Did you ever think that the most despised group of professionals in the world are lawyers and, just by chance, the majority of the liberal Democrat Party, i.e. The New Socialist Progressive Party, NSPP, is made up of lawyers - does this answer a lot of questions?
There are more jokes about lawyers than any other group of professionals that I know and they are all depicted as underhanded, totally unscrupulous and completely without any moral fiber. They will take your last dime in fees even if it means you will become destitute. After all it's not about you, it's about them.
Does this sound like the Democrats of today, the NSPP? - it should as most of them are lawyers. If the NSPP gets control on the government in November, tin cups and pencils will be a scare commodity.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined.
The Lawyers' Party
By Bruce Walker (The American Thinker)
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Benson, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.
When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class action suit. We are citizens of a republic which promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing. We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America.
Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse. I just hope it's not too late!.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Nuclear Iran : A Continuing Threat
I suspect we will be the last to know just how far the Iran's are along with their development of a workable nuclear weapon - but we probably will be the first to find out that they actually have one and used it.
The New Socialist Progressives, formerly liberal Democrats, and their puppets in the media, used parts of the National Intelligence Estimate Report, NIE, taken out of context of course, to further their efforts to damage the Republicans and the few Democrats that remain on this side of sanity, by howling protests that the war in Iraq was for nothing but Bush's oil buddies.
The new report late last month has a different view from the first, although the first one didn't come to the same conclusions that the NSPP did, or the managed news of the media ,of course. The old NIE, as well as the new one, paints a different story, only this time they are further along in the development of a bomb and a system to delivery it.
Who do we listen to here? Certainly not congress and the media has never been right on any issue that concerns national security, why believe anything they or the liberal left have to say - that is, any of the socialist progressives in out senate, that up to this point in time, have sided with anyone that hates the United Sates. What? We have people that represent us that side with our enemies? Who knew?
Again, we need to stay on our toes and demand common sense and transparency from our representatives - call now and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
WAR & PIECES
By PETER BROOKES April 13, 2008 -- Heritage Foundation
New information continues to blast away at last November's controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the supposed dormant state of Iran's nuclear weapons program, which the US intelligence community believes ended in 2003.
This week, Iran announced putting an additional 6,000 centrifuges on-line at its underground Natanz uranium enrichment plant and opening a new facility for processing uranium ore into yellowcake, the first step in the uranium enrichment process. As is well known, Iran already has 3,000 centrifuges spinning at Natanz, which - if unchecked - could produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon if running "efficiently" 24/7 for a year. (Fortunately, from an engineering perspective, experts question how efficiently the centrifuges are operating, which could slow or inhibit the production of enriched uranium - the long-pole in the tent of nuclear weapons development.)
The new uranium ore facility and the trebling of Iran's enrichment capacity to 9,000 centrifuges means Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for several nuclear weapons in a year's time. Of course, Tehran has also long made clear it plans to move toward industrial-scale uranium enrichment, which could include as many as 54,000 centrifuges, providing capacity for a substantive nuclear arsenal.
The United Nations Security Council has called upon Tehran repeatedly to halt uranium enrichment - which it hasn't - causing Turtle Bay to impose punitive economic sanctions on Iran no less than three times (the latest in March) over its "peaceful" nuclear program.
It gets worse . . .
In February, based on intelligence from a number of countries - not just the United States - the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), made several startling conclusions about Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA intelligence showed that after 2003, Iran was involved in studies on multipoint detonation systems for nuclear weapons, which are critical for triggering a chain reaction in a nuclear detonation.The Vienna-based organization also concluded Tehran had been involved in work as late as 2004 on the design of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-class ballistic missile, which can strike the entire Middle East, including Israel, and southern Europe, too.
The nuclear agency also asserted that Iran had been involved in undeclared uranium conversion activities, beyond their declared work at their Isfahan plant, where they're turning yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride gas for enrichment at Natanz. Increasing suspicion, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the launch of a single-stage ballistic missile described as a "space launch vehicle," or SLV, from a new space center in northern Iran.
While Iran's space launch program could be relatively benign, such as for putting communications or scientific satellites into orbit, it could also be setting the stage for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile program. Theoretically, if you can launch a ballistic missile that can place a satellite into earth orbit, you have the scientific wherewithal to hit a target anywhere on Earth with a warhead, including a nuclear weapon.
Not surprisingly, just this month, the US intelligence community began to walk back its estimate on the state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program as set forth in the NIE. Just two weeks ago, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden noted: "Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff [i.e., economic sanctions] they appear to be willing to pay for what they are doing if they did not have, at a minimum . . . a desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and perhaps even more so that they have already decided to do that?"
Hayden continued to try to explain away the wide-spread public misperception over the NIE by adding: "The other aspects of the Iranian nuclear effort, beyond weaponization, the development of fissile materials, [and] the development of delivery systems, all continue apace." Hayden's boss, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, also chimed in, lamenting that the declassification of the NIE was done hastily and "If I had to do it over again, I would be very specific in how I described what was cancelled and what continued. "These recantations are all fine and good, but the damage in the court of world opinion has been done. Our allies on this issue, especially in Europe, see the unclassified publication of the NIE as extremely unhelpful in advancing a case against Iran.
Unfortunately, all signals point to Iran having the seemingly undeniable strategic intent of developing a nuclear weapons capability. So why does it appear we may have gotten it wrong?Several reasons come to mind. First, the public only saw the NIE's unclassified key judgments, which may not have accurately reflected the classified version of the 140-plus page report. Second, Iran is a "tough target" for intelligence collection. Third, an NIE is more like a photograph than a movie; it's based on what you know at a specific moment in time. Fourth, written by human beings, NIEs are vulnerable to individual biases.
