Business and the Right to Free Speech

The president used the occasion on the State of the Union address to denounce the recent Supreme Court decision to allow freedom of speech protection to corporations. His disingenuous rationale was that it would open the door to foreign manipulation of American elections. The truth is that he knows business does not like his policies and he wants to limit its ability to fund political ads contrary to those policies. Lawyers, legislators, and political commentators have since come forward to state that the decision keeps in place the various regulation against foreign contributions to domestic political organisations.

Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?

Republican Conservatives: The Time is Now

The demos, the president, and politico.com say that the Republicans have a “responsibility to govern.” So be it. That does not mean that they should rubber stamp every BHO, Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi proposal. Why don’t they introduce stand-alone bills to address healthcare issues, such as state-to-state portability? There are a myriad of other issues that can be addressed by legislation. They can introduce bills to give the unspent and repaid stimulus and TARP funds back to the treasury to reduce the deficit. They can introduce a real spending freeze bill to take affect this year. They can reopen oil drilling, coal power production, and nuclear power licensing. That could be for starters, then tomorrow they can work on eliminating any spending motivated by global warming. Bank regulation? Why not common sense requirements such as loan documents that can actually be read and understood by borrowers. The list of real reforms is endless and can be proposed in bills of five to ten pages. Get to it Mr. McCain et al.

Rerun: Socalized Medicine

"If all I am given for an option is socialism [or the stutus quo], which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars."

/This quotation appealed to me. I found it in of one of my posts from last year/

While we're at it, here's a rerun of another quotation:

"We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom." (Frederic Bastiat)

One of the economists whose theories led to the Austrian School of Economics (See von Mises Institute for the definition of this), came to the conclusion that the then current bad economic idea (socialism) had so much support that it must run its course. Then from the ashes of the destruction that would result, more sensible ideas would gain acceptance. Unfortunately, it seems he was predicting World War I and II. There must be a better way to a solution.

Local Photos

The Left Not Playing with a Full Deck

The Democrats, the radical left, and the press are always playing the race card, however ineptly. The truth is they do not have many cards to play. Journalist Chris Mathew's comment that during the Sate of the Union Address, he forgot for an hour that Barak Obama was black is a case in point. Since the campaign began, race has been the most important issue for Chris Mathews. Contrary to what he and Democrat politicians are always telling us, based upon the history of the last two centuries and on a lot of recent comments from Democrats, it is obvious that racial prejudice is a significant characteristic mostly of the left. Biden said candidate Obama was "clean." Democrat Senator Ried said he had light skin and no negro dialect. The liberal apologists in the press, i.e., most of the press, explain these remarks as clumsy compliments. On the other hand they never tire of stating that America is still a racist country. I would submit that comments like 'light skin' were calculated messages to racist Democrats that this black boy is OK. They knew he could usher in the most radical measures that this nation has ever seen. With him they had the black vote and the far left vote, they just need the old boy vote. They wanted to let their own party members know that it was OK to vote for this black. The only person I know who did not vote for him on account of race was one of my uncles who had never voted for a Republican in his life. I guess he had to skip the last election.

Race is no issue at all for conservatives and Republicans. At least, they never reach the issue of race in their deliberations. The choices are so stark already, why worry about race when there is so much wrong with just being a modern Democrat? I forgot that BHO was part black a long time ago. During the speech, I could not forget for five minutes that he is a communist. He spoke about one aspect of society after another which he wanted government to take a leading role in. A leading role, as we have seen, can quickly transform into near total control if not outright ownership. He wants to go from the current government assistance for student loans to government takeover, and give a repayment break for 'government service' while he's at it. Are ACORN members 'government service' workers? Probably are, according to BHO. He has already taken over General Motors and Chrysler. He has taken over AIG, the largest US insurance company. He has, for most purposes, taken over control of energy and he wants complete control via cap-and-trade. He wants virtual control, through regulation, over the financial industry and healthcare. The unions, especially government unions, and the press are already at his beck and call. Unfortunately, we can only imagine the extent of infiltration of radical socialists into all levels of government agencies. The Republicans are not racists but they are intimidated by the race card. They need to trump it with the truth.

