What We Never Wanted to Know about Politics but Were Forced to Find Out

This post is about "Government by Crisis." It should not be necessary. Anyone with the least political savvy, and it's hard to avoid having a little now days, should already know what it is all about. Yet still Barrack Husein Obama comes on the radio (I don't watch TV) and says: "Now look! these (fill in the blank) caused the mess we're in and now they don't want us to fix it. The few common sense measures in this legislation (of 3,000 pages) will prevent (fill in the blank) in the future. Don't worry. Pass this bill, It will save us from... (whatever)."

This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."

That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.

By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.

Wall Street Takeover

My message to the LA Times Editorial blog today regarding the passage by the Senate of the Wall Street Takeover: "Correct, this is not reform in that it does not make things better. It limits competition and creates further barriers to entry. It makes the few favoured firms of Big Finance virtual partners with Big Government (along with Big Pharma, Big Auto, Big Agra, Big Ed, Big Labor, Big Energy, Big Media...). It adds ups to Big Brother. My opinion. - Jean-Baptiste of blogspot"

The bill cannot be stopped by fillibuster now because some loathsome Republican Senator(s) voted for it.

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.

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.

Obama Wall Street Prescription: Virtual Ownership

The current economic recession/depression was clearly the result of multifaceted government intervention in and regulation of business. However, BHO is blaming Wall Street, which is always an acceptable scapegoat. Hitler used it, only he called them the Jew bankers. Wall Street of course doesn't seem to have a clue either that they are in a public relations propaganda fight. The bottom line is that BHO will use the concept of 'Wall Street' as an excuse for his next big government coup. Any proposal from the current administration and congress will not be 'consumer protection' as they claim. It will be government control of what is currently private finance. But the country and congress is dumb and numb. We have lost or are on the verge of losing the auto industry, healthcare, mortgage lending, energy, and pretty much all unionized trades (which were mostly gone already) to the control of the all-powerful state. The rest should be easy for the totalitarians.

We are witnessing the fall of capitalism. From there, our rights as a free people will dissolve with hardly a murmur from the serfs. After the first death, there is no other.

Can We Realy Share the Wealth?

My answer is: No, not without destroying the wealth. Every redistribution plan ultimately does not work. Not in the long run, not in the medium run, or even much beyond today. Analysis of the outcome of plans to redirect economic activity from the free market shows that eventual collapse of any such plan is inevitable. It may not be obvious because a dozen other plans will usually be adopted to correct the outcome of the initial plan but they always result in the same thing: less wealth or impoverishment for everyone and back to the drawing board.

This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.

Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.

(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)

I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:

"Listening to Mr. Chodorov, you won't
get any meaningless gabble about "Right" and "Left," or "progressive'" and
"reactionary," or liberalism as a philosophy of the "middle of the road." Mr. Chodorov deals in far more fundamental
distinctions. There is, for example, the Chodorovian distinction between social
power and political power. Social power develops from the creation of wealth by
individuals working alone or in voluntary concert. Political power, on the other
hand, grows by the forcible appropriation of the individual's social power."

"People on Our Side: Frank Chodorov"
Mises Daily by John Chamberlain
Posted on 10/5/2009 12:00:00

http://mises.org/story/3741