Friday, October 31, 2008
I was out for part of Friday and I still hope to post my top reasons against an Obama presidency this weekend (cross my fingers). But, I just quickly wanted to mention the rogues gallery of Obama supporters who stand to be affirmed and exultant if Obama wins.
Oh, I'm not talking about those simply philosophically blinkered liberals such as the Hollywood liberals, or certainly not the decent Democrats who populate the streets. What I'm talking about are the loud and abusive jerks.
1) One most notable example would be Bill Maher, he of HBO's (which I don't have and don't want) Real Time with Bill Maher. Real?...talk about irony. Maher recently reduced his movie, "Religulous," which scorns and mocks religious people, as he reliably does personally. Listen: I have read the most thoughtful atheist that literature has and has had to offer. Bill Maher isn't one of them. He isn't even in the same ballpark. He's a clever though sometimes bawdy (why shouldn't he be?)comedian. But, he is neither especially thoughtful nor minimally gracious. I have to forgive him because he doesn't know any better. But on the face of it, he's just a Jerk (with a capital "J," obviously)
2) On the other hand, there's Christopher Hitchens, a particularly interesting fellow. Hitchens is interesting as an evolving liberal who began making a face beyond his writing in the 90's by calling Bill Clinton out for his posturing and deception. He also cut a clean break from the breathless left with his defense of the war in Iraq, again disdaining and confounding the knee-jerk left wing. Of late, Hitchens has made a mark with his publication of his book, "god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," and traveling to collaborate with other atheists and debate theists. It becomes clear that his animus against Muslim extremists is only the most urgent end of his hatred for all religion, which he expresses brashly, usually with a baleful face.
Contrary to Bill Maher, Hitchens is very educated and articulate. And again, you can only pity the man who spurns God out of utter ignorance of Him. But that ignorance is probably not unrelated to his arrogance and scornfulness. His ungraciousness is expressed with an infinitely more able tongue than is Maher's. But, it is so thorough that he has belittled and morally reproved the likes of Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and C.S. Lewis. When Jerry Falwell passed away, he appeared on television to scorn "the charlatan" and say he didn't care about offense to the family, notably saying, "It's a shame there is no Hell for him to go to." Hitchens'criticism are particularly remarkable to those familiar with atheist thinkers in that the typical angle of his criticism is moral condemnation, where most thinkers have to struggle with justifying the reality of moral imperatives.
Where did morality come from Mr. Hitchens? When asked, he replies, "It evolved." The British atheist and evolution apologist, Richard Dawkins exulted that with evolution "it is now possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Personally, I don't think the evolution account is very compelling in light of the evidence and more so the lack of it, unless you have a priori ruled a creator out. Dawkins, Hitchens, and many other secularists have in order to account for life in all its complexity. But, Hitchens has taken morality along as a stowaway on the "evolution" ship. It really strains credulity let alone obligation. But it sure gives Hitchens' rhetoric a lot broader license.
3) Speaking of Dawkins, for a celebrated Oxford Professor and author, it is disappointing to see that Dawkins' typical resort in the face of anyone who questions evolution or atheism is the sophomoric tack of questioning their character or intelligence.
4) In case you flip around on cable television, MSNBC is the home for solid liberalism and Obama fervor. Most of them are irritating but sincere. But, there's one prime time host who is such a screeching and distorting critic of all things conservative and Republican that it's difficult to believe he's serious. Keith Olberman is a former ESPN sports reporter and a clever one. As I say, I liked him better when he was reporting the games. But, as he is on his program, "Countdown," "jerk" is an exceptionally polite word for him.
5) Arianna Huffington is a former Republican who first invaded public life as the fashion plate wife of (now estranded) Republican Senate candidate Michael Huffington. She has now found a prominent home on the Internet as the publisher of The Huffington Post, a blogging depot for wide-eyed liberals. She's really harmless, But, her naive condecension to demonstrably more intellectually equipped antagonists is annoying.
6) Frank Rich is the almost definitionally shrill editorial writer for The New York Times. But, it's The New York Times. What do you expect? At least Maureen Dowd does it with a touch higher diction and a Mona Lisa-like half smile.
