An infuriating missive

I received this in my email tonight...

GovTrack.us Tracked Events Update

This is your email update from www.GovTrack.us. To change your email updates settings, go to your account settings page.

You are currently monitoring: Rep. Holden [D-PA], Sen. Casey [D-PA], Sen. Specter [R-PA], H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Congress will next meet on Feb 23, 2009.
Feb 17, 2009 - Bill Action
Law Enacted: H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
This bill has become law.
(You are seeing this event because you are tracking H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)

"The right of representation in the legislature [is] a right inestimable to [the people], and formidable to tyrants only." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Too Punny to Pass Up

Taken from the Bill

I'm just going to copy and paste from the Senate stimulus package and let you see if you think this will create jobs:

• $200,000,000 - Department, other than the Forest Service, for necessary replacement, modernization, or upgrades of laboratories or other facilities to improve workplace safety and mission-area efficiencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary:
• $400,000,000 - farm ownership loans (lots of jobs to be had on farms nowadays!)
• $275,000,000 - Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
• $65,000,000 - Watershed Rehabilitation Program
• $100,000,000 - National School Lunch Program equipment assistance
• $500,000,000 - SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FORWOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN (WIC)

I'm getting tired, and there's 756 pages to go...click on the link and check it out for yourself.

Contact Your Senator

Here's an email reply sent to me by one of my Senators, Arlen Specter.

Dear Mr. Tubbs:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. I will keep your thoughts on this matter in mind. Thank you again for writing. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

I know this is a form email...but it's important to communicate with our representatives, and since the direct election of Senators, they have become our reps as well.

So, contact your senators for the vote tomorrow, but only if you agree with me!

Menagerie of Incompetence

The circus on Capitol Hill is alarming...not because of the dancing elephants, braying donkeys or those miniature rinos...it's the clowns...you know, the creepy clowns that are supposed to make you laugh, but you can't see behind all that makeup so, you're just not sure. One thing I know for sure...they're never very comforting.

Does anyone really think that this bill will help what is going on?

Our President today said, "Our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse." This to my mind reveals a hard-line Keynesian economic view that is truly nonsensical.

1. He believes that an Act of Congress will save us from an economic crisis.
2. He believes that we will reach an economic point of no return

Truly, this is obtuse.

First, Reagan understood, and with the help of Congress, helped us recover from the ill-suited (and ideologically similar to our current President) Jimmy Carter. He understood that government is not the solution, but the problem. So, he set about lowering tax rates and getting government out of the way...which inevitably led to a tremendous amount of production by individuals in the free market.

When government tries to help people, it is legal plunder. Federal government is not there to help me...it is there to protect my rights and defend me from foreign invasion.

So, in the case of this travesty of a bill, the dems are not even pretending to put things in there that are stimulus related...it's a power grab, plain and simple. And our President is standing behind his party, come hell or high water...irrespective of the horrendous nature of the bill.

Second, markets have cycles...there's no such thing as a point of no return, unless you're talking about massive government intervention claiming that regulation is needed more than economic freedom. That's still not a point of no return, but it's sure as heck close.

So, the clowns, instead of making us laugh, continue to spout doom and gloom unless "something" (i.e. pork for me and my friends) is done immediately! Oh, and don't listen to Rush.

GOP: The 500 pound man

Good take on the future of the GOP

The New Collectivism

I've not done research, but just on an anecdotal level I seem to be hearing a lot more public support for collectivism than in the past. It seemed that the Reagan view of government had generally taken hold and people generally understood that government couldn't do most things nearly as efficiently as the private sector.

This notion, however, is now being challenged by many people who are more blatant about the "benefits" of redistribution.

As examples, I've heard people make a distinction between redistribution and a progressive income tax, crediting the tax for the creation of wealth in America since the Industrial Revolution.

I've read people lamenting the fact that Obama isn't really a Marxist.

I read approving headlines about President-Elect Obama wanting to "take action" (read "government intervention") on the economic crisis.

The pseudo-Republican administration of George Bush caving to Paulson's dire predictions has really set the stage for a massive federal government take-over of private businesses. This is what the socialists in our government have been waiting for...an opportunity to gain power...they are gaining confidence and not necessarily hiding their intentions behind acceptable rhetoric.



We have to be mindful of this presence in our government and not let the sweet idealistic words of socialism lull us into slumber, allowing the all-saving hand of government to be our safety, our charity, our success...our god.

How Should a Christian Vote? Part II

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE? Part II
Just Treatment of the Afflicted

Who are the afflicted? The afflicted can be defined as citizens generally, and more specifically, those citizens that may have difficulties in maintaining general standards of living.