Sunday Night Wrap Up

Allan Hunt is a radio talk show host who says that it's not about right or left but it's about right or wrong. His show has a Christian slant. Tonight, before launching a telephone forum on the second half of his show for discussion of some celebrity's marital infidelity, he talked about national politics and economics. He said that President Obama should fire Rohm Emanuel and get a business friendly adviser. Really, aren't we way past that sort of discussion? Mr. Hunt believes that BHO could revitalize his ratings and the economy by coming out strongly with some pro-business proposals. He thinks he should start with ideas like low taxes, less regulation, and cessation of his verbal attacks. Wouldn't that be nice? This is like suggesting to the President of Iran that he could improve international relations by reversing his stance against Israel. Mr. Hunt is either naive or trying to be sarcastic. However, he is a good example of a commentator who is starting to see the light. He can see the obvious economic absurdities of trillion dollar 'stimulus' spending and borrowing but he still doesn't see that BHO is at best a devoted socialist and at worse an pawn for international communism.

Michael Medved is a local radio personality who tends to give liberal callers at lot of air time. He tries in vain to reason with many who pretend to be conservatives who only want to point out a few faults that they just cannot go along with. It should be obvious to Mr. Medved what they are doing: advancing their propaganda and trying to chip away at the expanding conservative advances. They usually start out with a false premise, which Mr. Medved doesn't adequately challenge but instead addresses their fake issues. The other day he finally got totally irate regarding a plan of King county, the State of Washington, and Seattle to build more light rail. Not only would this be immensely expensive, take at least ten years, and expand a system that hardly anybody uses already, but it would also completely disrupt the one east-west freeway in the Seattle area that does not have chronic traffic jams. Local planers figure if they can screw-up traffic enough, people will finally start using their multibillion dollar trains. Mr. Medved was extremely incensed with the unmitigated stupidity of the plan which he says helps no one but those building it [editorial note: and the politicians on the take]. He probably commutes via that freeway. Fortunately, this uncompromising indignation lately has extended to his discussion of national issues also.

Billy Cunningham, who has a national talk show on Sunday's does not need any encouragement. Kieth Overbite has for the sixth time awarded him the worse person on earth award, or some such thing. Mr. Cunningham goes a little overboard treating this like his sixth Medal of Honor. It's more of a distinguished service cross. Mr. Cunningham keeps the pressure up on several neglected fronts, the 'Obama birth' cover-up for example. There is definitely a lot of details about the Precedent's past that are being covered-up. We just do not know exactly what. The press should make them come clean They won't of course, which brings us to the mrc.org site (Media Research Center). Mr. Cunningham (aka, The Great American) referred interested listeners to that site for the latest Obamaphilic and Limbaughphobic quotations from our wise, objective media gurus.

Lastly, Glenn Beck Weekend is aired on Sunday. (That's why you see so many people with earphones in Church.) Glenn pulls no punches. He may irk Mark Levin (and me) with his remarks about Republicans being as bad as Democrats, but it is clear where his sentiments are. He does not like what is happening to our great nation and he feels certain there is much more of the same coming. "Feels" is the key word for Glenn. Although he has perhaps the best mind and instincts of any commentator, his feelings are more often than not what he discusses. He feels foreboding. With history and common sense as a guide, who can argue with him? However, Glenn's fight is not against BHO, for it transcends mundane politics. He does not struggle against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness. I hope he has on the full armour required for that fight. Humor may be his best gift and weapon. (It was through oversight that he was not included in the list of radio commentators earlier in this blog; he deserves a high place on the list.)

Air America Bites the Dust

Liberal radio talk network, Air America, has gone out of business. The reason for this according to radio show host Michael Savage, is that America is tired of hearing over and over the same liberal drivel. Savage describes the typical tone of their discussion as"...snide and sneering..." toward the traditional views and attitudes that makes America and Americans great. On one of their programs a few months ago, a conservative caller questioned the liberal view that government can and should provide free health care to everyone in the country. After the two hosts asked him a few questions about his background, they proceeded to psychoanalyze him. They seemed to believe that to question liberal policies, one had to have a mental disorder. They were quite understanding of this poor soul who, because of his early travails, had developed a psychological disorder that caused him to be insensitive. They made no attempt to address the issue he had raised. (Does the phrase "effete impudent snob" come to mind?)

