Category Archives: Opinion

FOOD STAMPS

“The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

That sounds like Ronald Reagan, doesn’t it? But they are not his words. The quote is from a State of the Union address by another President, one whom you would least expect, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In his day, acceptance of welfare from the government was a source of embarrassment for most recipients. Pride and self-respect were motivations enough for people to work their way off the dole. Time has brought change. When a woman cries with joy on public television because she believes under the new President the government will pay her mortgage, you know Roosevelt’s observation has come to pass.

Food stamps are now distributed to 41.8 million people, about 14% of the population. That’s a lot of destruction of the national fiber. That’s a significant bloc of voters on the narcotic of welfare who will be voting for another fix. That’s yet another reason why we must make our voices heard.

A PROFESSIONAL RADICAL

Obama is not a professional politician. He shows no concern for the damage he has done to his party. He has alienated Left, Right and Center. He doesn’t respond to circumstances and events like a professional politician. He neither thinks nor acts like a professional politician because he isn’t a professional politician. Obama is a professional radical.

Barack Obama has led the life of an organizer, an agitator, a revolutionary fighting for a cause. This has been his life. This is what he sees as his calling. He knows how to develop a following, how to work a crowd. Obama is a professional radical. He doesn’t know how to govern. He doesn’t care much about governing. He cares about change. His goal is nothing less than radical transformation of America.

Saul Alinsky gave barely a sentence about governing in his book Rules for Radicals. All he said was that governing was for someone else to do. The radical’s role is not to build, but to destroy. Not to lead, but to bring down the status quo paving the way for new leadership, radical transformational leadership that will emerge. Obama is well versed in radical activism. His associations with Ayers, Dorn, Rev. Wright, ACORN and the teachings of Saul Alinsky vouch for that. Now he’s learning that running a country is not as easy as manipulating an angry crowd.

JOHN BOLTON’S HAT

JOHN BOLTON

Caricature artists, get ready, here comes John Bolton and his mustache. John has been seen reading maps of Iowa and practicing with a Frisbie. That tells us that, if he deems he has any chance at all, he will be throwing his hat into the 2012 ring. To borrow a phrase from Rowan and Martin’s Arte Johnson, that could be …”verrry eenteresting.”

A Bolton run would be more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. John is already a certified target of the liberal press so we know he is a bona fide conservative. He knows his way around Washington but without the tarnish of ever having been an elected politician. He is a no-nonsense guy who goes right to the point. The greatest scandal in his background was relieving an incompetent bureaucrat from his duties. Somehow I don’t think that will hurt him. And best of all, he can speak with no teleprompter at all.

DID GALLOP UNCOVER RACISM?

Obama’s approval rating – Whites 36%, Blacks 91%

Do these numbers reflect racism? In a word – No. Although there can be no doubt there is some degree of racism involved, it is more a matter of pride. For the 91% to be racist it would need to be anti-white. It is not. It is pro-black. It is a happy feeling not an angry one. ‘We finally have one of our own, a “brother” in the White House’.

Republicans freed the slaves. Democrats stole the credit. Now they keep them on the metaphorical plantation. As long as the Democrats feed and cloth them, they will get their votes. But the extreme numbers we are seeing now are a one time phenomenon. There will never be another first black president.

THEY ALL WENT HOME

Congress is not in session. The Democratic leadership closed up shop until after the election.  That leaves voters in the dark with regard to the coming tax increases. You know increases are coming but you don’t know how much. That’s by design.

Right now the Democrats greatest fear is a stalemate. Advancement of the liberal agenda will come to a halt if Republicans win control of the house. The window will be slammed shut on tax increases for at least two years. The Democrats ace-in-the-hole is the automatic tax increase that will occur if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. That’s the plan.

To expose that hand before the election would be political suicide. No one votes for higher taxes. After the election all they have to do is … nothing. Or, to keep up appearances, debate the issue to death until the end of the year. They were unable to pass a budget for a whole year. Not passing a tax bill for a few weeks should be easy.

LIFE ON THE BORDER

Arizonians live next door to routine violence. Fortunately most of it, but not all, takes place on Mexico’s side of the line. Nonetheless, it is difficult to find a place in Arizona where one can feel comfortable walking after sunset anywhere within 10 miles of Mexico.

Both political parties in Washington have prioritized potential votes over the safety of one of its state’s citizens.

KRUGMAN IS CORRECT, PARTLY

Krugman may be a Progressive political advocate posing as an economist but when Krugman is right, Krugman is right, well partly. In a recent Op Ed piece for the Times he writes “Default Is In Our Stars”. His thesis is that excessive debt played a key role in the creation of the current financial crisis and that reducing debt to reasonable levels by curtailing spending puts a damper on the economy. That much is correct.

He didn’t exactly say debt, he said personal debt. I don’t think he considers government debt to be debt. Having started his piece by saying (personal) debt was a cause of the crisis he then says “A naive view says that what we need is a return to virtue: everyone needs to save more, pay down debt, and restore healthy balance sheets.” That is naïve?

Our Nobel winning economist has been calling all along for the government to go deeper in debt on another stimulus plan. Now he is calling for consumers not to save and not to slack off on their spending. In other words, to remain over-extended. That idea would push the problem further down the road and deepen it. Then what of the future?

It has long been my opinion that those on his side of the political divide are given to short term thinking. Give a hungry man a fish and the problem of hunger is solved. If he is hungry again tomorrow, give him another fish. Meanwhile, condemn the fisherman for trying to gain from his work. If the supply runs out…..no never mind that, the man is hungry. Just give him a fish.