What policies affect our consideration of just treatment for the afflicted? For this talk, I will consider elements that are found in the party platforms. I am aware that there are other issues that should have policies dedicated to them (i.e. drug enforcement, rural & urban poverty, etc.), however, for today’s consideration we will stick to the policies seen to be important by the two major parties. Of these, I will point out a couple germane points...REMEMBER, there will be a Q&A time, so write down questions you would like to know more about.

Income Tax

Principle #1 – Property is to be owned individually.

• Scripturally, property is to be owned individually. Otherwise, the injunction “Thou shalt not steal” makes no sense.

OBJECTION: The early church participated in communal living

REBUTTAL: Two main differences between communal living and socialism: 1) Communal living is voluntary, and one may cease to participate whenever he sees fit; in Socialism, communal giving is required, and may be given to causes that the individual does not approve of. 2) Communal living is conducted on a small scale with a group of people who generally agree, Socialism is conducted on a national scale, where people will most certainly not agree.

Principle #2 – Governments cannot justly do what individuals cannot justly do.

• When an individual steals money to enrich himself, he is punished for acting unjustly. When a government steals money from its citizens to enrich itself, it is an unjust act. [example: Congressmen inserting clauses in legislation to pay for pet projects that will ensure that they are re-elected]

OBJECTION: What about #4 of just war?

REBUTTAL: The right of self-defense is bound up within the individual.

Principle #3 – Government has no money. Only individuals have money.
(Give unto Caesear; unto God)
• When government gives money to certain causes (AIDS, welfare, social security, etc.), it should only be done with the explicit consent of the people. [Suggestion: have referendums to determine viability of various social spending projects]


Hierarchy of Justice

Just Treatment of the Innocent

When discussing these themes of justice, we must consider placing the requirements on a hierarchy. One can readily assume that justice in all things is to be desired, but will not happen in a fallen world.

"The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life is not defended with maximum determination." -- Pope John Paul II

I propose a hierarchy modeled off of the recognized natural rights of human beings, that is, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (private property). These rights are bound up with one another, and have a progressive nature.

If one’s right to life is not respected, then the other two are moot. Some say that this doesn’t necessarily mean abortion...

“...abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.” – Mark Roche

The problem with this statement is that he is substituting a vague notion of life and death as found in universal health care and environmental protection for the reality of little humans being torn limb from limb in the womb. In addition, he failed to mention the consideration of guilt vs. innocence when mentioning the death penalty.

Proposed hierarchy:

Life – Ensure safety and security for its citizens
Liberty – Ensure just and equitable protection of freedom
Pursuit of Happiness – Ensure just interaction between citizens and protection of property rights

How Should a Christian Vote?

Here is a copy of a talk I gave before the 2004 election. Some of the examples are outdated and there are points that still need to be fleshed out, but I think this will give you a framework of my thinking on this. I submit this to your perusal.

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE? Part I

Should Christians Vote?

Greetings. The title of this seminar is “How Should Christians Vote?”. However, in many of your minds, this title may have assumed too much, that is, the real question might be, “Should Christians Vote?”

Mark Noll, a well-respected professor at Wheaton College, has declared his intention to not vote. This is because, he says, that no candidate fully supports his seven convictions. Therefore, he has no party and will not vote.

Many Christians take this “all-or-nothing” approach. This is ostensibly why 4 million evangelical Christian voters stayed home in the 2000 election—they didn’t want to vote for Al Gore, and couldn’t in good conscience vote for a candidate that had a DUI on his record. The Democrat’s October Surprise almost worked.

Some Christian take a milquetoast approach that abandons the culture war. In 1999, Paul Weyrich, a prominent conservative activist that co-founded both the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority, stated in his Letter to Conservatives that we should “drop out of this culture” and that “politics has failed us.”

Understanding the context of these quotes and noting that he continues to feverishly work for the transformation of our societal institutions, we understand that Mr. Weyrich was not proposing that we stop attempting to change things through the political process.

But some have taken his words to mean that we need to have a nihilistic “who cares” approach, because “it’s all going to burn, anyway!” The fairly recent theological element of the rapture has also contributed to the idea that our responsibility is limited, and we’ll be taken out from among the heathen when things get rough.

A third, more historically sound approach, is that of pacifism. This has a tradition among those who believe that Christ’s commands to the individual to turn the other cheek applies to nation-states as well. And participating in the political process would then impute guilt to them whenever a nation might go to war.

In my view, these three approaches fall short. The first approach allows the perfect to become the enemy of the good. In an effort to maintain personal integrity while voting, the Christian non-voter sacrifices the common good.

Many Christian non-voters fail to recognize that compromise in the political arena is not akin to compromising the call of Christ. Faced with the realities of the world around us, compromise on issues must happen in order to anything good to take place.

In fact, one of the seminal liberties that we have, religious liberty, was enshrined in a document that protected the right of man to own other men. This was a compromise. Granted, it was a compromise with the intent of putting slavery on the path to extinction, but a compromise, nonetheless.