Recently, all media outlets have experienced business difficulties. Many liberal print news outlets have gone out of business. Conservatives have explained that not only is there internet competition, but the public no longer blindly support the liberal editorial policies of most newspapers and magazines. This is only partially true. Many reading and thinking individuals in this country, unfortunately, do support liberal editorial policies. However, most commentators neglect the explanation of supply and demand. If the country is divided 50-50 between liberal and conservative, then there should be about that distribution of attitudes in the media. However, the division seems to be about 95% liberal medial outlets and 5% conservative. If the same commentary and spin on the news is available on the television news outlets for instance, then why should the liberals bother with getting it from the liberal newspapers? In other words, there is an over supply of liberal media. The conservatives have only Fox television, talk radio, and a handful of newspapers. (Even Fox news, in this writers view, accepts many of the liberal assumptions of the lamestream media.)

Besides on the traditional editorial page, most liberal outlets put a slant on every aspect of the news. They still talk about Obama changes as 'reform.' Commentators on the right may call them measured and cynical tactics to bring about socialistic control, but they do not claim to be unbiased disseminators of objective facts. There are also entertainment shows that satirize both the left and the right (with the same 95-5% split). How often does AKA Liebowitz (John Stewart), Colbert, or Overbite-Countdown to No Ratings satirize the left? With so many and varied liberal mouthpieces, many are bound to be nonviable economically, especially if they depend upon advertising from a highly depressed business sector. The movement to have taxpayer funds support failing news outlets only serves to embolden newspapers in their liberal leanings. Government support would only discourage them from giving a voice to both sides of the issues. In spite of the US Constitution, government funds for newspapers seems just fine to most liberals. (Give me a break.)

Back Bencher Department

Today, to thunderous applause, BHO tells the banks, "we want our money back." Mark Levin says, "Mr. Obama, we want our children's future back. What did you do with that?" After spending our money up to his eyeballs, Mr. Obama says that we spent too much and borrowed too much over the last ten years and that's the problem. Mr. Levin says, "Mr. Obama, you are full of crap." Mr. Levin has a radio show in which he spends three hours presenting historical facts and making arguments in support of his position. Mr. Obama makes another rambling, incoherent speech reminiscent of the diatribes of Adolph Hitler.

Like Hitler, BHO blames all of his enemies. Like Hitler, his favorite enemies are the bankers. Mr. Obama does not seem to recall what happened or what was said last year. Government agencies Freddy Mack and Fannie May, the biggest players in the mortgage industry, went bankrupt. Conservatives explained that government agencies and federal regulations forced banks to make very risky loans. One year ago, the Democrats replied, "There is plenty of blame to go around." Mr. Limbaugh pointed out that when a Democrat admits that there is blame to go around, we can be pretty sure that the blame is divided about 95% Democrats and 5% everyone else. Now Mr. Obama says that all the blame belongs to the people who took out mortgages and to the banks. Mr. Levin points out that Mr. Obama, as an ACORN attorney, took banks to court to force them to make loans under the Community Investment Act. Loans he now says they should not have made. Now Mr. Obama absolves himself and Democrats from any blame. This is an obvious misinterpretation of very recent history. (Mark Levin, The Great One has clearly documented the series of government actions that led to the recent bank problems. He has spelled these out in detail, giving references, three or four times on his show. Ludvig von Mises Institute has dozens of articles and links on this subject also, as does chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com)

This blog proudly admits to being a back bencher of the conservative talk shows. Mr. Levin calls those who get their ideas from him, back benchers. The best radio talk show hosts have been playing Mr. Obama's speeches and those of other political figures and taking them apart word by word. They look behind the rhetoric and expose the dramatically inconsistent and disingenuous statements. The best talk show hosts are uncompromising proponents of policies that are 180 degrees from the course currently set by BHO. If Mr. Obama chooses to interpret this as being against him, so be it. He is obviously not going to change course, so we are against him.

