Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics: Benedict Arlen Explains Himself

In today's Washington Post, Benedict Arlen tries to explain why he will vote for the so-called Stimulus Bill. I have taken the liberty of parsing the article for you:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

Wrong. The country cannot afford to rush into a cesspool of debt from which she will never recover.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

Wrong. We have already thrown 350 Billion down that rat hole, to no discernible effect. How is throwing more supposed to solve anything?

Too late for what exactly, Senator? Too late for you and your elitist, ruling-class pals to grab control of huge swaths of the American economy? Too late to provide the President with the false shield of 'bi-partisanship' he so clearly seeks? Too late to keep the great unwashed from finding out what's really in this boondoggle? Too late to scare the average American into taking this crap lying down?

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations.

Well whose fault is that? The compliant media sings from the President's hymnal to achieve the desired, intentional outcome of fear and low expectations.

As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

Wrong...or if not wrong, then 'why do we care'? I for one am sick of pompous Washington pols telling me what the rest of the world thinks of me, my lifestyle, my country. Joining the world's merry band of Socialist states might please Europe, but we'll pass, thank you very much.

The legislation known as the "moderates" bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama's stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions -- many of them worthy in themselves -- that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

Wrong. There's nothing 'moderate' about American elected officials negotiating away the very fabric of the United States under the guise of 'saving jobs'. Cut taxes? Absolutely! All of them! For everyone, for every business. See my three-point plan for reviving the economy for more ideas.

Only in government Newspeak can we justify "less-essential provisions". Get a clue, Arlen et al...if it is not essential you have no business doing it. Period. End of discussion. Sending millions to foreign countries to pay for abortions may be 'essential' to the infanticide-supporting President and some of his contributors, but it does absolutely nothing for the American economy. Millions for ACORN and other 'community organizers' will be equally useless to America. One of my personal favorites is the so-called tax credit for people who do not pay taxes, including illegal aliens. We already have a word for this activity: welfare.

These and countless other 'less-essential' provisions are nothing more than quid pro quo for the President's campaign supporters.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

Wrong. The private sector creates real jobs. Government make-work jobs, bureaucratic paper-pushers and the like simply create an even bigger burden on the private sector.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the proposed cuts "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on education. Her objections are a warning to conservatives that more cuts would be unlikely to win House approval. They are also an admission of the high price that moderates have been able to extract for their support of stimulus legislation.

Well of course she does! Princess Pelosi is quite open about her desire to quickly, radically, permanently alter the structure of this country into a Socialist utopia of her making. You can no more be a little bit Socialist than you can a little bit pregnant, Senator. You either is or you ain't. From where I sit, you is.

If a stimulus bill doesn't pass, there won't be any money for Title I education programs. The moderates' bill provides marginally less money for Title I than the House and Senate bills. But while it's less than supporters want, this proverbial half a loaf beats no loaf by a mile.

In health funding, both the House and Senate bills contain billions of dollars for wellness and prevention programs, including for smoking cessation, prenatal screening and counseling, education, and immunization. The moderates' bill, regrettably but necessarily, cancels this funding on the grounds that such programs are better left to the regular appropriations process.

Oh NO! Without this black hole of spiraling debt, there won't be any education! Senator Specter, have you taken a look at government education lately? We already have little to no education going on. The public schools are doing a bang-up job of creating good little comrades, though...and that's what we really need to keep funding, isn't it?

"Regrettably" cancels billions for smoking cessation, prenatal screening, etc? Why regrettably? What do any of those programs have to do with saving the economy? Not a thing, but then again, that isn't the point.

"In politics," John Kennedy used to say, "nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something." My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates' compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

Get real. Here's what the deal actually is: some get most, most get none and everyone loses freedom. You cannot balance the concerns of freedom and tyranny. You cannot compromise with it. Every member of Congress took an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Any one who votes for this destruction-of-America-as-we-know-it bill has violated their oath of office and betrayed their country. Nothing less.

Benedict Arlen Specter is a Republican-in-name-only senator from Pennsylvania.

The Day After in America

Well, Americans have spoken and I don't quite know where to begin. Sixteen years ago I decided to put down the TV remote and get involved in politics because my country was heading down the sewer. Little did I know how much worse it would become. I never imagined the day would come when 'we', the American voters, would gleefully line up for the chance to elect a top-to-bottom roster of Socialists, but come it has.