Should the Christian founders have walked out of the Convention because compromise was taking place, as George Mason did? What would have happened? Almost certainly, the United States of America would not be united. The North American continent would resemble the patchwork of Europe, with neighbors warring against neighbors.

Policy compromise also displays humility. Understanding that we are not perfect receptors of all truth, we allow for some differences of opinion on tangential issues. For instance, one can hold firm on the sanctity of life, but compromise on exactly how to protect life.

The second approach has characterized the majority of evangelical Christians for most of the twentieth century. We withdrew from culture and apologetics and allowed the social evolutionist philosophy flourish in law, politics, education and philosophy. We developed a haughty disdain of argumentation, science and rigorous study.

This disdain of the cultural interaction left us with a tradition of non-involvement that evangelicals have made valiant attempts to change in the last twenty years.

The third approach is faulty, in my view, precisely because the individual has different responsibilities to God than nation-states. Although, as many of our founders rightly believed, nations, because they cannot be judged in the afterlife, will be judged in this life.

So, why should a Christian vote? The following points are taken from For the Health of the Nations: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility a statement from the National Association of Evangelicals.

First, we should vote because God has given man dominion over the earth. That is, God has placed this world under our sphere of influence, and we are to be stewards of this gift. One way in which we can be stewards is through the policies that governments enact, as these policies greatly influence how we manage the world around us.

Second, we should vote because Christ is Lord over every area of life. To abandon our engagement of public life and concern ourselves only with private matters is to cede our sphere of influence to the evil one.

Third, we should vote because it is our responsibility to urge our government to live up to its divine mandate to render justice (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). When we promote justice within our society, we provide the structures that enable God to be glorified through the actions of government.


The Foundation of Justice
For the remainder of these talks, I want to focus in on the concept of justice. In the Old Testament, the Scriptures instruct Israel how to conduct affairs, and invariably, one of the main concerns of the nation is to promote justice.

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 says,

"You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
19 "(19) You shall not distort justice; (20) you shall not be partial, and (21) you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.
20 "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that (22) you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

Psalm 99:4 says,
4
The strength of the King (1) loves [1] justice;
You have established (2) equity;
You have (3) executed justice and righteousness in Jacob.

These verses emphasize the foundational aspect of justice. Throughout history, philosophers have discussed the elements of society, and justice continually reoccurs. It is widely noted that an unjust law contributes to the dissolution of society. A society cannot long exist that embraces injustice. This is because, as Aristotle states, a society is essentially a partnership. Partnerships cannot long endure when one member commits injustice against another with impunity.

In addition, where justice reigns, God’s righteous character is shown. A proper understanding of “good” shows that all that is good is an imitation of the character of God. Whenever we pray that “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, we are praying that God’s character be manifested in our earthly lives.

A just government points its citizens to the One who is just. For, as I point out in my POD class, justice has no meaning if it is subjective. There must be a supreme Law that is the final arbiter of justice. If such a law exists, then there must by necessity be a Mind behind the law, giving it imperative force.

A just government then, is the goal of Christian cultural engagement. So, what does justice look like? How is the vague notion of justice worked out in the many policy debates? How should a Christian vote?

Well, if you think I’m going to tell you who to vote for this election, you don’t know me very well. Though this election is extremely important, most of you aren’t old enough to vote. I’m going to lay out principles that you need to consider in the future as a Christian voter. Individuals come and go, but principles remain and guide you through the murky swamp of half-truths that make up the political landscape.

The elements of justice that a Christian needs to consider when casting a vote are: just war, just treatment of the afflicted and just treatment of the innocent.

After severely reprimanding Israel for her lack of faithfulness, God, through Isaiah the prophet instructs them to do good.

Isaiah 1:17

17
Learn to do good;
(43) Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
(44) Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.

Notice “doing good” is defined as seeking justice, punishing the wicked and defending the afflicted. This is a succinct list of requirements that any government should follow to have success.

Also, through Jeremiah the prophet, the Lord says…

Jeremiah 22:3

3 'Thus says the LORD, "(1) Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his (2) oppressor. Also (3) do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not (4) shed innocent blood in this place.

Added to the elements in Isaiah, this passage instructs that governments are not only required to do justice (in which is bound up the element of punishing the wicked), and defending the afflicted, but governments also must take care not to do harm to those that are afflicted, and especially take care to do no harm to the innocent.

So, to repeat, the elements of justice are 1) just war (“reprove the ruthless), 2) just treatment of the afflicted (“defend the orphan, plead for the widow”), and 3) just treatment of the innocent (“take care to do no harm to the innocent”).

Just War

We’ve established that justice is essential to good government, and we’ve divided our consideration of justice into three parts, just war, just treatment of the afflicted and just treatment of the innocent.