But regardless, the fate of this country's security is tied to estimates like these. Intelligence is our first line of defense in a dangerous world. We must get it right for the benefit of both the public as well as the policymakers.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
The New Socialist Progressives, formerly liberal Democrats, and their puppets in the media, used parts of the National Intelligence Estimate Report, NIE, taken out of context of course, to further their efforts to damage the Republicans and the few Democrats that remain on this side of sanity, by howling protests that the war in Iraq was for nothing but Bush's oil buddies.
The new report late last month has a different view from the first, although the first one didn't come to the same conclusions that the NSPP did, or the managed news of the media ,of course. The old NIE, as well as the new one, paints a different story, only this time they are further along in the development of a bomb and a system to delivery it.
Who do we listen to here? Certainly not congress and the media has never been right on any issue that concerns national security, why believe anything they or the liberal left have to say - that is, any of the socialist progressives in out senate, that up to this point in time, have sided with anyone that hates the United Sates. What? We have people that represent us that side with our enemies? Who knew?
Again, we need to stay on our toes and demand common sense and transparency from our representatives - call now and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
WAR & PIECES
By PETER BROOKES April 13, 2008 -- Heritage Foundation
New information continues to blast away at last November's controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the supposed dormant state of Iran's nuclear weapons program, which the US intelligence community believes ended in 2003.
This week, Iran announced putting an additional 6,000 centrifuges on-line at its underground Natanz uranium enrichment plant and opening a new facility for processing uranium ore into yellowcake, the first step in the uranium enrichment process. As is well known, Iran already has 3,000 centrifuges spinning at Natanz, which - if unchecked - could produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon if running "efficiently" 24/7 for a year. (Fortunately, from an engineering perspective, experts question how efficiently the centrifuges are operating, which could slow or inhibit the production of enriched uranium - the long-pole in the tent of nuclear weapons development.)
The new uranium ore facility and the trebling of Iran's enrichment capacity to 9,000 centrifuges means Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for several nuclear weapons in a year's time. Of course, Tehran has also long made clear it plans to move toward industrial-scale uranium enrichment, which could include as many as 54,000 centrifuges, providing capacity for a substantive nuclear arsenal.
The United Nations Security Council has called upon Tehran repeatedly to halt uranium enrichment - which it hasn't - causing Turtle Bay to impose punitive economic sanctions on Iran no less than three times (the latest in March) over its "peaceful" nuclear program.
It gets worse . . .
In February, based on intelligence from a number of countries - not just the United States - the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), made several startling conclusions about Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA intelligence showed that after 2003, Iran was involved in studies on multipoint detonation systems for nuclear weapons, which are critical for triggering a chain reaction in a nuclear detonation.The Vienna-based organization also concluded Tehran had been involved in work as late as 2004 on the design of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-class ballistic missile, which can strike the entire Middle East, including Israel, and southern Europe, too.
The nuclear agency also asserted that Iran had been involved in undeclared uranium conversion activities, beyond their declared work at their Isfahan plant, where they're turning yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride gas for enrichment at Natanz. Increasing suspicion, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the launch of a single-stage ballistic missile described as a "space launch vehicle," or SLV, from a new space center in northern Iran.
While Iran's space launch program could be relatively benign, such as for putting communications or scientific satellites into orbit, it could also be setting the stage for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile program. Theoretically, if you can launch a ballistic missile that can place a satellite into earth orbit, you have the scientific wherewithal to hit a target anywhere on Earth with a warhead, including a nuclear weapon.
Not surprisingly, just this month, the US intelligence community began to walk back its estimate on the state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program as set forth in the NIE. Just two weeks ago, CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden noted: "Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff [i.e., economic sanctions] they appear to be willing to pay for what they are doing if they did not have, at a minimum . . . a desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and perhaps even more so that they have already decided to do that?"
Hayden continued to try to explain away the wide-spread public misperception over the NIE by adding: "The other aspects of the Iranian nuclear effort, beyond weaponization, the development of fissile materials, [and] the development of delivery systems, all continue apace." Hayden's boss, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, also chimed in, lamenting that the declassification of the NIE was done hastily and "If I had to do it over again, I would be very specific in how I described what was cancelled and what continued. "These recantations are all fine and good, but the damage in the court of world opinion has been done. Our allies on this issue, especially in Europe, see the unclassified publication of the NIE as extremely unhelpful in advancing a case against Iran.
Unfortunately, all signals point to Iran having the seemingly undeniable strategic intent of developing a nuclear weapons capability. So why does it appear we may have gotten it wrong?Several reasons come to mind. First, the public only saw the NIE's unclassified key judgments, which may not have accurately reflected the classified version of the 140-plus page report. Second, Iran is a "tough target" for intelligence collection. Third, an NIE is more like a photograph than a movie; it's based on what you know at a specific moment in time. Fourth, written by human beings, NIEs are vulnerable to individual biases.
But regardless, the fate of this country's security is tied to estimates like these. Intelligence is our first line of defense in a dangerous world. We must get it right for the benefit of both the public as well as the policymakers.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Great Expectationions
Life is like this pup, he is saying, "whatchagot for me mom?" And mom says "I have a nice treat for you but first you have to do something for me - Sit! Stay! Good dog! Here is your treat."There is an old axiom 'There is no free lunch'. - somewhere, somehow you will wind up paying for what ever you do or want in this life and so it should be. If you learn to expect nothing for free, you will have learned a very essential lesson in control of your life and I can guarantee you will succeed in what ever you do.