Oh, I know. They call themselves Democrats, 'progressives'. Whatever. A Marxist by any other name is still a Marxist. It does not bode well for America. We have had ample opportunity to study the inevitable results of Marxist/statist/progressive/socialist policies by examining what has happened to Europe... but we did not. We had ample opportunity to scrutinize the ideas and opinions of Senator Obama: spread the wealth around, bankrupt the coal industry, mandate what vehicles the American auto industry must build, impose a global poverty tax on America and on and on and on, but again we did not. We emoted. We chanted. We hoped for change, and change we shall have.

The Republicans bear at least some of the blame for this national hard left turn. They didn't exactly give the people a clear contrast in ideas or actions. They did not govern with either core principles or vision. George W. Bush and his administration (with complicit Democrats) dramatically accelerated the rise of American socialism over the past few months by nationalizing the credit and banking industry, transferring billions of tax dollars to a private insurance company and ordering the Treasury Department to take over certain home mortgages. They built our nation's Marxist coffin. By electing a Marxist to the Presidency, the American people have put their country in it. That is not change I can believe in.

Today I will rest, reflect and regroup. Tomorrow the struggle begins anew, because liberty requires eternal vigilance. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

The Moody Blues, "Melancholy Man"

Obama for President...

Obama's Three Circles of Shame

Bill Whittle posted this excellent essay on the now-infamous 2001 Obama radio interview on his blog, EjectEjectEject.com. It is MUST reading for anyone who isn't quite sure why all of this matters. The survival of our country as we know it is at stake in one short week. The links, graphics and video were added by me.

SHAME, CUBED

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

Barack Obama, in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

A caller then helpfully asks:

“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”


THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top:

“…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: it means re-distribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and the hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This re-distribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the Chief Executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to many voters. So I would appeal to ANY American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will BEG you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear:

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

The United States of America – 5% of the world’s population – leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically and culturally – and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due – due entirely – to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw:

“…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context – the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232 year history, elected a President who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you – regardless of your political affiliation – then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for President of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

"Shame", The Motels

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME

Mercifully shorter than the First, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next President of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly-paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information… who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly ONE.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: it only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone – even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: the press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell – your own personal hell – is a fiery lake of Irrelevance, blinding clouds of Obscurity, and burning, everlasting Scorn.

You’ve earned it.

THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME

This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?

Obama Admits Radical Redistribution Agenda

He details his desire to redistribute wealth in America and how best to achieve this goal, including his lament that the Supreme Court never addressed the issue of redistribution. He also rejects the notion that the Warren court was 'radical', noting it never broke "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers" in the Constitution!

Barack Obama is without doubt the most radical Socialist to ever seek the Presidency. If he is elected, we will lose the last remnants of our free republic.

Bailout of Wall Street Called "Socialist", "Communist". Congressman Offers Alternate Plan

Michigan Congressman Thaddeus (Thad) McCotter (R-11) issued the following press release this morning. Good on ya, Thad! [emphasis added ~Ed]

Washington, DC – Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, today released the following statement:

“I was not elected to abet American socialism.

Thus, I am opposing the Bush administration’s taxpayer funded, trillion dollar Wall Street bailout; and, alternatively, proposing a pro-taxpayer, free market, private recapitalization plan for the banking system; ending financial chaos; and preventing the advent of Wall Street Socialism.

Drawn from the free-market ideas of the public and our members, this proposal is premised upon the following principle: Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector.

True, some will still assert the administration’s support of Wall Street’s leveraged bailout at taxpayers’ expense is the only answer to this crisis of confidence. They are dead wrong.

First, we must never punish the innocent to profit the guilty.

Secondly, a taxpayer bailout is never the first or only resort. If it is claimed to be so, the object of the bailout is already too far gone to be saved.

Thirdly, this trillion dollar taxpayer bailout will not prevent a Great Depression. It will promote a Greater Depression.

While there exist a host of other reasons, for the sake of brevity let me reiterate: The Paulson Plan is premised upon a public bailout. A better plan is premised upon private recapitalization. Thus, I oppose the Paulson Plan’s raid on the taxpayers; and I will continue fighting to ensure the Wall Street crowd who made this mess pay to clean it up.”

Congressman McCotter is not content to simply criticize the plan on the table; he has drafted a plan of his own, EARN or the "Expedited American Recapitalization - Now" Act:

Expedited American Recapitalization - Now (EARN) Act Proceedings: A sunset bill that makes available to financial institutions a pre-packaged recapitalization (EARN) proceeding in which debt forgiveness is expedited. (This is similar to expedited bankruptcy proceedings. The strike warrant price will determine values.)