We will examine policies from each of these perspectives and will look at the platforms of the two parties to see how or if they coincide with our best understanding of justice applied to politics.

The first element is just war. Just War theory as developed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica lays out general principles, extrapolated from Scripture, that govern the declaration and conduct of a war.

Just War theory is typically designated for consideration of one nation going to war with another nation. In fact, this is the context for which it was intended. In this discussion, however, I believe that we can take these general principles and apply them to how we adjudicate within our own political system.

Let’s look at the handout listing the principles of Just War. As we look through these principles, we will consider them first from an international perspective, and second, from an intranational perspective

Handout #1
Just War Theory

8 Principles

Reasons for going to war
1. Defense against violent aggression
2. To restore a just peace (to friend and foe)
3. Military action is to be a last resort after all negotiations have been tried and failed
4. The decision to engage must be made by the highest governmental authority

Conduct of the war
5. War must be for limited ends
6. The means must be limited by proportionality to the offense
7. No intentional & direct attack on non-combatants
8. War should not be prolonged where there is no reasonable hope of success within the preceding limits


Some notable principles

o Just War is an act of love
o It is a greater evil for a Christian nation to fail to go to just war than for unbelievers
o Even a just war is a rough justice

1. Defense against violent aggression –
a. a just war is never conducted out of desire for conquest, power, money, etc.
b. adjudication takes place only against those that have committed crime, therefore all care must be taken to ensure the guilt of the convicted (trial by jury, elimination of corruption)

2. To restore a just peace (to friend and foe)
a. The goal of a war is to bring about a peace that furthers justice, not revenge [Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future. – George W. Bush]
b. The goal of legal punishment is justice, not revenge. Punishment of criminals ought not to be done for deterrence, rather for justice.

3. Military action is to be a last resort after all negotiations have been tried and failed
a. Unsuspecting military action is to be avoided. Those against whom military action is to take place must be forewarned and given adequate time to consider halting the aggression [In Thursday's-Sept. 12, 2002-speech to the United Nations, President Bush said Iraq's President Saddam Hussein has violated 16 UN Security Council resolutions resulting from the end of the Gulf War in 1991]
b. Laws are to be enforced only after adequate steps have been taken to ensure knowledge of those laws by the public.

4. The decision to engage must be made by the highest governmental authority
a. A Just War cannot be conducted by civilians
i. What about the American Revolution? The colonies had a government that was ostensibly being abused by the parent-government
b. Vigilante justice is unjust

5. War must be for limited ends
a. The purpose for a war must be well-defined before entering it, and only force necessary to achieve an objective should be used.
b. Civil justice is to be dispensed should only be done to achieve a just end, not consolidate power or suppress populations

6. The means must be limited by proportionality to the offense
a. True justice is proportional. Revenge always intends to cause more hurt than was caused by the original offense.
b. Sentencing of criminals should be proportionate to the offense [poor examples of this: murderers receiving light sentences, drug users receiving lengthy sentences]

7. No intentional & direct attack on non-combatants
a. Self-explanatory
b. Coincides with #1

8. War should not be prolonged where there is no reasonable hope of success within the preceding limits
a. Scripture does not speak of defending one’s honor. Continuing war simply out of ego or defense of honor is not defensible under these guidelines
b. No application to the intranational discussion

Just War is an Act of Love

For a government NOT to act when violent aggression has taken place is wicked and hateful [ex. International community standing by while 800,000 innocents were slaughtered in three months in Rwanda, the world currently standing by while genocide is occurring in Sudan, the international community insisting that the Iraqis were quite happy under Saddam Hussein] [A local government looking the other way when certain ethnic groups are systematically refused equal protection of the laws, a legal system that does not effectively capture and punish criminals]

How does this affect how a Christian should vote? A Christian should vote for the candidate that is most concerned about punishing the wicked out of a desire for justice, not revenge or conquest.

I challenge you to examine the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq, the goals while we are there, and the intentions of leaving once the government is stable. Compare the candidate’s stated reasons for how they would go to war.
Take note that having alliances, though a prudent aspect of war in today’s global society, is not an element of just war theory.

William's Perspective

Always insightful and intriguing...and, by the way, he has seemed to shift a bit more to the optimistic side while firmly clinging to his guns and religion...

The Silver Lining

As an incurable optimist I habitually find a silver lining in the face of catastrophe. Even though as of this date (October 12) I believe that McCain is likely to win in November,his defeat would not be the end of the world. Perhaps the end of the nation as we know it, but certainly not the end of the Republic; that happened last week with the Crooked Democrat and Banker Protection Act, a/k/a “The Bailout.” We have no republic left to preserve, but perhaps recapturing the future will suffice.