This pup learned his lesson and got his treat - the older dogs don't have to be told what to do to get what they want, they see the treat and without being told, sit and stay.
Life's lessons learned well guarantee success.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Truely - A Test for Man's Best Friend
A dog is truly a man's best friend. If you don't believe it, just try this experiment. Put your dog and your wife in the trunk of the car for an hour. When you open the trunk,,,,, who is really happy to see you!!
Jimmy Carter's Continuing Love Affair with Terrorists
Is it possible to define Jimmy Carter in any other way other than as America's worst president and citizen? He never fails to set himself up to side with any tyrant or terrorist that will allow him to castigate everything American.
Jimmy Carter has a storied history of supporting mass killers and communists. As a true New Socialist Progressive Party member, he has supported such illuminaries as Hugo Chavez, he throw the election and reelection for Chavez, Yarser Aiafat, mass killer of thousands of Leboneses and Isreals, he gave out big wet kisses for all Soviet communist monsters as far back as Brevneive and he did it for all to see. He made no attempt to hide his total lack of loyelity to this country. The media loved the man because of his hatred for America and still does.
I really didn't think he could get any worse but he always proves me wrong. Even Clinton has more sense to hide his love for the terrorists, socialist tyrants because he extracts money from them for bashing America. He has to hide to cover the money trail. Again the press falls over themselves to cover this 'great America'.
NewMax and Rueters has a good article on this clown and his further attempts to destroy us with his support of terrorists.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
U.S., Israel Criticize Carter Plans to See Hamas
Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it had advised former President Jimmy Carter against meeting the leader of Hamas in Syria next week, saying it went against
U.S. policy of isolating the militant group.
Carter plans to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan during a nine-day trip due to start on Sunday but gave no details of specific meetings. "This is a study mission and our purpose is not to negotiate but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East," the Carter Center said in a statement.
"Our delegation has considerable experience in the region, and we go there with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties," it said.
Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, discussed with the State Department's point person on Israeli-Palestinian issues, David Welch, his plans to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, but the department said it went against U.S. policy.
"We counseled against it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
"U.S. government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interests of our policy or in the interests of peace to have such a meeting."
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, also expressed concern over such a meeting. "The unintended consequences of such a meeting would be to embolden terrorists and undermine the cause of peace," he told Reuters.
Carter, 83, served one term as president from 1977 to 1981. He succeeded in negotiating the 1978 Camp David Accords that paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt but he has increasingly taken positions highly critical of Israel. In a 2006 book, he described Israeli policy in the occupied territories as "a system of apartheid."
U.S. policy is to isolate Hamas, which has control of Gaza and is committed to the destruction of Israel. Washington sees pro-Western Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as its partner in U.S.-sponsored peace talks with the Israelis.
PLANS UNDER WAY
"There is an agreement to hold the meeting and arrangements are under way," Hamas official Ayman Taha told Reuters in Gaza of Carter's meeting. Taha said the meeting was to be held following a request from the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which aims to promote global peace, health, democracy and human rights.
A spokeswoman for Carter declined to comment on specific meetings. The delegation will include former first lady Rosalynn Carter and ex-Congressman Stephen Solarz.
Initially, Carter had hoped to go with a group of 'elder statesmen,' including former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former South African President Nelson Mandela, but the others decided the timing was wrong.
"The elders will consider consultations with key leaders in the region and outside with the purpose of developing a comprehensive report, but have decided to postpone their visit," said a statement on Tuesday from the group of 12 former leaders on their Web site, http://www.theelders.org/.
Carter has been harshly critical of the Bush administration's foreign policy, from the invasion of Iraq to its approach to Iran as well as the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
McCormack said the U.S. government would provide support for Carter's Syrian trip but would not take part in any of his meetings or the planning and scheduling of those talks.
Jimmy Carter has a storied history of supporting mass killers and communists. As a true New Socialist Progressive Party member, he has supported such illuminaries as Hugo Chavez, he throw the election and reelection for Chavez, Yarser Aiafat, mass killer of thousands of Leboneses and Isreals, he gave out big wet kisses for all Soviet communist monsters as far back as Brevneive and he did it for all to see. He made no attempt to hide his total lack of loyelity to this country. The media loved the man because of his hatred for America and still does.
I really didn't think he could get any worse but he always proves me wrong. Even Clinton has more sense to hide his love for the terrorists, socialist tyrants because he extracts money from them for bashing America. He has to hide to cover the money trail. Again the press falls over themselves to cover this 'great America'.
NewMax and Rueters has a good article on this clown and his further attempts to destroy us with his support of terrorists.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
U.S., Israel Criticize Carter Plans to See Hamas
Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it had advised former President Jimmy Carter against meeting the leader of Hamas in Syria next week, saying it went against
U.S. policy of isolating the militant group.
Carter plans to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan during a nine-day trip due to start on Sunday but gave no details of specific meetings. "This is a study mission and our purpose is not to negotiate but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East," the Carter Center said in a statement.
"Our delegation has considerable experience in the region, and we go there with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties," it said.
Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, discussed with the State Department's point person on Israeli-Palestinian issues, David Welch, his plans to meet exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, but the department said it went against U.S. policy.
"We counseled against it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
"U.S. government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interests of our policy or in the interests of peace to have such a meeting."
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, also expressed concern over such a meeting. "The unintended consequences of such a meeting would be to embolden terrorists and undermine the cause of peace," he told Reuters.
