About Me

Name: theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Limbaugh A Fair Interview from UK

 

Global warming? A hoax. Barack Obama? A disaster. John McCain? A winner. So says Rush Limbaugh, America's most listened-to and influential – not to mention richest - radio personality. But will America prove him wrong in the US elections on Tuesday? Interview by Nigel Farndale.

Last Updated: 3:55PM GMT 30 Oct 2008

Rush Limbaugh: He says he's not retiring until everyone agrees with him
 
Although Rush Limbaugh doesn't actually work from a bunker, he does have a bunker mentality. His studio is on the third floor of a (purposefully) anonymous building 100 yards off the white sands of Palm Beach, Florida, and about a mile from his gated mansion (the one next to Chuck Norris's). Along with the Gulfstream jet (cost: $54 million), fleet of sports cars and eight-year contract, worth $400 million, this mansion is his reward for being the most listened-to talk-radio host in America, a title he has held for 20 years.

But it is also his compensation. Professional Right-wing controversialists do tend to upset people, and Limbaugh has had his share of death threats. He has also had his quota of criticism from the media, or the liberal media, as he tends to call it. He hates interviews and has rarely given any, though he does have a soft spot for this newspaper, because it was once owned by his sometime friend and neighbour Conrad Black (currently serving a 6½-year jail sentence for fraud; Limbaugh wrote a letter to the judge attesting to Lord Black's good character).

The 'drive-by media', as Limbaugh also calls it, came down to Florida looking for him when he insulted Michael J.Fox a couple of years ago – by saying the actor was hamming up his Parkinson's disease for political gain after he appeared in an appeal for embryonic stem-cell research. They came back a few months later when Limbaugh was arrested for 'doctor shopping' painkiller prescriptions; that is, persuading several doctors to give him overlapping ones. He pleaded not guilty and cut a deal; the charges were dismissed after 18 months on condition that he continue rehabilitation and treatment with a therapist. The press staked out his mansion on both occasions, but never found his studio on this palm-fringed boulevard. You wouldn't know it was here.

He calls it his 'Southern Command', having spent most of his career broadcasting from New York, and describes it on air as 'heavily fortified', yet when you travel up in a lift and step into a glass and leather reception area, there isn't even a receptionist, let alone a security guard, just several white locked doors and a CCTV camera that follows you. One of the doors buzzes. I am expected.

On the walls of the corridor there is evidence of Limbaugh's considerable power and influence, and his friends in high places. Here a framed picture of him with George Bush. Here one of him with Donald Rumsfeld. Here he is with Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan.

There is a humidor – Limbaugh is a connoisseur of cigars – and a bust of Churchill. There is also a bust of Beethoven, which has a plaque reading: 'A genius who produced masterpieces without hearing.'

Limbaugh became almost completely deaf at the age of 50, but is able to hear callers now thanks to a cochlear implant – an electronic device which stimulates nerves in the inner ear. It explains his way with a monologue, which actually is a dialogue with himself. But even if he could hear, he probably wouldn't listen. Rush Limbaugh is a talker, not a listener. He keeps it up for three hours at a stretch, five days a week from noon until three. There are commercial breaks and phone-ins, but mostly it is him delivering homilies on politics and current affairs, extemporaneously. His fluency is breathtaking.

Some 20 million Americans tune in to hear it on 600 stations across what he calls 'this fruited land'. And he says he's not retiring until everyone agrees with him.

He is on air now – I can hear him over the speakers – 'Welcome back, this is Rush Limbaugh, your shining light, the doctor of democracy, the all-knowing, all-sensing, all-caring Maha Rushie…' I get slightly lost as I'm looking for the control booth and end up in his private washroom. There are several big black polo shirts on hangers and, in his medicine cabinet, cold remedies and bottles of Listerine and Drakkar aftershave, but no painkillers. That ship has sailed, it seems.

