higher standard of living than those residing in half of Europe.
Under Che Guevara's rule "change," indeed came to Cuba.
"Those Americans," snickered Brazilian president Janio Quadros in 1961 as he watched Castro and Che make monkeys of Camelot by setting up a Soviet regime 90 miles from U.S. shores, "are just like women. They have a masochistic streak. The more you slap them around, the more you get out of them." (Ladies please! I'm quoting a famously eccentric and long-dead Brazilian President. The sentiment is not mine!)
Quadros mistook Camelot's "Best and Brightest" for Americans in general. But he certainly nailed New York's Council for the Arts and the Bloomberg team. Had the wishes of the man commemorated in that Central Park statue prevailed, Central Park itself might still be radioactive, and the charred remains of many Central Park frolickers (not to mention Doris C Freedman, many members of the New York Arts Council, and perhaps Michael Bloomberg himself) would all fit in a milk carton.
Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including Exposing the Real Che Guevara. Visit hfontova.com.
This article in the WSJ ought to scare you.
Not a chance that The Obamessiah is going to do anything positive about it, either.
Never express yourself more clearly than you think. -- Niels Bohr
Tim`s reply to Dana:
You know, Dana, this has been something that has frightened me for a long time; I suspected our nuclear arsenal was decaying, but had never had it confirmed by any of our top brass. I know we paid to decommission the old Soviet arsenal, and the Russians used the money they saved-along with the plutonium they have continued to produce thanks to Bill Clinton`s Nuclear Cities Initiative-to build a post-modern weapons system that is only slightly smaller than our own. We HAVE to deploy those ABM systems or be subject to nuclear blackmail!
Obama is pledged to reduce our nuclear capacity, not increase it.
German publishing firm's man in the White House (soon)...
Obama's ties to Bertelsmann are a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed.
Please take a second and visit my online art gallery, look for the WANTED poster.
November 25, 2008
Patrick J. Buchanan, the once brave Cold Warrior turned Putin bootlicker, has written yet another foolish article at Human Events about our need to appease the Russian Bear.
Here is an outstanding comment by a reader:
Pat, there is a question begging to be asked that you studiously avoid, and it is this:
WHY is Russia upset about the missiles going into Poland?
As even YOU note, these are DEFENSIVE missiles. In an of themselves, they threaten NOBODY, not Iran, and neither Russia.
For all the difference DEFENSIVE missiles make to Russia's security, Poland might as well plant flowers along its border with White Russia and the Enclave.
Russia's opposition to the missiles is unreasonable. It has not a shred of rational, logical justification.
What this is REALLY about is a game of geopolitics.
The proposal to build the missiles in Poland has been around for several years. Up until Russia's invasion of Gruzia, Poland had not agreed to the missiles.
However, TWO SHORT DAYS after the invasion, Poland promptly agreed to the missiles.
In effect, Poland was calling Russia's BLUFF. Poland was expressing its recognition of, and opposition to, Russia reborn expansionist desires, which include recontrol of its former East European satellites.
Agreeing to the missiles was a magnificent act of bravado and confidence in the West, and Poland deserves the admiration of people everwhere.
As for missiles in the Kaliningrad Enclave, who - gives - a - bleep? Russia's STATED doctrine on these missiles is that their deployment is a reaction to Poland's DEFENSIVE missiles. In other words, Russia will launch its missiles if Poland launches its missiles first. It's obviously absurd since Poland's missiles are -- again -- DEFENSIVE.
Unless and until Russia launches Enclave missiles first, they mean NOTHING.
And speaking of the Enclave, why does Russia not simply deploy its missiles inside its partner-state White Russia? What is so special about deploying them inside the Enclave? The answer is, NOTHING AT ALL; deploying them inside the Enclave means NOTHING.
I honestly have no idea how Russia can reasonably oppose missiles inside Poland. Because there is no DECENT reason, deployment of those missiles will NOT genuinely impede US / Russian relations in the slightest.
The non-issue of the missiles is so much hot air.