Carter, 83, served one term as president from 1977 to 1981. He succeeded in negotiating the 1978 Camp David Accords that paved the way for peace between Israel and Egypt but he has increasingly taken positions highly critical of Israel. In a 2006 book, he described Israeli policy in the occupied territories as "a system of apartheid."
U.S. policy is to isolate Hamas, which has control of Gaza and is committed to the destruction of Israel. Washington sees pro-Western Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as its partner in U.S.-sponsored peace talks with the Israelis.
PLANS UNDER WAY
"There is an agreement to hold the meeting and arrangements are under way," Hamas official Ayman Taha told Reuters in Gaza of Carter's meeting. Taha said the meeting was to be held following a request from the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which aims to promote global peace, health, democracy and human rights.
A spokeswoman for Carter declined to comment on specific meetings. The delegation will include former first lady Rosalynn Carter and ex-Congressman Stephen Solarz.
Initially, Carter had hoped to go with a group of 'elder statesmen,' including former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former South African President Nelson Mandela, but the others decided the timing was wrong.
"The elders will consider consultations with key leaders in the region and outside with the purpose of developing a comprehensive report, but have decided to postpone their visit," said a statement on Tuesday from the group of 12 former leaders on their Web site, http://www.theelders.org/.
Carter has been harshly critical of the Bush administration's foreign policy, from the invasion of Iraq to its approach to Iran as well as the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
McCormack said the U.S. government would provide support for Carter's Syrian trip but would not take part in any of his meetings or the planning and scheduling of those talks.
Market Economy Still Strong - Vibrant - Flexible
This is another great article that explains why we have the best economy in the world - even though the naysayers continually come out of the wood work to deny history. As anyone can see that cares about this country, the politics of failure is strictly part of a liberal Democrat, New Socialist Progressive Party, agenda designed to persuade the uninformed voter that we have no chance of survival without more government, i.e. high taxes.
I would never have believed we, in this country, would have this many closet socialists or com-munists, in our population. They are like sharks circling a victim that has a small cut - even the slightest scent of blood in the water will have the hoard ready to mindlessly attack.
Who are these people? Where do they come from in such large numbers? Worse, why do so many people that have everything to lose believe what these killers of common sense say is fact? Are there that many mindless and insecure robots working and enjoying the fruits of this great country ready to give it all up on the word of someone that they have never heard of before?
For the love of God, look around you - what do you see? Are we going down the tubes? Hardly. Get a grip. The malls are jammed - the restaurants are full - Virtually nothing has changed, only our priorities in the short term.
Come on people, read this great piece, get a grip and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Road to heaven still paved with free markets
*Terence Corcoran, National Post *Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008
When financial markets are gyrating and economic turmoil hits, declarations of pending cataclysm are frequently at hand. At such times -- junk bond crash, Asian currency crisis, Enron collapse, tech meltdown -- we are either said to be at the brink of the end of capitalism, brought down as Marx predicted by its own rampant greed and ritual lurches toward self-destruction, or we are set to plunge into some kind of replay of The Great Depression of the 1930s.
So it's no surprise there's a lot of this kind of talk around. The current star gloomster is Nouriel Roubini of New York University's Stern School of Business. He made an appearance on these pages two weeks ago under the headline "The coming financial pandemic." Mr. Roubini is now a household name among readers of Financial Times, where he is being lionized by Martin "The Mother of All Meltdowns" Wolf, and the Socialist Worker, which yesterday explored the "Shocking instability that is built into capitalism" by citing Mr. Roubini's scary estimate of global financial losses exceeding $6-trillion.
And now my good friend Michael Bliss has emerged from retirement to announce that the urrent U.S. subprime credit crisis marks the end of an era, the collapse of the "capitalist game" of the last few decades and the beginning of a return to regulation on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.
First, whether we -- Canada, the United States, the world -- are heading into some kind of economic cataclysm I cannot say. Alan Greenspan wrote the other day that the current financial crisis in the U.S. is "likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War." While that's bad, it's a far cry from the economy-wide devastation of the Great Depression.
It lasted 10 years, economic output fell 8.6% in 1930, 6.4% in 1931 and 13% in 1932. Unemployment hit 25%, wages fell 42% and world trade dropped 65%.Unless we plunge into that kind of economic hell, it's hard to imagine a return to what Mr. Bliss calls "massive new regulation of business, massive new taxation of wealth and sustained vilification of the values that have driven Wall Street and Bay Street."
How likely is it that Americans (or even Canadians) will insist on a an explosion of state intervention against business? Mr. Bliss cites Capital One's TV commercial portrayal of bankers as greedy vermin to be exterminated. It would be a mistake, I think, to blow an ad campaign into a political movement against banks -- especially since everybody knows Capital One is a bank.
At this point, I'm not sure whether Mr. Bliss is being predictive or prescriptive. He certainly seems convinced there's been an "awesome failure of free enterprise," and the state needs to step in "to protect us all from the havoc wreaked by greed and incompetence." And he adds: "My good friend Terence Corcoran will find his way to heaven still blaming accountants and regulators for the crack-up." I always thought Mr. Bliss would be joining me in heaven, but now I'm not so sure. He seems to be taking far too much glee in the idea that politicians, bureaucrats and regulators will -- and should -- be called in to overthrow free market capitalism.