Krugman’s solution – “In the end, I’d argue, what must happen is an effective default on a significant part of debt, one way or another.” What is default? It is a broken commitment. It is passing the cost of ones spending onto someone else. It is the liberal solution. And “one way or another” is an example of not thinking something through to its consequences.

The default could be implicit, via a period of moderate inflation that reduces the real burden of debt; that’s how World War II cured the depression.” Huh? It was inflation that cured the Depression? He could not have meant that it was WWII that got us out of the Depression, not FDR; that’s an observation only made by Conservatives and denied by the Left.

Let me see, do I have this right? What the nation needs now is is continued high levels of personal debt, less personal savings, more government money spent on stimulus programs, which means a higher level of government debt, and a return of inflation. It makes me proud to say I do not have a PhD.

Here is a link if you want to read the article.

AD HOMINEM INC.

From today’s New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their Congressional majority.

Arthur Sulzberger

Litigation 101: “When the facts do not support your case, discredit the witness.”

For more than a year, a large team of researchers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has been digging into the backgrounds of potential Republican candidates.

You can bet it has been more than a year. How about twenty? or thirty? The Times had not a word of condemnation of the tactic.

So far, many Republican candidates are forcefully defending themselves but not taking the bait by starting their own personal offensives. A review of television advertisements presented since Labor Day showed that the Republicans were basing theirs almost entirely on the records of Democrats on health care, the economic stimulus package and the first vote the Democrats cast when Congress convened in 2009: for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House.

Even many of the critical Republican advertisements produced by the candidates or the party are done with a softer touch.

It’s the same pattern that has prevailed for many years. But this year it looks like the differentiation may be greater than ever. That’s a good thing.

COATES TESTIMONY MADE PLAIN AND BOLD

Racism at the Department of Justice

Christopher Coates was the Section Chief for voting law enforcement at the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Eric Holder. Coates was served a subpoena ordering him to appear and give testimony before the United States Civil Rights Commission in the matter of the dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers who intimidated voters as they entered the poling place to cast their votes. However, Coates was ordered by his superiors at the DOJ not to comply with the subpoena.

Nevertheless, as he explains in his opening statement he says, he felt it to be his professional, ethical, legal and moral duty to comply with the subpoena and testify. In his testimony Coates spoke heroically but also carefully as befitting his circumstances. We have no such constraints

Here we go, this is Coates message made plain and bold. The division of the DOJ that is charged with enforcement of voting law violations, has a long standing policy of enforcing voting law violations only against white people. Racist attitudes are manifest both by flat refusal by attorneys and staff to participate in cases against blacks and by subsequent family harassment of one who did agree to participate during the Bush administration.

Anti-white racist views have permeated and dominated among attorneys and officials in the division of the DOJ responsible for voting act violations for many years. When Obama came to power these racists were elevated to more powerful positions in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

During the Bush administration one case was brought against a black violator (Ike Brown). The very idea of bringing charges against a black person enraged the anti-white racists within the department and set up deep resentments that were pivotal in the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case. The dismissal had no grounds based on the factors of the case. The brief video often seen of the three Black Panthers did not convey the extent of their intimidation and harassment. You can read Coates full statement here. Near the end he gives a picture of their actions.

The message to black community organizations and Democratic operatives everywhere is that cases simply will not be brought against blacks for voting violations while Obama is President. Dare we hope that exposure of this scandal changes that message?

FANNIE and FREDDIE, FRANK and DODD

Central to the recent financial industry troubles are two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) affectionately known as Fannie and Freddie. The formal first name for each is “Federal”, befitting their intimacy with federal folks like Frank and Dodd.

Both of these governmental failures (Fannie and Freddie, not Frank and Dodd) were conceived and created by Congress. They were not the progeny of entrepreneurial private industry.

As one of their own, Congress exempted them from the federal banking regulations applicable to the private sector. The Senate and House banking committees, recently chaired by Frank and Dodd, were given the responsibility for oversight of these, the legislatures own creations.

A shoe store buys shoes at one price and sells them for more. In like manner, F&F borrow money at one price and lend it for more. Their cost to borrow is dependent upon their credit rating. Their credit rating was set by agencies they hired and paid to set their credit rating. The rating agencies decided AAA would be appropriate. Is a picture beginning to form?

A sub-prime loan is by definition one of low creditworthiness. The government was mandating the making of loans to people ill-equipped to meet the payments. In 1999, 42% of mortgage loans were sub-prime. In 2000 Andrew Cuomo, appointed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by Bill Clinton, mandated a quantum leap in the number of sub-prime loans that federally chartered banks must award. Forty-two percent was not enough bad loans to satisfy him.

Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates lower than they might have been, which made borrowing attractive. It was generally thought the loans were guaranteed through F&F. Traditional lenders, backed, encouraged, even intimidated by the government enthusiastically joined the fray. The two GSE’s approved loans and provided the money with near total disregard for the ability of the borrower to pay. At the height of the bubble these Government Sponsored Entities were providing mortgage money to applicants called NINJA borrowers, no income, no job, no assets.

Eventually the bubble burst, as all bubbles do. Barney Frank said, read the fine print the loans are not guaranteed.

This was a government sponsored crisis. Don’t ever, ever let anyone convince you this fiasco was the result of anything, anything at all, other than government interference with the free market system.