And as for YOU, Tytus Suski in Poland, where in Poland exactly do you live? Your country has a lot of courage and I am proud to make my retirement home here. And I could not care less about Russian threats because I KNOW that NOTHING bad will happen, unless and until Russia is more insane than Hitler, which I seriously doubt is the case.
James A. Nollet, Milkowice, POLAND
He`s right; Russia has nothing to fear from an ABM system. What Russia fears is that her weapons have become useless in an engagement with the West. Now, I understand the old mentality; the ability to hit the West guarantees Russia`s security, and by taking that away the paranoid Russkies feel vulnerable. Still, Russia has been quite vulnerable to much, and yet America has been nothing if not magnanimous.
The Russians are correct about one thing; this isn`t about Iranian nukes, and Buchanan has to be aware of that. Why does Russia need a nuclear arsenal of such a large size? The purpose of that arsenal is to threaten US! With nukes Russia has international reach. Those weapons are not pointed at China or other potential enemies, but at Europe and the United States. Why is that? They`ve never had a reason to fear us, not with the end of the Cold War, yet they have continued to build up their nuclear arsenal anyway, even while we were paying for them to decommission their old Soviet nukes. This is about power, as Mr. Nollet points out. We have to be able to defend against incoming Russian missiles; any President who failed to take such steps would be grossly negligent in his duties.
Buchanan made this rather dubious assertion:
``Moscow offered Spain and Germany use of Russian territory to supply NATO troops in Afghanistan. As our supply line from the Pakistani port of Karachi through the Khyber Pass to Kabul grows perilous, this has to be seen as a gesture of friendship by a Russia that shares, as a fellow victim of Islamic terror, the U.S. detestation of al-Qaida.``
Why wouldn`t the Russians take such a step? Does Buchanan really believe the Russians want another Taliban at their doorstep, this time aided by a Revolutionary Republic of Pakistan with nuclear weapons? To say this is some sort of concilliation is a stretch in so many ways; if they are willing to have NATO forces in Afghanistan, why not in Georgia? The fact is, they aren`t willing to do the dirty work themselves, and are happy to see us bogged down in a long hard slog against Jihadists in the mountains. The old Soviet Union broke it`s toe on Afghanistan, and I have little doubt that they are thinking we will do likewise. If we succeed, we will secure the Russian southern border, if we fail then we lose status. It`s a win/win for them!
Oh, and it should be pointed out that Medvedev isn`t dealing with the U.S. here, but with our more junior members of NATO. If he were making a serious outreach he would have made the offer to the U.S.
Pat also said;
``Medvedev is now on a four-nation Latin tour with stops in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Fidel Castro's Cuba. But this seems more like diplomatic tit-for-tat for high-profile U.S. visits to Tbilisi and other ex-Soviet republics than laying the groundwork for some anti-American alliance.``
What has Pat been smoking these days? What does he think the offer of warships and nuclear aid are intended to do?
This from the Reuters story:
``Although it is Venezuela's main weapons supplier, Moscow was for years wary of Chavez's radical anti-Washington stance. But it warmed to him after the war in Georgia in August and U.S. missile-shield deals with Poland and the Czech Republic.
Since then, Caracas's glitziest hotels have filled with successive delegations of Russian businessmen and politicians, while top Venezuelan officials have tag-teamed in and out of Russia. Chavez has made three trips in 12 months.
Moscow now promises to help Chavez build a civilian nuclear reactor and has set up a $4 billion joint investment fund. In return, Venezuela gives access to gas and gold reserves.
Russian officials say the creation of a joint consortium to further develop Venezuela's Orinoco oil field will be a central issue of Medvedev's visit.
He is also likely to discuss cooperating on oil supply with OPEC, where Chavez is a leading price hawk. Both nations depend on energy exports and are worried by oil's fall to around $50 a barrel from $147 in July.
Chavez chased away many private investors with a spate of nationalizations in the last year, and likes Russian promises to help develop Venezuelan resources.
"UP THE ANTE"
Medvedev will also visit Cuba and Brazil this week after meeting Bush at a weekend summit meeting in Peru. His visit to Venezuela is the first ever by a Russian president and coincides with the joint naval exercises in the Caribbean.