To be sure, Obama is unpalatable by every measurement of substance. To say that his accomplishments are “modest” is to inflate them beyond recognition. Like Oakland,“there’s no ‘there’ there.” It gets worse. He hates the America we inherited. He hates free markets and prosperity. He hates whitey, or at least hangs with those who do. He hates free speech and will likely spearhead the efforts to eradicate it. He loves collectivism. He loves coercion. His thin skin cannot tolerate the pricking of criticism. And the mother of his children makes him look moderate, as do many of the unseemly folks he is allied with.

No, he is not a very attractive package notwithstanding hisclear calling as a fashion model who looks oh so suave as he perches on a stoolwith insouciance. McCain may not be fearfulof his coronation, but I sure am. Yet Isee some positive opportunities in the elevation of this Bolshevik to the WhiteHouse, provided it is not the final election in our noble experiment in self governance.

Here are some flecks of silver in the dark storm clouds of an Obamessiah Reich. Admittedly, like much optimism there is a healthy dose of “Maybe,” “Hopefully,” “But” and“Perhaps.”

1. Market behavior over the past weeks reinforces the notion that it is a rational entity and that we live in a rational world. Whether the dynamic behind the market maelstrom is the cancer of corruption interfering in the marketplace and come home to roost or the anticipation of the impending electoral catastrophe of selecting a collectivist who will eradicate a lot of wealth and liberty (yes, incentives and risk do count), it is comforting to know that the marketplace behaves rationally based on the incentives in play. It is painful to endure, but we should be celebrating it just the same. Who knows? Perhaps the current fiasco (or the coming ones) will prompt tens of millions of people to say, “This depending on the government is for the birds. Let’s take care of ourselves.” Well, it could happen…
2. If the past two years of Pelosi and Reid driving the bus in the demolition derby is indicative, leftist political pimps are a result of some horrific experiment of Dr. Moreau combining hogs and piranha as they cannot even cooperate with each other. And there is no way those two fossils are going to let this young whelp tell them what to do. Yes they agree on the fundamentals, but their negotiations will fall apart when it comes to divvying up the spoils. There is no honor among thieves, and the thieves will be unchecked on center stage.
3. The next President will almost certainly be faced with two huge crises: the further collapse of the economy and the reemergence of Wahabist terrorism (certainly much worse if Barry, Harry, and Nan succeed with their “strategy” of pre-emptive surrender in Iraq). I’d prefer the fellow farthest from me be the one holding the stinking bag when it bursts. Even though Bush/Reagan/Eisenhower/Coolidge will undoubtedly be blamed by the Obama apparatchiks including the entire Dinosaur media for whatever transpires, it would be the fashionable Messiah who would be unmasked as an exquisitely tailored empty suit and the inept and misanthropic poseur that he is as his efforts simply compound whatever the crisis is. A belligerently ignorant and indolent populace will be able to see it on grand display. Even beer swilling welfare recipients don’t like losers.
4. Returning a cranky and defeated McCain to the Senate could reap unforeseen dividends. Consider how he has treated Bush and conservatives ever since his defeat in 2000. He might as well not have had a zipper on his fly as often as he has urinated on them. If he turns that same animus towards the new Exalted Leader it could go a long way towards tying the Left in knots through plain old obstreperous obstructionism. On the other hand, if he is as unprincipled as I think he is, he could become French and collaborate with the occupying forces to garner the favor he so desperately craves
5. An Obama victory just might allow for a reformation of the GOP that would not be possible under McCain.. A McCain victory pretty much assures the GOP being expunged of any last vestiges of idealism and principled common sense. Conservatives would simply have to find a new home. With an Obama victory and McCain out of the picture, the necessary purge of RINO Bolshevik Wannabes could begin. It would cripple the party for at least one election cycle, but the prospect of forming a new constitutionally adherent GOP would be an even more onerous a task.
6. Another defeat to a vapid, sweet talking slickster just might cause conservatives to realize that among the skill set necessary for being our leader are communication and inspiration. For six consecutive elections the GOP put forward verbal stumblebums who possessed few if any ideas and virtually no ability to communicate. C’mon, admit it. Bush 41 and 43 have been a disaster for articulating or advocating anything resembling conservatism. “America First” is not an idea for governing; it is a vague and almost meaningless sentiment, albeit a noble one. I think. Obamessiah can sure dazzle ‘em with mellifluous bovine scatology, but a vigorous, skilled, principled, and passionate communicator from our side could wipe the floor with the Bolsheviks. And it begins with the deconstruction of their anti-ideas agenda of “Washington being the root of all solutions.” That doesn’t even pass the giggle test. Since the institution of the Xlintoon “War Room” politics is just that, war. The battleground is one of rhetoric, so we’d better have the weapons to win.
7. Saving Miss Sarah. An Obama victory would protect Sarah P from the ongoing contamination of McCainism. While I admire her greatly, I fear what would happen to her being surrounded by a phalanx of unprincipled RINO “handlers.” She’s already having to run AGAINST McCain in addition to Obama and Spit Bucket Joe. We have already identified our next generation of true leadership, and we need to nurture and protect it. McCain’s feckless tendencies would drive her to distraction and eventually wear her down and dispirit her. Everyone has their breaking point. I fear that continued contamination of the so-called “Maverick” would be an unnecessary risk for the nation. By the way, why does this fantasy about McMaverick persist? On virtually every large issue thus far he has reached across the aisle to protect the leftist political establishment. McCain Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. McCain-Lieberman. The Bailout.
8. An Obamessiah Reich would focus the minds of liberty minded folks to find ways to oppose it and work together for liberty. We might have to soften our edges a bit to work together. Let our rallying cry be “Reduce the Size, Scope, Power, and Influence of the Collective.” Sure, compromise with evil and evil wins. We just might have to compromise on the order of eradication which evils first. In addition to the Big Leaders we need a multitude of leaders throughout the culture and Lee Atwaters to work beside them.
9. As with every dysfunctional entity, “hitting bottom” and the subsequent repentance is necessary in order for reclamation. We are an addicted political culture, addicted to welfare and government intrusion into every single aspect of our lives both private and public. We are no longer capitalists, we are debitalists. Bolshevistic political theology has been an abject failure every where it has been tried, and the more enthusiastically it has been tried the more spectacularly it has failed. After six generations of socialist indoctrination at government incarceration centers, I guess the American electorate needs to have its nose rubbed in the stinking mess of thuggery, confiscation, internment, poverty, danger… Maybe then they will get the message that the empty promises made by the political hacks cannot be paid by the redistributionist mechanism no matter how exuberant it is. If you compare the New Europe of Poland, The Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc., versus the ossified welfare states of Old Europe you’ll get the point. The former learned its lesson from living under the heel of jack booted thugs for several generations. We bailed out the other guys time after time, and see what choices they have made. They are done for. I pray we would not be so.
10. Finally, and I believe most important, the elevation of a pagan Bolshevik Messiah might just make us more contemplative about and devoted to the Divine Messiah. As John Adams said, the government the Founders created was meant for a devout and moral people, and would be wholly unsuitable for anyone else.