7) He's surely close, but he may not even be the most liberal US Senator. But more liberal ones, even Ted Kennedy, don't stoop to Dick Durbin's cheap means of attack, like comparing conservatives to Nazis and such. He's the senior Senator from Illinois, where Barack Obama is the junior. Harry Reid is just not as bad (good?" Reid is the Senate Majority leader.
8) Speaking of injudicious rhetoric, how about the former Democratic presidential candidate and now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee who among other smears famousl said, "Unlike Republicans, we don't think children should go to bed hungry at night." Durbin blew up his presidential campaign with an explosion of unrestrained ardor. Have you noticed that the headf of the DNC is totally out of the current picture? Not even the unprecedentedly liberal presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to be identified with him.
These unpleasant people are the ones who figure to parade across television screens with arms and voices lifted if Obama is elected president. Does not even that make someone think twice?
Oh, I'm not talking about those simply philosophically blinkered liberals such as the Hollywood liberals, or certainly not the decent Democrats who populate the streets. What I'm talking about are the loud and abusive jerks.
1) One most notable example would be Bill Maher, he of HBO's (which I don't have and don't want) Real Time with Bill Maher. Real?...talk about irony. Maher recently reduced his movie, "Religulous," which scorns and mocks religious people, as he reliably does personally. Listen: I have read the most thoughtful atheist that literature has and has had to offer. Bill Maher isn't one of them. He isn't even in the same ballpark. He's a clever though sometimes bawdy (why shouldn't he be?)comedian. But, he is neither especially thoughtful nor minimally gracious. I have to forgive him because he doesn't know any better. But on the face of it, he's just a Jerk (with a capital "J," obviously)
2) On the other hand, there's Christopher Hitchens, a particularly interesting fellow. Hitchens is interesting as an evolving liberal who began making a face beyond his writing in the 90's by calling Bill Clinton out for his posturing and deception. He also cut a clean break from the breathless left with his defense of the war in Iraq, again disdaining and confounding the knee-jerk left wing. Of late, Hitchens has made a mark with his publication of his book, "god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," and traveling to collaborate with other atheists and debate theists. It becomes clear that his animus against Muslim extremists is only the most urgent end of his hatred for all religion, which he expresses brashly, usually with a baleful face.
Contrary to Bill Maher, Hitchens is very educated and articulate. And again, you can only pity the man who spurns God out of utter ignorance of Him. But that ignorance is probably not unrelated to his arrogance and scornfulness. His ungraciousness is expressed with an infinitely more able tongue than is Maher's. But, it is so thorough that he has belittled and morally reproved the likes of Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and C.S. Lewis. When Jerry Falwell passed away, he appeared on television to scorn "the charlatan" and say he didn't care about offense to the family, notably saying, "It's a shame there is no Hell for him to go to." Hitchens'criticism are particularly remarkable to those familiar with atheist thinkers in that the typical angle of his criticism is moral condemnation, where most thinkers have to struggle with justifying the reality of moral imperatives.
Where did morality come from Mr. Hitchens? When asked, he replies, "It evolved." The British atheist and evolution apologist, Richard Dawkins exulted that with evolution "it is now possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Personally, I don't think the evolution account is very compelling in light of the evidence and more so the lack of it, unless you have a priori ruled a creator out. Dawkins, Hitchens, and many other secularists have in order to account for life in all its complexity. But, Hitchens has taken morality along as a stowaway on the "evolution" ship. It really strains credulity let alone obligation. But it sure gives Hitchens' rhetoric a lot broader license.
3) Speaking of Dawkins, for a celebrated Oxford Professor and author, it is disappointing to see that Dawkins' typical resort in the face of anyone who questions evolution or atheism is the sophomoric tack of questioning their character or intelligence.
4) In case you flip around on cable television, MSNBC is the home for solid liberalism and Obama fervor. Most of them are irritating but sincere. But, there's one prime time host who is such a screeching and distorting critic of all things conservative and Republican that it's difficult to believe he's serious. Keith Olberman is a former ESPN sports reporter and a clever one. As I say, I liked him better when he was reporting the games. But, as he is on his program, "Countdown," "jerk" is an exceptionally polite word for him.