For the next two hours I sit behind a glass panel and watch him perform. Though it is radio, his is a physical performance. He raises his arms and shakes them in mock frustration. He takes his glasses off and pinches the bridge of his nose. He drums his fingers, as you can sometimes hear on air. Though he doesn't use notes he does have some papers on his desk which he taps as a form of punctuation, and sometimes he will crumple them up in disgust, another sound effect.

In the corner of his studio he has a standard bearing a silky Stars and Stripes. Behind his desk, there is a neon replica of his signature. At 57, he is looking fitter than he has done for a long time, having shed a hundredweight (he weighed 23 stone at one point).

His hair is slicked back and he is dressed in a black polo shirt and deck shoes without socks. There is a rolling musicality to his voice.

His tone is warm and confidential. He has the rhetorician's habit of repeating himself three times in three different ways.

Today, as usual, he is riffing about Barack Obama – 'the Lord Messiah, the merciful, the acting President…' – whom he dislikes intensely.

When Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a few days ago that he would be breaking with his party to vote for Obama, Limbaugh said it was only because he was black. Groan. He was being insulting, of course, on many levels, to both men, but at least he was being consistent with the Limbaugh world view, the view of the fabled 'angry white man'. Indeed, it would have seemed hypocritical of him to start making compromises on the grounds of sensitivity at this stage in his career.

Besides, he doesn't go easier on the McCain camp. He described the Republican candidate as a phony conservative and, when Sarah Palin first appeared, dismissed her as 'some babe McCain met at a convention'. He has come round to Palin since then, saying that she 'kicked Biden's butt' in that vice-presidential debate. His politics are closer to hers than McCain's. And ultimately he would rather have McCain for all his faults than Obama. 'McCain's right,' he said on air recently. 'We do have them right where we want them because they think it's over.' Note the 'We'. Limbaugh does not pretend to be impartial.

Inside the control booth there is a staff of three: Jim, a sound engineer wearing headphones; Dawn, a stenographer with long blonde hair (who sends Limbaugh real-time transcripts of on-air phone-ins), and his long-time producer Bo Snerdly, a tall, well-cushioned Afro-American with an affable manner, a flat cap on backwards and spectacles dangling from a cord around his neck.

Limbaugh does not have sidekicks with him on air, but he does keep up a running conversation with Snerdly, who is almost as Right wing as he is. They banter via an internal talk-back circuit. Snerdly has his own twice-weekly spot on air in which he introduces himself as an 'African-American-in-good-standing-and-certified-black-enough-to-criticise-Obamaguy.' It is a deliberately insensate but amusing take on the race issue in this election. What Left-wingers, or 'Rush-deniers', as he calls them, don't get about the self-aggrandising Limbaugh is that he is first and foremost a satirist: funny, self-mocking and entertaining. He couldn't have held his audience for 20 years if he was only nasty, bigoted and extremely Right wing.

The broadcast over, I join Limbaugh in the studio and ask if he ever has off days when he's not in the mood. Though he can hear, thanks to the acoustics in here, he stares straight at me, lip-reading. 'I have days where I feel I've left half my brain at home and I'm not functioning 100 per cent, but I don't think the audience would ever know it, and there's never a day I don't want to do it. I prep it, but I don't think about it until it starts. At noon today I had no idea what the first thing was I was going to say until about 20 seconds into the theme music. It's improv. Stream of consciousness. That little pressure improves my performance. I do my best, most expansive thinking when I am speaking. I get on a roll.'

He surely does. Limbaugh is always a factor in American elections.

When the Republicans won the House of Representatives in 1994 for only the second time in 50 years, they made Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress. If by some fluke the Republicans win this time, in contradiction of the polls, will that be partly down to Limbaugh?

'That's so hard to measure,' he says.

He's being falsely modest and possibly disingenuous. One of his biggest successes in this election cycle was Operation Chaos, a radio campaign designed to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton and prolong internecine fighting among Democrats. Karl Rove, 'the President's brain', reckons it helped tilt Texas for Clinton. She herself said as much the day after the vote: 'Be careful what you wish for, Rush.' Berkeley is doing a course study on it.