Spirits up folks. Mine certainly are. But like I said, I’m an incurable optimist.

From the Belly of the Beast

Crusher

Debate

Let's look at our records instead of rhetoric...
McCain is attacking O's record on spending...good attack...look at our proposals for our economy
Health Care, Energy, Entitlement Reform...which first?
M: Work on all three. He said it! We will not have the same entitlements in the future. My record is to reach across the aisle. Energy...all of the above. Health Care...no specifics. Must do all at once.
O: We need to prioritize. Energy - 3.80 for gas, other countries benefiting. $15B a year over ten years. Cites JFK. Health Care - #2, Education #3. One point...look at records. M talks about earmarks, want to go line by line over every item. M - $300B tax cut given to corporations.

What sacrifices will you ask Americans to make?
M: May have to eliminate government programs. Defense spending, for example. Earmarks will have to be eliminated...even the good ones. Spending needs to be cut in America...recommends a spending freeze. Establish priorities with full transparency. We CAN attack all three at once.
O: Tragedy of 9/11. How all the country was willing to come together. Bush did some smart things at the outset. He messed up when he said, "go out and shop." The wasn't a call to service that we needed. The need for us to start thinking about how we use energy. How we can we start saving energy in our homes? Young people are interested in how they can serve...doubling the Peace Corps.
Wall St. "got drunk". How to break bad habit of too much debt and easy credit?
O: Starts with Washington...if we build up debts, people will think there's easy money. We need to share the burden. Can't ask a teacher making $30K to tighten up if someone making much more is living high on the hog. ??
M: He wants to raise taxes - equated O with Hoover. O's secret - his tax increases will increase taxes on 50% of small business revenue. Let's not raise taxes on anyone. In favor of leaving the taxes alone, and doubling tax credits.

Social Security/Medicare: Date certain to address this?
O: We're going to have to take on entitlements...we need to do it quickly. I want to provide a tax cut fo 95% of Americans. $200K or less, your taxes will go down.
M: I'll answer the question...SS is not tough...O's never taken on his party leaders...Medicare is tougher...we need a commission to come up with recommendations...let's have Congress vote up or down on recommendations...back to taxes...rhetoric and record...he's voted 94 times for tax increases....I have fought to reduce government.