Along with a visit by two bombers to a Venezuelan base in September, the exercises are Russia's first in the Americas since sending missiles and ships to Cuba during the Cold War.``
Sounds like an attempt to lay the groundwork to me, Mr. Buchanan!
Buchanan`s proposals for peace are myopic, to say the least; not deploying an ABM system in Poland until the Iranians test a nuke, for example. Duh! How fast does he think we can deploy these things? If we wait for a test, we may have several smoking craters where cities once stood. The whole point of an ABM system is deterrence; he wants to close the barn door after the cow has made a break for it.
Even sillier is the idea of holding a pleibescite in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. First, they`ve already been held. Second, with Russian troops lurking about, does Pat think this will be a fair referendum? We were told that the presence of police blocks away from a polling place in Florida in 2000 was an attempt at voter suppression, at least in black neighborhoods. What will the presence of Russian troops do? Maybe we can send Jimmy Carter to observe...
Buchanan also says;
``As NATO is a military alliance, at the heart of which is Article V, which obligates every ally to come to the defense of a member who is attacked, to bring Georgia in would be madness.
To cede to Saakashvili power to bring us into confrontation with Russia would be to rival British stupidity in giving Polish colonels power to drag the empire into war with Germany over Danzig, which is exactly what the Polish colonels proceeded to do in 1939.``
How is Saakashvili being given the power to bring us into confrontation? The alliance only obligates us to act if Georgia is attacked, not if she is the aggressor. Despite what Buchanan has alleged, there is still little beyond the word of the Russians themselves that Georgia provoked this war. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that Russia provoked the Georgians into defending their own territory. If Pat wants to discuss the Second World War, perhaps he should be reminded of the way Hitler carved up his neighbors to take their territories. How about Austria?
According to this piece from the History Channel:
``On March 12, 1938, German troops march into Austria to annex the German-speaking nation for the Third Reich.
In early 1938, Austrian Nazis conspired for the second time in four years to seize the Austrian government by force and unite their nation with Nazi Germany. Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg, learning of the conspiracy, met with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in the hopes of reasserting his country's independence but was instead bullied into naming several top Austrian Nazis to his cabinet. On March 9, Schuschnigg called a national vote to resolve the question of Anschluss, or "annexation," once and for all. Before the plebiscite could take place, however, Schuschnigg gave in to pressure from Hitler and resigned on March 11. In his resignation address, under coercion from the Nazis, he pleaded with Austrian forces not to resist a German "advance" into the country.
The next day, March 12, Hitler accompanied German troops into Austria, where enthusiastic crowds met them. Hitler appointed a new Nazi government, and on March 13 the Anschluss was proclaimed. Austria existed as a federal state of Germany until the end of World War II, when the Allied powers declared the Anschluss void and reestablished an independent Austria. Schuschnigg, who had been imprisoned soon after resigning, was released in 1945.``
Sounds to me more like the Russian behavior than the Georgian; Russian backed agitation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia provoked a response by Georgia, and gave the Russians an excuse to invade.
It also reminds me of Hitler`s actions in the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia.
This from WWII Multimedia Database:
``Against the guarantee of Czech border integrity by her geography, they also entered into a treaty with the French to protect them against any aggressors. French had signed this treaty after World War I to actualize the new political map of Europe.
In the summer of 1938, the Nazis had an experienced political and paramilitary organization set up to ferment pro-Nazi dissent and smash their opposition. Nazi sympathizers, Czech and German, began to enter Czechoslovakia and the Sudatenland to fight with Communists, Social Democrats, and Socialists, their traditional enemies, and to focus attention on the supposed plight of the ethnic Germans. Most of these ethnic Germans did not want to be part of Germany, and many did not even speak German.
After street battles like those of Hitler’s rise to power and Austrian Anschluss, Hitler demanded the Sudatenland from Czechoslovakian President Eduard Benes. Benes turned to Britain for help, especially to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain``
Hmmmm. So, the pattern Hitler followed was infiltrate, instigate, and initiate. The defenders are then accused of being the aggressors, and Hitler had to ``defend`` the Sudaten Germans. Sounds familiar, doesn`t it Pat?