'I came up with Operation Chaos because we were facing a Republican primary that was over, with most of my audience dissatisfied with the choice. My audience wasn't up. Excited. Jazzed. I figured we had many more months of the liberal media salivating over the Democratic primaries on the cable networks and that that could be divisive. I don't want Obama to be President, he would be a disaster, but I do want him to be bloodied up politically, be forced to acquit himself to a political audience that isn't sycophantic. Someone had to do it.'

But Obama is the Democratic presidential candidate now and I wonder whether the race issue makes Limbaugh nervous. After all, at a White House correspondents' dinner during the Clinton administration, the President joked that Limbaugh had stood up for Attorney-General Janet Reno, but he 'only did it because she was attacked by a black guy'.

(The 'black guy' being Representative John Conyers.) Limbaugh was in the audience, and he was livid. He demanded, and received, a White House apology. 'There is nothing worse than being branded a racist,' he said afterwards.

On the race issue now, he reckons he has nothing to feel nervous about. 'Obama's people are trying to silence any criticism of him by implying it would be perceived as racist. It's a form of intimidation but I'm not going to be intimidated by them.'

Until 1988, when Limbaugh more or less invented the talk-radio format as a political tool, the liberal media in America had a monopoly, he reckons. 'The reason my show was successful was that so many people with a conservative viewpoint did not think it was being reflected in the media. I validate what they already think.' He reckons he is not always preaching to the choir, though. 'We get Democrats. Calls from people who disagree with me all the time. Last week I had a call from a woman in Dallas who said I was causing her high blood pressure because she couldn't stop herself listening to my show. The doctor told her to stop and she wouldn't.'

His audience is now 12 times the circulation of The New York Times, he tells me. 'And you can add up CNN, MSNBC and Fox, and my audience is 20 times that. They have no pretence of objectivity. They are activists now and they make no bones about it. CNN, MSNBC and Fox all opinionise. Like I do. They acknowledge this, and so it has become a battle between the two medias. The liberal media see this Obama candidacy as historic because race is a big deal to them. They think this country committed Original Sin. I actually believe that most of their support for Obama is that they are creaming in their jeans about the historical nature of the campaign. They want to be a part of it.They want to make it happen. They want a stake in it. They want to be able to say they did it if Obama wins.'

Well, he is going to win, isn't he? 'No. I don't see it, Nigel. I think he's been dead in the water since the primaries. He is going to need to be up 10 to 12 points to win by three or four. Don't forget that Hillary winning was a foregone conclusion, too. If the polls had been right it would have been Giuliani versus Hillary. That's why polls a year out are worthless. Obama is going around as the acting President. It's off-putting. Unionised blue-collar Democrats didn't vote for him, they voted for Hillary.'

Wasn't that to do with race? 'No… well it might be to a certain degree, but there was never any substance to his speeches, just soaring rhetoric. That guy can say nothing better than anyone I have ever heard say nothing.' He drums his fingers. 'My take on this is that we are all Americans and I am sick and tired of hyphenated Americans. Afro-American, Hispanic-Americans.

'I am truly colour blind and I wish everyone else was. We Balkanise when we say only women can represent women in Congress and only Jews can represent Jews and only blacks can represent blacks. It's BS. We all want the same things. Prosperity and a decent education for our kids. Treating this country like it is stuck 50 years ago is BS; we have made more progress than anyone over this. Get over it. If Obama says stupid things I'm not going to say they are not stupid because he's black. He's running for President, for God's sake. It's the Left who has been racist by agonising about whether he is black enough. Is he authentic enough? Does he have a civil rights record? For me he's a liberal. That is reason enough to oppose him.'

Limbaugh thinks there is a war going on between people like him who want small, efficient government and people who want a powerful state that decides who gets what. 'And they use hoaxes like global warming to advance their agenda of higher taxation and bigger government.'

Oh dear. You don't have to agree with his red-meat views to find them insightful. They represent, after all, the authentic voice of conservative, and neo-conservative, America. But there is one issue about which I think he is dangerously wrong. Global warming. After all, I point out, 98 per cent of the world's leading scientists in this area don't think global warming is a hoax.