5) Arianna Huffington is a former Republican who first invaded public life as the fashion plate wife of (now estranded) Republican Senate candidate Michael Huffington. She has now found a prominent home on the Internet as the publisher of The Huffington Post, a blogging depot for wide-eyed liberals. She's really harmless, But, her naive condecension to demonstrably more intellectually equipped antagonists is annoying.
6) Frank Rich is the almost definitionally shrill editorial writer for The New York Times. But, it's The New York Times. What do you expect? At least Maureen Dowd does it with a touch higher diction and a Mona Lisa-like half smile.
7) He's surely close, but he may not even be the most liberal US Senator. But more liberal ones, even Ted Kennedy, don't stoop to Dick Durbin's cheap means of attack, like comparing conservatives to Nazis and such. He's the senior Senator from Illinois, where Barack Obama is the junior. Harry Reid is just not as bad (good?" Reid is the Senate Majority leader.
8) Speaking of injudicious rhetoric, how about the former Democratic presidential candidate and now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee who among other smears famousl said, "Unlike Republicans, we don't think children should go to bed hungry at night." Durbin blew up his presidential campaign with an explosion of unrestrained ardor. Have you noticed that the headf of the DNC is totally out of the current picture? Not even the unprecedentedly liberal presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to be identified with him.
These unpleasant people are the ones who figure to parade across television screens with arms and voices lifted if Obama is elected president. Does not even that make someone think twice?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
FOUAD AJAMI - Obama and the Politics of Crowds/Turnout and Competition on Tuesday
I’m still working on filling out my top (so far 14) reasons why an Obama presidency, particularly in conjunction with a Democrat Congress would do grave and likely permanent damage to America. I need to hurry with only a few days left. But for now I should post this:
Fouad Ajami is an Arab American who sees a familiar phenomenon in the crowds that gather (and the vicarious hordes of media spectators) to revel it the Obama redeemerhood, with the multitudes of Arabs who have persistently vested their hopes in Arab saviors posing but never delivering. I encourage you to look at Hungarian-born Jew Elias Canetti’s “Crowds and Power” to which Ajami refers in this article. Many have recalled Hitler’s mesmerization of the WWI-broken German public. A few days ago, I heard a European journalist who observed the media distortion and public enthrall in America that seemed even to exceed what was common to the establishment of European social democracies. Others have referred to Obama’s presentation of a Rorschack Test. Ajami calls him a “blank slate” that “devotees can project onto him what they wish.”
Actually, I expect his article was written a few days ago when pessimism about averting an Obama election was rife. Today, only a few polls do not reflect a tightening of the race. And frankly, I wonder if the typical Republican showing which substantially outpaces the polls, might not be even greater this year. Many conservatives have said that journalism died this year, with traditional media not merely favoring but fairly fawning and swooning over Barack Obama. It may also turnout that the art of polling will be uncommonly discredited this year. The world is changing. Many no longer have time to trifle with telephone or even exit polls, anymore. They don’t have time and they trust pollsters and media less. I expect it will be close and that one side or both will challenge the results. Republicans will suspect (not without cause, I think) voter fraud, especially in Ohio and Missouri, particularly St. Louis. Democrats will charge voter suppression if Obama loses, in which case the “crowds” will be heartbroken and probably scandalized and infuriated. I hope there would be no violence.
Particularly among African-Americans and as always – will it actually materialize this year? Maybe – the young, turnout for Obama is expected to be intense and high. I expect it will be. But, it better be. I expect a record turnout on both sides. Traditional direct mail campaigns highlight what some fear as the worst elements of the opposition. This is how passions and donations are generated.
For conservatives in terms of turnout, Barack Obama will act as a walking direct mail piece. Had Democrats nominated a relatively moderate Bill Clinton/Mark Warner type candidate (Heck, even Hillary Clinton the heretofore conservative bogey-man…er…woman), they might have fairly waltzed to the presidency. But, no. In a favorably Democrat year, the dogmatic liberals wet themselves and nominated the most liberal member of both The Senate and party history. And, picked another extreme liberal as his running mate.