Whatever the real failings of the capitalists whose risk detection systems failed -- to their own peril and at massive loss to themselves -- it's not as if they operated in a deregulated free market unfettered by bureaucratic and political interference. Banks have been subject to elaborate controls for years. Fresh accounting and bank capital rules are newly imposed at regular intervals. Post-Enron regulations blanket all public corporations and their employees.
But let's take a look at one of the bigger non-capitalist boondoggles behind the current credit crisis.Where did the U.S. subprime mortgage boom come from? In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration asked the U.S. department of housing to come up with a National Homeownership Strategy.
Working with private and public institutions, the strategy was to "achieve an all-time high level of homeownership in America within the next six years." Plans included innovative schemes to streamline transaction costs, bring in creative financing rules, ease land assembly and get money for mortgages into the hands of people who had no money.
To fulfill the American Dream it advocated, among other things, "financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors," to help home buyers who lack cash to buy a home or get income to make down payments. By the Bush years, the program had ballooned to encompass dozens of initiatives, including the American Dream Down Payment Fund and the Home Investment Opportunity Program.
The strategy worked, says Joseph Mason, associate professor of finance at Drexel University LeBow College of Business. "It worked really well. Some might say too well." U.S. home ownership rose to record highs by 2007. But it was a strategy that promoted risk, and when coupled with financial engineering wizards, the risks multiplied.
If there's a backlash to come, maybe it will hit business. But maybe it will turn--as it should--against the massive regulatory regimes that already exist.
tcorcoran@nationalpost.com
I would never have believed we, in this country, would have this many closet socialists or com-munists, in our population. They are like sharks circling a victim that has a small cut - even the slightest scent of blood in the water will have the hoard ready to mindlessly attack.
Who are these people? Where do they come from in such large numbers? Worse, why do so many people that have everything to lose believe what these killers of common sense say is fact? Are there that many mindless and insecure robots working and enjoying the fruits of this great country ready to give it all up on the word of someone that they have never heard of before?
For the love of God, look around you - what do you see? Are we going down the tubes? Hardly. Get a grip. The malls are jammed - the restaurants are full - Virtually nothing has changed, only our priorities in the short term.
Come on people, read this great piece, get a grip and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Road to heaven still paved with free markets
*Terence Corcoran, National Post *Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008
When financial markets are gyrating and economic turmoil hits, declarations of pending cataclysm are frequently at hand. At such times -- junk bond crash, Asian currency crisis, Enron collapse, tech meltdown -- we are either said to be at the brink of the end of capitalism, brought down as Marx predicted by its own rampant greed and ritual lurches toward self-destruction, or we are set to plunge into some kind of replay of The Great Depression of the 1930s.
So it's no surprise there's a lot of this kind of talk around. The current star gloomster is Nouriel Roubini of New York University's Stern School of Business. He made an appearance on these pages two weeks ago under the headline "The coming financial pandemic." Mr. Roubini is now a household name among readers of Financial Times, where he is being lionized by Martin "The Mother of All Meltdowns" Wolf, and the Socialist Worker, which yesterday explored the "Shocking instability that is built into capitalism" by citing Mr. Roubini's scary estimate of global financial losses exceeding $6-trillion.
And now my good friend Michael Bliss has emerged from retirement to announce that the urrent U.S. subprime credit crisis marks the end of an era, the collapse of the "capitalist game" of the last few decades and the beginning of a return to regulation on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.
First, whether we -- Canada, the United States, the world -- are heading into some kind of economic cataclysm I cannot say. Alan Greenspan wrote the other day that the current financial crisis in the U.S. is "likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War." While that's bad, it's a far cry from the economy-wide devastation of the Great Depression.
It lasted 10 years, economic output fell 8.6% in 1930, 6.4% in 1931 and 13% in 1932. Unemployment hit 25%, wages fell 42% and world trade dropped 65%.Unless we plunge into that kind of economic hell, it's hard to imagine a return to what Mr. Bliss calls "massive new regulation of business, massive new taxation of wealth and sustained vilification of the values that have driven Wall Street and Bay Street."
How likely is it that Americans (or even Canadians) will insist on a an explosion of state intervention against business? Mr. Bliss cites Capital One's TV commercial portrayal of bankers as greedy vermin to be exterminated. It would be a mistake, I think, to blow an ad campaign into a political movement against banks -- especially since everybody knows Capital One is a bank.
At this point, I'm not sure whether Mr. Bliss is being predictive or prescriptive. He certainly seems convinced there's been an "awesome failure of free enterprise," and the state needs to step in "to protect us all from the havoc wreaked by greed and incompetence." And he adds: "My good friend Terence Corcoran will find his way to heaven still blaming accountants and regulators for the crack-up." I always thought Mr. Bliss would be joining me in heaven, but now I'm not so sure. He seems to be taking far too much glee in the idea that politicians, bureaucrats and regulators will -- and should -- be called in to overthrow free market capitalism.
Whatever the real failings of the capitalists whose risk detection systems failed -- to their own peril and at massive loss to themselves -- it's not as if they operated in a deregulated free market unfettered by bureaucratic and political interference. Banks have been subject to elaborate controls for years. Fresh accounting and bank capital rules are newly imposed at regular intervals. Post-Enron regulations blanket all public corporations and their employees.
But let's take a look at one of the bigger non-capitalist boondoggles behind the current credit crisis.Where did the U.S. subprime mortgage boom come from? In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration asked the U.S. department of housing to come up with a National Homeownership Strategy.
Working with private and public institutions, the strategy was to "achieve an all-time high level of homeownership in America within the next six years." Plans included innovative schemes to streamline transaction costs, bring in creative financing rules, ease land assembly and get money for mortgages into the hands of people who had no money.