The reality is that the Russians are going to challenge us no matter what we do, and the return of Cold War is not going to be stopped by a few gestures and some kind words. The people running Russia today are the same people who ran the old Soviet Union, and they want revenge for their collapse. They must be dealt with from a position of strength. We were foolish, insofar as we thought U.S. aid and kind words would be enough to demonstrate our good intentions. In power politics-something the Russians excel at-capabilities count for more than intentions. The Russians have been increasingly anti-American, largely because they seek to re-assert themselves as a world power, a counterbalance to American hegemony. It is as simple as that, and diplomatic niceties will not change this situation. Russia needs to understand that it is in their interest to not buck us. That will ultimately be accomplished by military intimidation and economic need, not friendship. Pat Buchanan is a fool to believe that this Cold War II is avoidable; it is if we show weakness, something guaranteed to make things worse down the line.
Our failure to take the return of Russia seriously will cost us dearly.
Liberals do not simply seek to defeat their enemies, but to destroy them. They look not just to the immediate horizon, but to the far shores of that ultima thule of the future, planning their battles to maximize their ultimate success. Coupled with a Machiavellian vision and materialistic worldview whereby the liberal sees no moral hinderance, the concept of victory with honor must clearly be tossed out the window. How can one leave an enemy at the back? Enemies are to be annihilated, not to be treated with forgiveness.
This is one of the great problems that Conservatives face; they DON`T think to annihilate their opponenets. After all, we see the other side as God`s children, too, and consider them misguided rather than evil. Our hope is to defeat them with superior logic and, hopefully, convert them into friends. Furthermore, even though we may see a certain evil on their side, we are not willing to smite them with all vigour, because to do so would make us as bad as they are. As a result, the left gleefully mauls our people, snapping at them with foaming jaws, and often we do little to defend our own because it is unseemly to fight so aggressively.
We also do not think in such long-term fashion, because we understand that our philosphy is based on Natural Law, and that the default position of humanity should logically be where we seek to lead. As a result, Conservatism often becomes lazy and complacent, thinking that our forgiveness of our opponents will ease the situation. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the malleability of the human condition and thus must force the changes they wish to occur. Those who oppose those changes are evil and must be destroyed at all costs. Consider Trotsky if you do not believe the truth of that statement; one of their own, he was upsetting the apple cart and had to be killed. It didn`t matter that he fled from the seat of power to Mexico; the Revolution would not be secure until he was room temperature.
Which brings us to this piece about the long knives drawn against Sarah Palin; her electoral defeat was not enough for the leftist cutthroats. They rightly understand that she is of the Reagan mold, and could be a terrible enemy in the future, so, like Carthage, she must be destroyed.
Here is the program of the typically misnamed Alaskans for Truth:
-- Censure Palin.
-- Seek contempt charges against Todd Palin and state officials "who willingly ignored the Legislative Council's subpoenas during the investigation."
-- Hold hearings on whether the governor and Todd Palin committed perjury in their statements to the Personnel Board's investigator.
-- Investigate whether Attorney General Talis Colberg committed witness tampering.
All this based on the very dubious accusations against the Governor by Democrats and their attack dog Stephen Branchflower that she abused her power in demanding the firing of her ex-brother-in-law. Now, the brother-in-law tasered her 11 year old nephew for backtalking, and was clearly someone quite unstable. Furthermore, she had every right to fire her public safety commissioner, that commissioner (Walt Monegan) serving at her pleasure. The release of the Branchflower report coincided with the election, by some strange quirk of fate, and naturally called Palin`s actions an ``abuse of power``. Of course, little is made of the fact that the State Personnell Board (the forum tasked with such an investigation) found her guilty of no wrongdoing; the seriousness of the charge outweighs the evidence.
With the election over, one would think that a political witchhunt would be dropped. WRONG! Sarah Palin is hugely popular, despite what the media has tried to lead us to believe, and she must not be allowed to spread her philosophical seed. Never content to let the will of the people judge, they seek to destroy her, to strangle the infant in the crib lest it grow to do them harm.