Environment
M: Damaged planet...disagreed strongly with Bush Admin on this issue. We forced votes on this...we lost, but kept the issue...best way to fix it? Nuclear power...safe and clean, creates hundreds of thousands of jobs...can reuse spent rods...hydrogen, battery powered cars.
O: Biggest challenge of our times...not only a challenge, but an opportunity. This can be an engine that drives us into the future. We're going to have to make some investments, like the internet. I favor nuclear power. He voted 23 times against alternative fuels. Easy to talk about this stuff during a campaign. He talks a lot about drilling. We have 3% of oil reserves and use 15%.

Manhatten-like Project or garages.
Use govt. to start, then turn over to private sector. Responds to O's assertions in previous statement. Drilling will reduce the price. Nuclear power...look at the record.

Healthcare coverage profitable industry - should it be treated as a commodity?
O: Premiums double over the last 8 years. Moral commitment and economic imperative to do something...if you have health care, then keep your plan if satisfied...we'll work with employer to reduce cost of premiums...through prevention and techonology...if you don't have insurance...no one excluded for pre-existing conditions. M $5,000 tax credit...will tax this as income...could lead to unraveling of employer-based health care system.
M: Id'd one of the major challenges. Let's put health records online, community health centers, walk-in clinics...fundamental difference...starts talking about govt...he'll impose mandates...if you're a small business and you don't ...refundable tax credit you can cross state lines...do the math...those that have employer-based benefits...95% of American people will have increased funds to buy the insurance of their choice. We must give people choice in America!

HC a privilege right or responsibility?

M: Responsibility...a little nervous about government mandates.
O: A lot of stuff...health care is a right. Something fundamentally wrong about insurance not paying someone's bills. The problem with crossing state lines...you won't have consumer protections that you need.

Recent economic stress affect our ability to be a peacemaker in the world?
M: Strong military requires strong economy. (tuned out)
O: I don't understand...blah blah blah...

Obama Doctrine?
O: We have moral issues at stake. Who would say, if we had the ability, that we shouldn't have stopped the Holocaust or Rwanda. We can't be everywhere all the time...so we need to work with others. We could be providing logistical support and set up a no-fly zone in Darfur, I intend to do that as president.
M: Addresses the timeline for withdrawal. He would have brought them home in defeat. We are the greatest force for good. Must do whatever we can to prevent genocide...tempered with our ability to identify the limits of our capability. Somalia...withdrew in humiliation...Lebanon...stood up against Reagan. Must temper decision with the ability to benefit the situation...I know those situations, I've been in them all my life.

Respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore borders like Cambodia like in Vietnam.
O: Shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. We must reverse course b/c we need to focus on Afghanistan. We're going to encourage democracy in Pahkistahn. We will act on bin Ladin.
M: Teddy Roosevelt - talk softly, carry a big stick. O likes to talk loudly. Our relations with Pakistan are critical. Petraeus had a strategy - the one that succeeded in Iraq - will work in Pakistan.
O: be very clear about what I said...

M: Strategy is essentially the same

Russia - can we apply pressure without starting another Cold War?
M: There's not going to be another CW...warned about Putin long ago. Watch Ukraine. We need to give moral support to Georgia and Ukraine. Communicate that there are penalties. We can use the G8 and others.
O: blah blah blah...I really have no idea what I'm talking about...

Israel...commit troops in defense of Israel or wait on UN security council.
M: Obviously not wait for UN security council...Russia/China probably pose significant obstacles. Iran threatens the stability of the entire middle east. What would you do if you were the Israelis?
O: We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

What don't you know and how will you learn it?
O: my wife. This country gave me opporunity...came from very modest means. The question in this election...are we going to pass on the American dream? Wages and incomes are going down, lost healthcare (in the last 8 years).
M: unprecedented challenges...hurting Americans...challenges around the world...I don't know what the unexpected will be...gave his background...I know what it's like in dark times and trying to keep hope going, to rely on others...I believe in this country...It's been my great honor to serve it for many, many years...times are tough and need a steady hand at the tiller.

John Agrees with Me

I missed this post yesterday, but John Hinderaker from Power Line states what I was attempting to say in my last post and does it more cogently.

More Questions...

Wouldn't it be prudent, since no one really knows whether or not a bailout will have the desired effect, to try some minor adjustments first and see if those things work?

For example, the SEC's adjustment of the "mark to market" rule. This change is huge, since banks would not have to virtually discredit on paper their assets. While talking with a gentleman from Sovereign Bank today, he said that the mark to market rule cost them $1 billion last year. This bank is not a national bank, so can you imagine cumulative cost to the banking industry?

With this change, let's see if the holdings of these banks will improve investor confidence and get the money flowing again.

How about we suspend the capital gains tax? This would encourage incredible investment in all markets.

These are simple proposals to try to get the markets moving again...and if, after 2-3 months, things continue to tighten, then we look at a bailout possibility.