To fulfill the American Dream it advocated, among other things, "financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors," to help home buyers who lack cash to buy a home or get income to make down payments. By the Bush years, the program had ballooned to encompass dozens of initiatives, including the American Dream Down Payment Fund and the Home Investment Opportunity Program.
The strategy worked, says Joseph Mason, associate professor of finance at Drexel University LeBow College of Business. "It worked really well. Some might say too well." U.S. home ownership rose to record highs by 2007. But it was a strategy that promoted risk, and when coupled with financial engineering wizards, the risks multiplied.
If there's a backlash to come, maybe it will hit business. But maybe it will turn--as it should--against the massive regulatory regimes that already exist.
tcorcoran@nationalpost.com
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Hard Work and Self-discipline Equals Success
Anyone that has worked for a living, no matter what the job, with their hands or brain, and was successful had to have self-discipline. Without it you will be a failure - no matter if it's building a bridge or losing weight, it all comes down to setting a goal and then working hard to accomplish that goal.
This following sentence is true to form as is the Proverb that follows. I don't know the author but it doesn't matter, it works.
"Putting things off, making excuses, taking a rest - no amount of good intentions in the world make up for the lack of self-discipline. The result is poverty, frustrations and broken relationships."
Proverbs 24: 33-34
"a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hads to rest and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like a armed man."
This following sentence is true to form as is the Proverb that follows. I don't know the author but it doesn't matter, it works.
"Putting things off, making excuses, taking a rest - no amount of good intentions in the world make up for the lack of self-discipline. The result is poverty, frustrations and broken relationships."
Proverbs 24: 33-34
"a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hads to rest and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like a armed man."
Five Reasons to Win In Iraq - Not Cut and Run
This is from the Heritage Foundation - an organization that has a track record of being right!!
Five reasons America must win in Iraq
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of allied forces in Iraq, testified Tuesday before Congress about the ongoing military operations and the success of the surge strategy in securing the country.
Five reasons America must win in Iraq
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of allied forces in Iraq, testified Tuesday before Congress about the ongoing military operations and the success of the surge strategy in securing the country.
Who Must Take Responsibility for American Success or failure?
I have always believed, and have stated such in these post, that the politicians in this country do not take responsibility for anything they do, especially the Democrats.
Why do I single out the Democrats, easy, they do not believe they have to take any responsibility for their actions as the Democrat Party never has accepted any responsibility for anything that it's members do, regardless of the severity of the infraction. Witness Teddy Kennedy, William Jefferson and Bill Clinton as just some of the more high profile Democrats that have committed huge offenses and yet remain in office.
Where as the Republicans are tossed out of office at the first hint of scandal. Why, easy, the Republican Party has rules that state the offending party must step down for the betterment of the party and the country. No such rules exist in the Democrat Party.
Are all the Republicans saints? - hardly - after all they are politicians and therefore by definition corrupt in some way.
At the same time, politicians must take responsibility for how the vote as well - wouldn't that be a noval idea, if you vote to raise taxes and the economy suffers becasue of it, you stand up and say I made a mistake, we must change our vote to reflect reality. Goodness, how refreshing would that be?
I guess then instead of voting them all out of office, we as the voting public, should make ourselves heard, demanding common sense and loyalty to our country when serving in the congress. Not allowing them to use their office as a vehicle to get rich or try and establish a new form of government that enslaves us and our off spring.
Fortify your selves, then, for the coming vote with resolve to do the right thing in November, the next time might not come along for decades.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
HOW TO VOTE
This column was written by a guy named Charley Reese whose stuff appears primarily in Florida newspapers.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court Justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly,legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to say no. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is NOT their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER of The House of Representitives, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense over-runs, that are not traceable directly to those 545. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and cleanup their mess.
Rigdon Terrell - Business Services Manager
Why do I single out the Democrats, easy, they do not believe they have to take any responsibility for their actions as the Democrat Party never has accepted any responsibility for anything that it's members do, regardless of the severity of the infraction. Witness Teddy Kennedy, William Jefferson and Bill Clinton as just some of the more high profile Democrats that have committed huge offenses and yet remain in office.
Where as the Republicans are tossed out of office at the first hint of scandal. Why, easy, the Republican Party has rules that state the offending party must step down for the betterment of the party and the country. No such rules exist in the Democrat Party.
Are all the Republicans saints? - hardly - after all they are politicians and therefore by definition corrupt in some way.
At the same time, politicians must take responsibility for how the vote as well - wouldn't that be a noval idea, if you vote to raise taxes and the economy suffers becasue of it, you stand up and say I made a mistake, we must change our vote to reflect reality. Goodness, how refreshing would that be?
I guess then instead of voting them all out of office, we as the voting public, should make ourselves heard, demanding common sense and loyalty to our country when serving in the congress. Not allowing them to use their office as a vehicle to get rich or try and establish a new form of government that enslaves us and our off spring.
Fortify your selves, then, for the coming vote with resolve to do the right thing in November, the next time might not come along for decades.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
HOW TO VOTE
This column was written by a guy named Charley Reese whose stuff appears primarily in Florida newspapers.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court Justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly,legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to say no. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is NOT their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER of The House of Representitives, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense over-runs, that are not traceable directly to those 545. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or"politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and cleanup their mess.
Rigdon Terrell - Business Services Manager
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Liberals Hate Personal Success ; Socialist Defeatism
This article, from the American Spectator, brings to light the on going defeatism of the socialist left in this country. (The New Socialist Progressive Party, NSPP, formerly the liberal Democrats) The continuing drum beat of failure in anything that might some how be connected to the American dream is a main stay of the NSPP.