Some of the best talk shows that are broadcast in the Seattle-Tacoma area are, in order of their vehement uncompromising pursuit of truth: Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Billy Cunningham, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Peter Weisbach, and Brian and the Judge. Honorable Mention goes to George Noory of Coast to Coast. (Tonight the judge says that the democrats are on a "strident march toward collectivity," so even the last on this list is great.) Actually it is unfair to say that they are not all totally devoted to the truth, some are just better at discerning the truth.

Blame It on the Bankers

Nothing new but I spoke to someone yesterday who explained that the bank/economy melt down was all brought on by greed. I spoke to him at the gym. He's a doctor so you would think that he would know better. This time he is saying it is the greed of Lehman Brothers executives that started it all. He saw it on a Canadian Broadcasting program. I asked him a few questions but I am not up for such arguments as I have had them so often. I thought later that I should have asked him when they will be broadcasting the rebuttal. Surely they should give both sides a fair chance. If Canadian Broadcasting is anything like Public Broadcasting in the USA, there's not a chance. I am sure my friend would not care and understand. He would say that there can be no rebuttal. (See my W. F. Buckley quotation.)

I wanted to tell him that Lehman Brothers and the mortgage bankers were just doing what congress told them to do. They were supplying mortgages and securities to the public, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and to other banks that the regulators in government wanted them to provide. Everyone knew they were junk. That's why everyone wanted default swaps as insurance. (The guru's computer models said there wasn't much risk in those derivatives and the rating agencies gave them triple A's) It had nothing to do with Glass Steigal or the free market run amuck, or greedy executives. The free market was not free; it was confused and mislead by government mandates to reduce lending standards and other rules. Glass Steigal was irrelevant, since Lehman and other firms were making deals that would not have been disallowed with or without the regulations under Glass Steigal. Lastly, the executives were no more greedy than they had ever been or ever will be.

By the way, they are doing it again. They are making too many low interest mortgage loans and selling them to Fannie May and Freddy Mack just as BHO tells them to do. They would make more business loans as he asks too, if business wanted any loans right now. (What happens when rates go up and banks are caught holding 30 year 5% loans and their cost of funds is more like 10%? They will need to be bailed out and they will be told they were greedy.)

My rebuttal to him was necessarily brief. I told him that the problem was government involvement in the economy. That is what I firmly believe but how can that be explained in a few minutes to a thoroughly indoctrinated drone? I told him to look at Von Mises Institute.com and chickenshitnewworld. He accused me of being a Republican.

When will they ever learn?

Full Court Press against Wall Street

I wrote the following letter to the editor of the Seattle Times today. Of course they won't publish it or any in a similar vein, even if more eloquently stated. They want government to have more say in where the funds of investors go (maybe to them).

"Today's editorial regarding Madoff and Wall Street reform avoids the question of what form regulation should take. Based on the track record of the current administration, it appears that the Madoff Affair is the cause celebre that is being used to usher in regulation that will give government control over important business decisions of financial companies. This is de facto socialism and is the goal of the executive branch and many in the legislative branch. Allocation of capital for its best use is the primary function of financial markets and only further disasters could come from government trying to play that role. Conflicts of interest, government corruption of business and visa versa, and outright fraud are enforcement problems that deserve more attention. We cannot allow these problems to be used as excuses for a power grab by the political operatives and technocrats who allowed and created those problems in the first place."

I think there is a real danger that the BHO gangsters are attempting to control finance so that they can better direct the flow of capital to their political allies and to themselves. Doing it through congress has its limitations. There seems to be a heightened attack right now against banks and investment companies. This also enhances the suffering public image of the Democrats and the BHO White House. Bankers are an easy target and we are seeing and hearing the most blatant populist styled propaganda being directed against them. Little matter that it is nonspecific in its calls for reform. The important thing to the left right now is to bloody the noses of bankers and Wall Street.