Doubtless they know that Obama will be quite unpopular in 4 years, and a Sarah Palin could mount a formidable challenge to him. This must not be allowed; we need a second coming of McCain for the Chosen One to be secure, and that means any popular conservative must be destroyed.
The frustrating thing to me is that we will continue to consider these people as having a disagreement with us; they don`t! They have a hatred of us, because, if Man is inherently good, then the continual failure of their efforts to perfect him must be the result of some evil, and that evil is the greedy and self-seeking conservatives. There is no evil but the opposition, because opposing their efforts to perfect us must be a-priori based on a nearly Satanic hatred and self interest. They do not seek merely to win, and we will toss them bones to show how reasonable we are while they will toss poison-tipped spears at us. Like machines we follow the same pattern over and over, never seeming to learn from our mistakes. Every time we extend our hand it is nearly bitten off, yet we continue to do so. How many conservatives have been ready to toss Palin to the wolves? How many tossed Tom Delay? Newt Gingrich? Dan Quayle, Robert Bork, James Watts, etc.? It is a long-established pattern; the left brings some ridiculous charge against one of us, and we respond with lukewarm defense or actively join them in calling for the head of our friend. We do this to illustrate that we are reasonable and fair, yet it is perceived by the public that we are corrupt because so many of our own fall. The left doesn`t do that; they hung by Bill Clinton, despite the fact that he hurt them badly. Why? Because their side has to understand the importance of keeping faith with their own. If you are on their side you can count on support. This isn`t true of our side, and many of our people go wobbly rather than face a Borking.
If we don`t break this cycle we will never move beyond minority status. The enemy-and that is what they are-is attacking on all fronts. We must defend our own, or we do not deserve to be leaders. I know; it has been hard, especially given the ``new tone`` that President Bush attempted. This was an astoundingly foolish and unsuccessful strategy, and we need to take a tip from our enemies. Despite what America says, they enjoy a good bloodsport. This is human nature; bread and circuses, jousts, boxing matches, cock fights, and politics. The Left understands that fact and has been quite successful by making the claim that we should have a more gentlemanly approach. The soft, squishy middle does little to excite anyone, nor does a disciplined, reasonable tone. Political blood-letting is the sport of Kings, and the sport of America.
Granted, Obama won with a seemingly moderate tone, but did he? Certainly, his base was anything but moderate, with the fiery rhetoric of political apocalypse driving a money machine never before seen. Had John McCain moved beyond his Senatorial collegiality and come out firing he would have motivated his base and been on a more level playing field. America would not have turned against him if done properly, and the way to do that was through Sarah Palin. He moved ahead in the race after Palin`s speech at the Convention, but squandered that momentum after strait-jacketing the Alaska Governor. He wrongly believed the conventional wisdom.
We must come out fighting. This notion that we can give Obama time is extraordinarily foolish; the Democrats hammered George Bush for 8 years, and eventually the public perception of Bush was shaped by this endless barrage. We need to do the same. This does not mean Obama derangement syndrome, but that we give him no respite. This guy isn`t going to do anything we want without pressure, anyway, so what have we got to lose? We have to defend Sarah Palin, and reshape the image cast by the Media and the Left. We have to show passion in our approach, create something that the vast middle will want to be part of. Men join the army during wartime to fight for a cause, and they go over the top into enemy guns for a noble purpose. I`ve never heard of a soldier charging into battle shouting ``for moral relativism!`` or any other moderate position. The Left understands this, and they have recruited their soldiers by opening the door to hatred. We may want to avoid such negative and morally indefensible passion, but ours is the more noble fight! We have the virtues that have traditionally motivated people-freedom, Godliness, moral truth, righteousness! But we cannot recruit the middle to Conservatism if we are unwilling to engage in battle, and that means we must have a loathing not for the sinner but the sin, and that means that we have to accept the notion that Liberalism is the enemy, not just a disagreement. We can accomplish this by fighting for our own, and fighting against theis. Giving the Obama/Clinton Administration a reprieve is only asking for trouble.
This is the time of war; we should be looking to sharpen our knives!
35 queries taking 0.0114 seconds, 178 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.