No matter what we might try or do to advance our selves for personal achievement, or help our country to become a bastion of freedom and Democracy, the socialist, NSPP, agenda of government suppression and control is trumpeted as a better system for America even in the face of catastrophic failure world wide. Why do so many people buy into this nonsense?
The new socialist liberal, NSPP, will always be on guard to do their best to bring down freedom and Democracy in America - they are easy to spot as well - just look for the pundit that continually predicts failure of the American dream, failure of American exceptionalism, failure of capitalism - everything about our country is a failure. But year after year, decade after decade, they are proved wrong.
Question - when did you ever hear a socialist say they were wrong in their dire predictions about America? Yeah, I haven't heard anything from them either and we never will. They just wait in the darkness, seething with hatred, ready t0 strike at the light of success.
But, never mind those guys lurking in the shadows, gnashing their teeth and renting their clothing, we who dwell in the light will keep the faith, knowing the battle is joined!
A Possibility Of Prosperity
By R. EMMETT TYRRELL JR. April 4, 2008
Regarding the present economic apprehensions, may I counsel calm and good sense. As for those agitated voices in the chorus, ululating of our dire straits and even of depression and doom, remember they have been out there for years.Generally speaking, they are opportunistic liberals itching for power. It is not so surprising that their lamentations are so frequent but that they are so monotonous, for they have yet to be occasioned by either depression or doom. A pause here, a pause there, otherwise the American economy just keeps growing.
At the American Spectator we have maintained a department, "the Current Wisdom," wherein we have over the decades recorded the neurotic, albeit often opportunistic, jeremiads of these prophets of doom.
In reviewing these lamentations the perceptive reader will note two things: their failed prophecies and their unchanging bugaboos and rhetoric through all their head-on collisions with reality. In modern times no major American political point of view has been more out of synch with the facts than liberalism. Yet somehow the liberal point of view endures, failed prophesies and all.
To the liberal jeremiahs, America is forever on the hem of financial disaster along with other calamities. Our bellicose foreign policy threatens worldwide cataclysm. We are destroying habitat, impoverishing the poor, and impeding the progress of "the developing countries" toward the happy condition of, say, Sweden.
As this is an election year and there are problems in the economy — mainly in the financial sector — we are hearing ominous forecasts from the liberals as they plot a return to the White House. Their gruesome scenarios are chilling, but to those of us who have kept abreast of "the Current Wisdom" through the decades, the alarums are familiar to the point of tedium. The other day in the Washington Post there was a report that Senator McCain, presumptive Republican presidential candidate, had enlisted among his economic advisors former senator Phil Gramm whom liberal critics are trying to implicate in the troubled subprime sector of the economy.
In the Post story former Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich described Mr. Gramm as an advocate of "dog eat dog capitalism." Jared Bernstein, an economist, who like Mr. Reich, frets over free markets and volunteers his services to return the American economy to the delights of stagflation, is quoted as saying, "McCain is counting on people having very short memories" regarding the economy. Well, I have a long memory. One of my favorite outbursts of liberal economic angst came after the October 19, 1987, stock market swoon that itself came at the end of 59 straight months of economic growth. That, incidentally, brings to mind President Reagan 's joke that you could tell his economics were correct because derisive liberals "don't call it Reaganomics anymore."
In "the Current Wisdom" we recorded the mainstream liberal alarums. They were, as could be expected, hackneyed, hysterical, and wrong. Here is the above quoted Mr. Reich writing in the New York Times, "The binge is over. It couldn't go on forever — the quick fortunes [is he thinking about his friend Hillary Clinton $100,000 killing in cattle futures?], the midnight raids and computer driven program trades, the junk bonds, poison pills, leveraged buyouts, options — all the glitz and glamour, the danger and thrill. It's over … And the rest of us who pretended not to notice are left with the job of cleaning up the mess.
"Those foolish words were uttered on October 22. Two days before the Times editorialized: "In a statement issued last night, the White House asserted that the 'underlying economy remains sound.' With the fire alarm wailing on Wall Street and the country anxious for leadership, it gets an astonishing rerun of Herbert Hoover. When will Mr. Reagan start fighting the fire?" Actually the economy in that last quarter of 1987 grew at 4.8%.
Whether Reagan rode in on the hook-and-ladder I cannot recall. That last week of October Newsweek titled its news report "Panic 1987," and led with the sentence, "If it felt like the end of a world, that's because it was: last week's global crash has created a whole new financial reality … ."The news story droned on, "In disquieting echoes of Herbert Hoover, Reagan and his men proclaimed that 'the economic fundamentals in this country remain sound.'" Should I go on? The famous liberal economic pundit, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, "This debacle marks the last chapter of Reagonomics … ." Michael Kinsley wrote, "The Phillips Curve is about to boomerang upon us with a vengeance." New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, "The age of Reagan is over … ."
I believe you get my drift. The liberal chorus basically has been wrong about economics, certainly about economic setbacks, for a long time. Today's White House is sounding a bit like the Reagan administration in 1987, claiming that the economy is fundamentally sound. Back in 1987 the economy continued to grow until the brief and shallow recession of 1991. Today I make no prediction, but it does seem that economic fundamentals remain sound. If I am right, I do not expect to be quoted by my liberal friends in the prosperous years ahead.
