Truth Links

New lights of truth and common sense.

http://www.larryelder.com/

Mr. Elder filling in for Mark Levin on Wednesday March 30:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#


To hear Off The Wall Street economics commentary, the stock market, and who is a liar and who should be in Jail:

http://www.philsgang.com/

Conservatives Loaded for Bear

That is, they are well stocked with hi-caliber ammo and they are fighting back. Their arrow points are sharpened and their quivers are full. They are keeping their powder dry. Conservative storm troopers are hitting the ground running, only stopping to reload or fix bayonets. Yes, that describes the conservative backlash against the liberal accusations that they are inciting violence. The Conservatives are figuratively counterattacking in force, the real conservatives that is. Some Republicans in Congress are apparently already fearful of the leftist media onslaught of misrepresentations following the attempted assassination of an Arizona congresswoman.

The way that the conservative talk show host are fighting back is by presenting the truth and exposing the liberal so called journalists for the party propagandists that they have become. The conservatives are well armed with audio clips of the most vile remarks and reprehensible threats imaginable coming from the leftist radio and TV media figures, such as Keith Oberman, Bill Mar, Joy Bajar, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews. (Some of these may not be journalist; I realy don't know who they are but their language was certainly vile. They may be senators from Minnesota for all I know.) They also have clips of liberal politicians openly wishing violence to befall conservatives. Barack Obama is one of those politicians. (e.g. BHO's comment regarding a supporter who will "tear-up Sean Hanity." Metephorically, with argumentation he meant, just as other have spoken metephorically about politics for centuries.)

The liberals are making a big thing over some hunting and shooting metaphors of Sarah Palin with respect to Democrat candidates in the last election. Her metaphorical cross hairs were no more conducive to violence that the Democratic National Committees bulls-eyes on conservatives. On the other hand, liberals are also seen on video decapitating President Bush in effigy. On audio, they are wishing on him, vice president Cheney, and Secretary of Defense von Rumsfeld, all forms of unspeakable horrors.

The conservatives who are on the counterattack are Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Lew Dobbs, Lars Larson, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and many more who I haven't heard yet. Essentially, what is happening is the liberals in congress are being aided and abetted by these dishonest journalist in their attempt to sensor their opponents, that is us, the people. The conservative media, the target of this propaganda are quite effectively fighting back with no other weapon but the truth. Glenn Beck will be joining the fray as well as soon as he gets on the Full Armour of the Lord.


For the fine invective oratory of Mark Levin, go to audio rewind for 1/11/11:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

Regarding the proposition that conservative radio talk shows and Fox television said anything that led to the shooting by the deranged individual in Arizona, I have only the remark of Frederick Bastiat:

"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France [and in the modern USA]. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."

National Socialism: Genghis Groans Again

In the first segment of his 12/3/10 program, Mark Levin addresses the issues of taxation currently before our congress. In fact, Mark delineates the conservative position in the age old debate between economic freedom and government economic control. Recordings of Biden and other Democrats represent the opposing views. Mark pulls no punches with his refutation of the Democrat, that is statist, view.

"We are witnessing the collapse of the welfare state ... They have led us to the precipice and they continue..." -- Mark Levin

This program is available for free for the next month at Mark Levin Show Audio Rewinds. Mark is refining his presentation. This is one of his best shows. http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

It seems to me that the public spoke in the last election. They do not want any more big government interference, we have had more that we can take. Obama and his far left wacko commissars have been exposed for what they are and we do not want any more. What we do not know is what to call them. It used to be liberals, but that is confusing; they sound like communists, but they say they aren't; they act like socialists, but the media tells us the definition does not fit. Glenn Beck points out how "state capitalism," which is a currently used term, is really the same thing as national socialism. Listening to the Ed Schultz show callers, one can get an education regarding our current national socialists. They call in sounding like thugs and he encourages them. I call them statist progressives: they propose control by a totalitarian state as the best means of improving our lot (so they say, I think it's their own lot they want to improve). If we are still around, it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

Will Republicans stick to their guns?

Republicans should agree to meet the Democrats half way to freedom, not half way to tyranny,(to paraphrase Mark Levin). As Ayn Rand explained, how can you compromise with someone who wants you to take poison? Should you agree to take only half the poison? You would still be dead. Bad economic policies are like poison. For example conservatives legislators should not agree to even a watered down form of cap-and-trade,such as government regulations to reduce 'carbon' emissions. (At least until they prove their man made global warming theory, which they never will, or they would have by now.)

Conservative Republicans agree that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and reduce its bureaucracy. However congress keeps passing more massively intrusive and expensive legislation. Sometimes, as with the food control bill, we hardly get a peep out of Republicans. In increasingly large numbers, they vote with the Democrats. What is going on?