Inducement to EARN Proceedings: To induce financial institutions to undergo EARN proceedings, future government recapitalization (if necessary) may not be offered to a financial institution which does not go through an EARN proceeding.

Incentivize Private Recapitalization: If, within a limited one year window (commencing upon this legislation’s enactment into law), a person invests in (i.e., recapitalizes) a financial institution that has undergone an EARN proceeding, this investment over its lifetime is subject to a ZERO capital gains tax rate. If, within the same one year window, a person purchases a toxic asset, this investment over its lifetime is subject to a ZERO capital gains tax rate.

Government Backstop: If no private capital is forthcoming, the government can take a preferred equity stake in an EARN financial institution. No dividends may be paid to any other investor until the taxpayers’ claim is redeemed with appropriate interest. The government shall also hold voting rights, as determined by the percentage of its equity shares owned, in an EARN financial institution only until such time as the taxpayers’ claim is redeemed with appropriate interest. (This addresses CEO salaries and bonuses without permanently vitiating the private sector’s setting of compensation.)

Distressed Homeowner Relief: 5% of all government recapitalization invested in an EARN financial institution must be dedicated to an across-the-board reduction in the face value of “toxic” mortgages. This will help keep people in their homes; stabilize the foreclosure crisis; and begin to stabilize and raise all homeowners’ values.

Non-EARN Financial Institutions: Financial institutions choosing not to participate in an EARN proceeding, may wall off their toxic assets (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) which were purchased between December 2003 and August 2007. For these toxic assets, the current mark-to-market rule will be suspended and replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market; and for a fee, insurance of these toxic assets can then be purchased from the federal government. If, within the above referenced one year window a person purchases a toxic asset, this investment over its lifetime is subject to only HALF the capital gains tax rate applicable at present; if the capital gains tax changes, the toxic asset’s purchaser possesses the option, upon alienating the toxic asset, of being taxed at the capital gains rate applicable at the enactment date of this legislation into law.

Market Transparency and Congressional Oversight: To ensure Market Transparency, the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to examine any and all appropriate financial records at any time of financial institutions and individuals covered under this act; and Congress at any time may request of the Secretary of the Treasury any and all information required to protect the taxpayers’ investment incurred under this act.

End “Too Big To Fail”: Make an express commitment to a future, pro-active regulatory system in which a market share cap provision is imposed upon financial institutions to prevent future taxpayer bailouts and market meltdowns due to entities deemed “too big to fail.”

American Families’ Prosperity Package: Make an express commitment to further American families’ prosperity in a free market future by enacting pro-growth legislation, including, but not limited to: an “all of the above” American energy security plan; income tax and capital gains relief; the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley; suspend the mark-to-market rule for all financial institutions for six months and replace it with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market; GSE privatization; and dollar stabilization. (See Gingrich and RSC proposals.)

Ultimate Cost to Taxpayers: ZERO!

Bill Perkins, a private, Houston-based venture capitalist placed a $130,000 dollar, full-page ad in the New York Times which consisted only of the following cartoon. Note the demise of Capitalism and Private Enterprise.

Mr. Perkins explains it to Fox Business. Or at least tries to.

David Littman, the brilliant former Chief Economist for Comerica Bank, now with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, wrote a scathing Op-Ed in today's Detroit News (links added by me). In Reject Bailout Rush to Socialism, Littman says,

"The proposed federal intervention (up to a $1 trillion bailout of distressed assets and bonus-paying firms) is the antithesis of what the competitive markets of capitalism would permit."

[SNIP]

Yet, to cover their corrupting decisions and past complaisance, Washington's major mouthpieces -- from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd -- now say that unless we trust them with a new round of our scarce resources, the U.S. economic system will collapse. This rhetoric is meant to panic us into accepting a new federal steward of our hard-earned dollars. But when you dissect the palaver, what you see is a bare-knuckled proposal to further centralize federal control over the marketplace of investments and savings. Such a revolutionary move is socialism. It will not simply be a matter of taxing the rich or those with some ability to pay for the purpose of redistributing shelter to the poor. It will represent an institutionalization of financing immoral behavior.

[SNIP]

There may yet be time to stop this debacle, but 'we the people' are going to have to help. Call, fax or e-mail your member of Congress and your Senators. Ditto the White House. Let's demand a free market solution - before it's too late.