I was disappointed in Roy Blunt's interview on NPR today when he allowed the interviewer to frame the questions in the manner that Republicans are to blame and it's his job as whip to get the votes. He was very strong on the necessity of this bill and said that opinion is shifting because people are seeing the change in their retirement portfolios. I would be interested to see if that is the case. I know that my rep (a Dem) voted against it.

There is a theory that Pelosi did not whip her party for votes with the intention of blaming Republicans for the fiasco...something they've been attempting to do all along. Add to that her diatribe on the floor and one could make a case for that.

Thoughts on the Bailout

The bailout failed...couple thoughts on that...

John Boehner and Roy Blunt voted for it (I trust them), so did Frank and Pelosi (I distrust them). This presents a dilemma...it seems to me that the conservatives that voted for it felt that it was the best they could get given their minority status.

I think Boehner made an error when he blamed the failure on Pelosi's "partisan floor speech" that drove 12 conservative votes (a deciding margin) out of the "for" column. Now the media is attempting to spin this as a Republican-caused problem, not paying any attention at all to the 90 or so Dems that voted against it.

People are blaming an "election year" for the defeat...like that is a bad thing. I made the comment when I heard that the bill was defeated that "representation still exists!" Whether or not the American people are correct in their loathing of this bill, at least their representatives listened to them! This is what the House was designed to do.

I guess the idea behind blaming an election year is that our representatives can't make their decisions based upon their great wisdom if they're up for election. They're pictured as craven because they want to be re-elected. So what? That's why we have elections...if you want to be re-elected, you represent the best interests of your constituency. If you have to vote against your constituency, you better have a darn good reason! And, the fact is, they can't give a darn good reason for this bailout other than the looming depression predicted by the experts. They haven't a clue whether or not it would work...but we do know what it would do to our deficit and federal oversight.

However...why a taxpayer funded bailout? My Senator, Arlen Specter, actually said something today that made sense...he was urging patience and questioning why we were jettisoning all the normal legislative procedures in attempting to pass this bill. Why not take a deliberative approach and consider things a bit? The markets will be fine as long as they see something coming down the road.

My fear now is that the conservatives may have overplayed their hand and the socialists are going to push for federal ownership of even more private companies.

Question: Why is it a bad thing when banks fail and are bought out by other banks? Isn't that the market working?

Brave New World

I am not a finance guru, or even know what I'm talking about any more than the next guy when it comes to assessing the relative value of the American dollar or the stability of the "fundamentals" of the economy.

There are two things that I do know: I don't trust Schumer, Frank, Hoyer or Dodd, and when Congress does something quickly, that's a bad thing.

Point #1: Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer and Chris Dodd, guys who love socialistic oversight, are the ones that you see talking up the whole bailout. They sternly appear before the cameras and talk about the need for regulation and the fact that we "have to protect the taxpayer." Hoyer, at least, admitted that they have no idea where this is headed.

My suggestion would be...yes, protect the taxpayer, by not using our money to bail out private companies! They are using rhetoric about the Great Depression to justify this insane takeover. Talk about fear-mongering!

It may truly be the case that, because of the sub-prime mess, we truly are in for a major correction in the markets...however, are we really going to be better off with a federal government take-over of the markets? Do we really think that the federal government does a good job of this?

Point #2 - Thankfully, according to the roadmap, there are not supposed to be amendments, which will save us from additional earmarks. Though the Dems are already trying. However, the wording that is used will greatly increase the power of the federal government to levels we have never before seen in this country.

The Founders set up our system to be intentionally deliberative, requiring lengthy debate and discussion to avoid hasty decisions that are not in line with our principles.

President George W. Bush said he called leaders in both houses of Congress and ``found a common understanding of how severe the problem is and how necessary it is to get something done quickly.'' (emphasis mine)

This is the socialists' big chance to enact their idealistic policies and manage the markets.

As an example,

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation. (emphasis mine)

Be assured that these new limits the Dems are asking for is nothing more than arbitrary government rules about how much executives in private institutions are allowed to make, similar to the arbitrary and capricious minimum wage law. Arbitrary rules breed corruption and harm initiative much more than any free market.


They also want to expand jobless benefits, i.e. welfare, unemployment compensation, etc.

And, of course, both candidates seem to have no problem with what's happening...

I truly hope that the conservatives on the Hill keep their wits about them and make sure that they methodically review the proposed legislation and don't give in to the rush and hurry that everyone is shouting about...They must keep their wits on their own because they're not going to get any help from the White House.

John Boehner is doing his part:

"The American people are furious that we're in this situation, and so am I," the House's top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. "We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington."

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said "efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve."

Paulson is now asking for more power than ever...when people start comparing what is happening to the Reconstruction Finance Corp. under Hoover, that's not a good sign...

Here is the text of the proposed legislation...

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow Treasury to designate financial institutions as "agents of the government," and mandate that they perform any "reasonable duties" that might entail.