Upon his nomination, John McCain’s Republican support was dubious and fragmented. Sarah Palin provided some help in that regard, but I think Barack Obama has mostly put that to rest, I’m guessing. Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin may pull a percent or two. But more than demonstrating purity of some sort, most conservatives will want to STOP OBAMA! Republican turnout will be fervent and high. If the surprise is big enough, McCain could not only win, but unexpectedly comfortably.
Ajami’s article was published today in The Wall Street Journal:
Fouad Ajami is an Arab American who sees a familiar phenomenon in the crowds that gather (and the vicarious hordes of media spectators) to revel it the Obama redeemerhood, with the multitudes of Arabs who have persistently vested their hopes in Arab saviors posing but never delivering. I encourage you to look at Hungarian-born Jew Elias Canetti’s “Crowds and Power” to which Ajami refers in this article. Many have recalled Hitler’s mesmerization of the WWI-broken German public. A few days ago, I heard a European journalist who observed the media distortion and public enthrall in America that seemed even to exceed what was common to the establishment of European social democracies. Others have referred to Obama’s presentation of a Rorschack Test. Ajami calls him a “blank slate” that “devotees can project onto him what they wish.”
Actually, I expect his article was written a few days ago when pessimism about averting an Obama election was rife. Today, only a few polls do not reflect a tightening of the race. And frankly, I wonder if the typical Republican showing which substantially outpaces the polls, might not be even greater this year. Many conservatives have said that journalism died this year, with traditional media not merely favoring but fairly fawning and swooning over Barack Obama. It may also turnout that the art of polling will be uncommonly discredited this year. The world is changing. Many no longer have time to trifle with telephone or even exit polls, anymore. They don’t have time and they trust pollsters and media less. I expect it will be close and that one side or both will challenge the results. Republicans will suspect (not without cause, I think) voter fraud, especially in Ohio and Missouri, particularly St. Louis. Democrats will charge voter suppression if Obama loses, in which case the “crowds” will be heartbroken and probably scandalized and infuriated. I hope there would be no violence.
Particularly among African-Americans and as always – will it actually materialize this year? Maybe – the young, turnout for Obama is expected to be intense and high. I expect it will be. But, it better be. I expect a record turnout on both sides. Traditional direct mail campaigns highlight what some fear as the worst elements of the opposition. This is how passions and donations are generated.
For conservatives in terms of turnout, Barack Obama will act as a walking direct mail piece. Had Democrats nominated a relatively moderate Bill Clinton/Mark Warner type candidate (Heck, even Hillary Clinton the heretofore conservative bogey-man…er…woman), they might have fairly waltzed to the presidency. But, no. In a favorably Democrat year, the dogmatic liberals wet themselves and nominated the most liberal member of both The Senate and party history. And, picked another extreme liberal as his running mate.
Upon his nomination, John McCain’s Republican support was dubious and fragmented. Sarah Palin provided some help in that regard, but I think Barack Obama has mostly put that to rest, I’m guessing. Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin may pull a percent or two. But more than demonstrating purity of some sort, most conservatives will want to STOP OBAMA! Republican turnout will be fervent and high. If the surprise is big enough, McCain could not only win, but unexpectedly comfortably.
Ajami’s article was published today in The Wall Street Journal:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
America Under Obama and a Democratic Congress/Pat Buchanan and Immigration
I like him alright, but I was never a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I particularly differ with his longstanding emphasis on the menace of immigration: with typical reference specifically to Hispanics crossing our southern border. Obviously, immigration needs to be legal and orderly: the first lesson to immigrants shouldn’t be that the law is not a very serious matter. Isn’t it a little ironic that those who most indulge illegal immigration are many of the same who seek all manner of virtue in the words of the law: I find that striking.
But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.
But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.
You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).
During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.
Obama's First 100 Days
But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.
But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.
You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).
During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.
Obama's First 100 Days
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Black Christian Musician Huntley Brown - Why I Can't Vote For Obama
I am working on filling out the top 10 reasons why an Obama presidency would be bad (now that’s a monumental understatement) for America, both individually and collectively. A friend sent me something written by a black Christian musician explaining why he can’t vote for Obama. Obviously, there is some overlap in subject matter. But, not unexpectedly, there are some matters on which I different somewhat from ordinary reflective sentiment. It’s a disposition I have that some might cal a disorder.