Currently there is discussion regarding extension of current income tax rates. We seem to have three options: keep the current rates, increase rates for all brackets (which will happen automatically if they do nothing), or increase rate only for higher brackets. There is no option to actually reduce any one's rates. The Democrats themselves want to maintain current rates for lower brackets; not for economic but for political reasons, i.e. to buy votes. The Democrats say they want Republican input and support and that they are willing to compromise. However, the only compromise that they seem to be offering is option three above, that is raise tax rates on higher income brackets (over $250,000). Again for political reasons, to advance 'class' warfare propaganda. In a compromise deal they would get the higher rates that they want but they offer nothing in return. Where is the compromise there?

If Republicans agree to any higher rates on anyone, they should insist upon cuts in spending and reduction in bureaucracy. The taxes would still be economic poison, but spending cuts would to some extent counteract the economic damage of higher taxation.

Just today, there appears to be some movement for such a deal. Next week the president and Democrats in congress may agree to a keep the current rates for all wage earners in return for Republican agreement to extend unemployment benefits from two years to three. (Initially, before other extensions, the limit was half a year.) Extending these payments is bad economic policy because unemployment benefits create unemployment.

One other factor makes this potentially a bad deal. If the higher tax rates for all go into effect because of congressional inaction, the increase can be reversed by the new Republican congress next year. The Democratic Senate and the president would be under political pressure to agree. Therefore, The Republicans should not compromise now unless it is a good deal for the economy. For example, unemployment benefits for only an additional six months and at amounts reduced by about 30% would be one possibility.

The tea party has been leading the way toward freedom and away from the 'liberal', statist progressive agenda (which is becoming more and more to resemble the national socialist agendas of days past.) To remedy economic problems now as always, we need to focus on the philosophy of free enterprise. Economist Frederich Bastiat suggested the true path nearly 200 years ago to deal with the collapsed French economy: We have tried everything else, why not try freedom.

Conservatives' Plan Summarized

This blog is about current events. We have not had the time or energy to post many comments of late. Although there has been some improvement, our conclusion is still: chickenshit behavior by the Democrats (aka statist progressives) and ditto for the appeasing Republicans. The nation has recently said that it is chiefly made up of common sense conservatives and that is the improvement that gives us hope.


The debate prior to the election, a few weeks ago, and all of it's aftermath may be causing many people to be more that a little bit confused. There is so much to say regarding this election, which resulted in a change of the majority party in the House of Representatives from the Democrats to the Republicans. Control of many state governorships and legislatures also changed to the Republicans. The primary reason that the Senate did not also turn to the Republicans is that only a third of its seats are up for election every two years. To many people who gain their understanding of current events from the television, it may seem that nothing has changed.

A lot has changed. Radio commentator, Mark Levin, has been clearly and emphatically explaining the changing situation. Though not a political leader, he seems to have the clearest vision of what the Republican and conservative response should be. He speaks of hope and change that is not merely a return to the pre-Obama situation. He and many others will be attempting to re-establish the rule of law under our constitution. There is much to be done and it can start now.

Conservative Plan: For a conservative view of recent events along with conservative aspirations for near and long term change, listen to Mark Levin's Audio Rewind of the show aired last Friday, November 26:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

(This audio will only be on Mark Levin's site for a few weeks, so listen to it now, and save it. If you don't, well listen to his new audios as they become avail -- free on his site. Or listen to him on the radio. Unfortunately, the radio station in Western Washington that carried him recently dropped all political talk shows. I do not know why.)

For historical background and in depth information see the Ludvig von Mises Institutes's website and the amusing and edifying YouTubes of Atlas Shrugs, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand. (Which are all being revitalized in the Tea Party, by the way.)

Yes They Can Take Our Liberty

A caller to the Billy Cunningham radio show recommended the following You-Tube (Mark Levin may have mentioned it too):


Party Like An Obamaton By The Silent DoGooders; search it on youtube paste into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqiAhW4YejA


I hope some of those who get their political news and ideas from John Stewart and Stéphan Colbert listen to this. They should listen to Mark Levin and Billy Cunningham a few times too. They might have a better idea who and what they voted for when they pulled the lever for Obama (if they haven't figured it out yet).

Ronald Reagan Knew It Was Wrong

President Obama, in one of his innumerable sales pitches, stated that Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ted Kennedy all knew that government supplied health care was right. They may have said that, but that does not mean they knew what they were talking about. Common sense tells us that it is wrong. Ronald Reagan, in a speech made in the early 1960's, says what he thinks of the idea. He was staunchly and irrevocably against it. He gave the economic and political arguments why he so believed.