Mr. Tyrrell is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor of The New York Sun and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute His book, "The Clinton Crack-Up The Boy President's Life After the White House" recently has been published by Thomas Nelson
No matter what we might try or do to advance our selves for personal achievement, or help our country to become a bastion of freedom and Democracy, the socialist, NSPP, agenda of government suppression and control is trumpeted as a better system for America even in the face of catastrophic failure world wide. Why do so many people buy into this nonsense?
The new socialist liberal, NSPP, will always be on guard to do their best to bring down freedom and Democracy in America - they are easy to spot as well - just look for the pundit that continually predicts failure of the American dream, failure of American exceptionalism, failure of capitalism - everything about our country is a failure. But year after year, decade after decade, they are proved wrong.
Question - when did you ever hear a socialist say they were wrong in their dire predictions about America? Yeah, I haven't heard anything from them either and we never will. They just wait in the darkness, seething with hatred, ready t0 strike at the light of success.
But, never mind those guys lurking in the shadows, gnashing their teeth and renting their clothing, we who dwell in the light will keep the faith, knowing the battle is joined!
A Possibility Of Prosperity
By R. EMMETT TYRRELL JR. April 4, 2008
Regarding the present economic apprehensions, may I counsel calm and good sense. As for those agitated voices in the chorus, ululating of our dire straits and even of depression and doom, remember they have been out there for years.Generally speaking, they are opportunistic liberals itching for power. It is not so surprising that their lamentations are so frequent but that they are so monotonous, for they have yet to be occasioned by either depression or doom. A pause here, a pause there, otherwise the American economy just keeps growing.
At the American Spectator we have maintained a department, "the Current Wisdom," wherein we have over the decades recorded the neurotic, albeit often opportunistic, jeremiads of these prophets of doom.
In reviewing these lamentations the perceptive reader will note two things: their failed prophecies and their unchanging bugaboos and rhetoric through all their head-on collisions with reality. In modern times no major American political point of view has been more out of synch with the facts than liberalism. Yet somehow the liberal point of view endures, failed prophesies and all.
To the liberal jeremiahs, America is forever on the hem of financial disaster along with other calamities. Our bellicose foreign policy threatens worldwide cataclysm. We are destroying habitat, impoverishing the poor, and impeding the progress of "the developing countries" toward the happy condition of, say, Sweden.
As this is an election year and there are problems in the economy — mainly in the financial sector — we are hearing ominous forecasts from the liberals as they plot a return to the White House. Their gruesome scenarios are chilling, but to those of us who have kept abreast of "the Current Wisdom" through the decades, the alarums are familiar to the point of tedium. The other day in the Washington Post there was a report that Senator McCain, presumptive Republican presidential candidate, had enlisted among his economic advisors former senator Phil Gramm whom liberal critics are trying to implicate in the troubled subprime sector of the economy.
In the Post story former Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich described Mr. Gramm as an advocate of "dog eat dog capitalism." Jared Bernstein, an economist, who like Mr. Reich, frets over free markets and volunteers his services to return the American economy to the delights of stagflation, is quoted as saying, "McCain is counting on people having very short memories" regarding the economy. Well, I have a long memory. One of my favorite outbursts of liberal economic angst came after the October 19, 1987, stock market swoon that itself came at the end of 59 straight months of economic growth. That, incidentally, brings to mind President Reagan 's joke that you could tell his economics were correct because derisive liberals "don't call it Reaganomics anymore."
In "the Current Wisdom" we recorded the mainstream liberal alarums. They were, as could be expected, hackneyed, hysterical, and wrong. Here is the above quoted Mr. Reich writing in the New York Times, "The binge is over. It couldn't go on forever — the quick fortunes [is he thinking about his friend Hillary Clinton $100,000 killing in cattle futures?], the midnight raids and computer driven program trades, the junk bonds, poison pills, leveraged buyouts, options — all the glitz and glamour, the danger and thrill. It's over … And the rest of us who pretended not to notice are left with the job of cleaning up the mess.
"Those foolish words were uttered on October 22. Two days before the Times editorialized: "In a statement issued last night, the White House asserted that the 'underlying economy remains sound.' With the fire alarm wailing on Wall Street and the country anxious for leadership, it gets an astonishing rerun of Herbert Hoover. When will Mr. Reagan start fighting the fire?" Actually the economy in that last quarter of 1987 grew at 4.8%.
Whether Reagan rode in on the hook-and-ladder I cannot recall. That last week of October Newsweek titled its news report "Panic 1987," and led with the sentence, "If it felt like the end of a world, that's because it was: last week's global crash has created a whole new financial reality … ."The news story droned on, "In disquieting echoes of Herbert Hoover, Reagan and his men proclaimed that 'the economic fundamentals in this country remain sound.'" Should I go on? The famous liberal economic pundit, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, "This debacle marks the last chapter of Reagonomics … ." Michael Kinsley wrote, "The Phillips Curve is about to boomerang upon us with a vengeance." New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, "The age of Reagan is over … ."
I believe you get my drift. The liberal chorus basically has been wrong about economics, certainly about economic setbacks, for a long time. Today's White House is sounding a bit like the Reagan administration in 1987, claiming that the economy is fundamentally sound. Back in 1987 the economy continued to grow until the brief and shallow recession of 1991. Today I make no prediction, but it does seem that economic fundamentals remain sound. If I am right, I do not expect to be quoted by my liberal friends in the prosperous years ahead.
Mr. Tyrrell is the founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor of The New York Sun and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute His book, "The Clinton Crack-Up The Boy President's Life After the White House" recently has been published by Thomas Nelson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