The current edition of Mother Jones is a prime example. The cover story: "Too Big to Jail" shows a monopoly style cartoon banker using his get out of jail free card. Two of the Mother Jones writers appeared on Bill Moyers tonight to deliver orchestrated one-two punches against capitalism. "Oh no, not against capitalism. We're for capitalism, we want to fix it. We're against them, the big bankers, who do those things..." they would claim while they employ every Marxist trick in Rules for Radicals. What bothers me is that they were so slick that 99% of the audience will be taken in. Of course, I am taking into account that since they're watching public TV, most of the audience is taken in to begin with.

This is very worrisome because finance and economics seems to be the biggest weak spot in the American public's collective understanding. The 'public' will go along with a bad idea wrapped in a populous cloak every time. With this administration, we can expect maximum exploitation of this weakness. With our defenses spread thin by global warming and health care, they will make enormous gains against liberty and democracy. With control of finances, they will be difficult to dislodge.

The American Banking Association chairman, Art Johnson, apparently was mildly successfully in holding back the congressional hoards while compromising on some regulatory changes. He was attacked on Bill Moyers. The bankers and Wall Street should make some sensible proposals for oversight aimed at preventing fraud and sharp practices. More importantly, they need to go on the offensive with public promotion of their ideas. American financial markets have worked because American securities are more secure. The industry needs a public image make over that will show that they are not avoiding regulations that will actually further that goal.

See my regulatory ideas in following posts.

It's not Just the Ecomomy Stupid

Economic factors may not be the most important aspects of our lives, but they do form the basis of most of our interactions. Through work and exchange, we come into contact with others. The spiritual dimensions of life, although the most enduring and valuable, are usually private things. This has been the sensible American way of thinking and mode of behavior. One reason westerners have a reputation for reticence is that our society is highly heterogeneous. We have so many peoples of so many view points and beliefs, that it is often the best policy to avoid disputes by keeping most of our views to ourselves. But sometimes we are pushed too far.

Journalist, Brit Hume was moved by the spectacle of Tiger Wood's vast extramarital exploits to actually recommended Christianity for him. He thought that it would be superior to Wood's apparently professed beliefs in Buddhism. Of course the leftist journalist have been pontificating against Hume See USA Today's story: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/01/tiger-woods-brit-hume-jesus-buddhism-evangelist/1 Today, His Excellency the Great One, Mark Levin, discussed the tedious and arrogant remarks by Keith Overbite of Countdown to No Ratings. (Note: I do not believe that this is the real name of Mr. Overbite's program but as I have never watched it, I only know Mr. Levin's sobriquet.) Apparently, Mr. Overbite took offense with Mr. Hume's remarks, which he viewed as a slight to Buddhism. Furthermore, as a leftist, Mr. Overbite has a deep seated grudge against Christianity. As for myself, even though my Catholic beliefs sometimes verge on the Ultramontainism of my forefathers, I am not motivated to proselytize. In defense of Mr. Hume's doing so I would point out the following:

Buddhists have the belief, not so different from Christians, that we must experience the consequences of our actions (and even the actions of our forebearers), whether now or in the future. Enlightenment cannot come until the karma of our past deeds has been erases. Buddhist masters have variously held that this is not easy, in fact well nigh impossible. (Of course Christians would say that once enlightened, you still aren't necessarily saved.) If this karmic load can be eased by our good deeds and thoughts, then this is not such an unchristian belief. In fact, Christianity goes a step further in it's view that only by the grace of God can we be saved (or enlightened) because man cannot alone overcome the burden of sin (karma). And it is reasonable for even a Buddhist to see the ultimate and sublime grace that would proceed from the blood sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus, who died so that sins could be forgiven (and we could become enlightened).

What I had started out to write was that if appeals to conventional morality and religion can turn some of the population against the current socialist (and atheist) regime, I say pour it on thick. The same for national defense issues. It seems that the public at large can understand the shortcomings of the Obamaites in military and antiterrorism matters better that it can comprehend BHO's economics folly. I am glad to see the left attacked on all fronts. If it causes more people to join the Party of No, I'm all for it.