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Polls Are Misleading, Not Dishonest - How Is That?
Oh, a few wild polls from known biased sources are suspect, perhaps sampling and phrasing questions so as to suit their hopes. But, most polls like Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby for instance, are honest. But, they routinely underestimate the Republican showing in national elections. Just in the last one, Kerry was an average of 6 points ahead on the day of the election. He lost. Republicans always strongly out perform what the polls suggest. Why is that?
I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.
This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).
My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.
My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.
But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.
Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.
The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.
I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.
This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).
My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.
My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.
But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.
Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.
The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Friday, October 10, 2008
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube and his personal site .
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
A Very Nice Palin Video
A couple of nights ago, a young man left a comment and asked if I would Blog and link his video. I said I would, probably “tomorrow.” I did not get after it but notified him that I intended to. It was visible at YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qforjC64Hfs and his personal site http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
He may have missed a link or two by my not posting it. But, he appears to have gotten it posted at a better place: John McCain’s campaign web site. I think it will get a few views there. http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/ .
The video is about Sarah Palin. It is Glenn Beck’s introduction six months ago, before John McCain tapped her for the ticket, of Palin’s story of the birth of her son with Downs syndrome, with a clip from her later speech at the Republican National Convention vowing her advocacy for children of special needs. It’s well done and well scored. It should help insure the participation of many whom Palin has inspired.
Seth Adam Smith, the creator, is a member of the LDS church. This suggests that his priorities for American culture are in order.
Monday, October 6, 2008
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
West, Sowell and the Government Corruption of Markets and The Direction of the Campaign
An article at Townhall by Diana West, discusses the largely unreported facts of government involvement and manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, here is a link to an article at NR Online by Thomas Sowell, relative to the same subject:
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Is it a nice sentiment to try to assist people in owning homes who as a group have traditionally been relatively disadvantaged in that regard? On the face of it, it certainly is. But, the problem is where the problem lies with most every liberal government intervention in and manipulation of the market: governments do not refine the market, either practically or by definition. The coercive element is corruptive of both the benevolent objective and the natural effectual discipline of the market.
A private effort to assist people will generally offer assistance while holding up a standard of self-improvement and betterment, just as a good parent may do in lovingly assisting a child. But, neither is there human encouragement to refine behavior or the discipline of a free market which holds lending organizations to the account of constructive and profitable operation. Whether in relative ignorance or political cravenness, McCain and Palin join in the liberal blame of “Wall Street executives” in “predatory loan practices.” Are executives primarily after profit more than charity? Of course. That is their job and how the market rewards them. They must offer a competitively profitable stock on the public market. It is reasonable to speculate that part of the allure of offering sub-prime loans was the general history of the appreciation of the real estate market. Even if borrowers defaulted, the property would appreciate…right? On that score, lenders took a roll of the dice and lost.
But, it is also a reasonable speculation that executives heard an implicit assurance of help in the “unlikely” event of failure of the encouraged risk of rash lending practices, which of course turned out to be the case. Republicans blame Democrats’ promotion of “fair” (read, “reckless”) lending practices. And Democrats blame the Republican propensity to “deregulate.” (which makes no sense in light of government imposition upon the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, let’s be clear about the root of the problem, which is the same as all liberal corruptions of liberty and free markets: the intervention of government idealism and coercion lays the groundwork for market calamity. No government entity should catch the blame because the government nose had no business in the market in the first place.
Many years ago, the incomparably literate and intelligent but assiduously practical and realistic George Will conceded economic realities in America, saying, “We’re all Keynesians, now.” Only a young man at the time, I instinctively reacted, “The HECK we are!” Alas, the economic train wreck of recent weeks is the inevitable consequence of such common and insidious concessions.
The media narrative is that McCain’s campaign is abandoning the economic discussion to Obama to focus on character questions about Obama. The truth of that is questionable, but it would be stunningly foolhardy. It seems to sat something about education in America if a majority would buy the idea that we could tax and spend our way out of economic difficulties, an idea that history has proven futile despite its relentless allure to the public. But, it would also seem to say something about6 Republican desperation should it leave such a towering falsehood to stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)