Today, Billy Cunningham says, is a day that will live in infamy. He was depressed but animated while discussing the health care bill that was passed in the House of Representatives, in a special Sunday session this evening. The guests on Mr. Cunningham's weekly Sunday show were Mark Levin (see Mark Levin Show), Dr. Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation), and a member of the Cato Institute (see cato.org). They talked about the tragic results this bill will have on American health and on the American economy. Mr. Cunningham says it is a bad night for great Americans.

This blog has discussed some of the reasons why this is a tragic outcome. Congressional adoption of this plan is a defeat for those who believe in the free market.

Mr. Cunningham brightened up the program by reading from an email. The sender states that Barack Obama is the greatest thing that has happened for this country in a long time. Among the reasons for this, he lists: BHO has destroyed both the Clinton and Kennedy dynasties and he has rejuvenated the Republican party.

Dream Team 2012

Tonight Billy Cunningham showed himself again to be an uncompromising conservative. He has long been encouraging Sean Hanity to be a candidate for president in 2012. He also proposes Mark Levin as attorney general and himself as Sean's first Supreme Court appointment. The way the Democrats are imploding by implementing their increasingly communistic agenda, a Republican victory of unprecedented scope would be a possibility. To expand on some of Billy's premature ideas, I would add Sarah Palin as vice president. She sounds very good to me, in spite of her recent endorsement of John McCain. It is hoped that will be her last concession to the McCain style Republicans.

Mark Levin Wrong (but is Still Right)

Mark Levin is correct that Section 7 of Article I of the Federal Constitution states, "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States..." Of course, section 1 states, "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates..." In other words, under the constitution, only congress can make laws and the way they make them is by both houses passing a bill (that is, the same bill). Then the president has the power to approve or reject the bill before it becomes a law. Section 7 further provides for the presidential veto and congressional override of that veto. That is the part where the the statement is made that the name of each member voting must be entered on the journals of the respective houses: for the vote whether or not to override the presidential veto. Mark Levin is not correct when he says that the constitution requires the names to be entered on the journals for votes on all bills.

The names on the journal part is a minor point. The point is that the bill has to be passed by both houses, not deemed passed. Mark Levin is still 99.9% right all of the time. That puts him a little ahead of Rush Limbaugh.

With some exceptions, a roll call can be demanded by any member of the House or Senate on any vote. Apparently, with a large enough majority, this rule can be waive. During the first years of the FDR administration, there were large enough Democrat majorities to deny requests for roll calls. The result of that was that constituents could not find out how their congressional members voted. When the Republicans won more seats, they could and did demand that a roll be taken of every vote. Roosevelt's control over congress started to slip at that point.

When the final vote came to send Roosevelt's Judicial Bill adding more justices back to committee, a Republican Senator moved for a roll call vote. Republicans further demanded to know exactly with what instructions the Bill would be remanded to committee. The instructions were that it would not deal at all with the supreme court. The Republicans wanted to make sure the bill was good and dead and that everyone knew it. Burt Wheeler had refused to compromise, be bought out, or intimidated.


(For reference regarding the FDR era congress, see: "Will War in Europe Save Roosevelt?" by Fredrick L. Collins; Liberty magazine, November 11, 1939. Mr. Collins says, "He surrounded himself with erratic and inexperienced theorists." Sound familiar? )

Obama Health Care Looters

Socialism has been described as killing the goose that laid the golden egg, with capitalism being the goose. Tonight, Mark Levin referred to Bastiat's description of the fruits of socialism as plunder. What happens when there is nothing left to plunder? Mr. Levin also used the metaphor of locust stripping a field of grain. When there is no more grain, what do the locust socialists propose to do?

I think of socialism as legalised looting. What happens when the looters have broken all the windows and taken all the merchandise? Will the store restock the shelves so that the looters can come back for more? I don't think so, nor will factories continue to produce just so their production can be taken from them. The socialists think nothing of attacking corporations who produce most of the world's goods. They do not know how they will continue to produce without corporations but they seem to think they can do it. Actually, they do not seem to have even thought ahead that far. We have said it before: capitalism is the most efficient way to provide for the most urgent needs of mankind.

Senator Murry again treated us to the story of Marcelas Owens whose mother died because she lost her health insurance. I have not heard the press explain this story in any more detail. It seems to me that the mother could have obtained emergency life saving care if she had sought it out. Both the states and charities provide ample free care for the needy. What is instructive to me in this story is this: Hypothetically, the mother required some advanced procedure that was available in this country. The reason that the procedure was available is because our health care system with its corporations and insurance companies provided that procedure. They did the research and development, which was financed by investors who believed that through insurance and other means, consumers would be able to pay for their service. If our health care had been socialised years ago, the procedure would not even exist. Even if she had state supplied coverage, the procedure would never have been produced so she, and the rest of us, would be out of luck.

It is hard for the victims of socialist propaganda to see the error in their ways. It would require the ability to envision what might and could have been.

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.)

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.

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.