He stares at me. 'Nigel, man-made global warming is a 100 per cent, full-fledged, undeniable hoax.'

That's his opinion. 'No, it's not even arguable in terms of science.'

Of course it is, I say, and he's being deliberately provocative to say it isn't. 'We don't have the power to make cold weather warm. We can't make warm weather cold. We can't produce rain clouds. We can't steer hurricanes, we can't produce diddly squat and the idea that only advanced democracies are doing this with their automobiles is absurd.

Global warming is a religion. It has what all religions have which is faith, because no one can prove their religion. It has a Garden of Eden element, destruction brought by humanity then redemption for our sins by paying higher taxes and getting rid of our cars and planes.'

Does part of him go after a subject like that just to wind people up?

'No, I believe it. I hate people who feel rather than think. Most people feel they don't matter. When they are told they can save the planet, well, that gives their lives meaning. These stupid ribbons – breast cancer, Aids awareness, they say – "I care more than you." ' He drums his fingers on the table again.

Limbaugh doesn't give the impression of having doubts, but does he?

Does he have long nights of the soul? 'I'd only have those if I had lied, made something up that I don't really believe, for an illicit motive. I won't be deliberately provocative just to get people to listen.'

Was there a point at which he decided he would have to thicken his skin if he was going to last in talk radio – not take insults personally, I mean? 'Insults are badges of honour. There is nothing anyone can say that would offend me. Prior to doing this show no one hated me. No one thought I was a racist, sexist or homophobic bigot.

No one thought I was a hate-monger. I was not raised to be hated. I was raised to be loved. Within six months I was getting death threats.'

For all his claimed equanimity, there is a residual paranoia, vulnerability and vanity that floats around Rush Limbaugh like a toxic cloud. He hates being photographed, for example, because: 'They are going to try to get the most embarrassing or unflattering shot of you they can.' They. Always they. These dark forces out to get him. I ask about the insecurities that lay behind his dependency on painkillers.

There was pain to kill, after all, and it wasn't physical. 'That's all in the past,' he says. 'Done. The rehab was in Arizona. A spartan place called The Meadows. Not one of these half-assed places for celebrities. It was five weeks and I really got into it. Very educational for me to learn about myself. It was inspiring. I can't imagine taking a pain pill now. It holds no attraction. I haven't had a relapse or craving since then. I had to talk to a therapist for 18 months afterwards. Never done that before. Thought it bunk. Actually that helped.'

Born into a family of lawyers, Limbaugh obtained his radio licence at the age of 15 and began Dj-ing on a local radio station. One insecurity that dates back to that time is that he was wounded by his father's disapproval of his chosen profession. He was also miserable when his father insisted he attend college. Under protest, he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University, where he lasted a year before dropping out. After that he was fired six times by radio stations and other employers. It was a wobbly start and, as a defence mechanism, he seems to have acquired an ultra-confident alter ego.

Nevertheless, he tells me that when he's at home, when he can drop his public guard, he can feel flat. 'Mentally, I'm zapped after this show every day. I don't do anything for three hours. I go read a novel or play golf. I won't speak a word because I don't use the phone. Sure I can get melancholy.'

I never had him figured as an emotional man. Isn't his whole shtick that you have to think not feel? 'Don't cry easily. Get close to crying then I stop it. A movie or a book will get me misty-eyed. It's always happy ending good stuff that gets me crying, not bad stuff.'

'Last time?' Long pause. 'Last time was when my little cat died. Five years old. Had a stroke. I had two cats and this one had the personality and almost humanlike behaviour. Pets are like sports: you think you can invest a lot in them without consequences.'

And like wives. He has been married three times, though he hasn't had any children. He met his current girlfriend, a West Palm Beach events planner, last year. When I ask about the ups and downs in his personal relationships he hesitates again. 'I would find myself very difficult to live with because I am totally self-contained and resent having to do things I don't want to do. Now I can choose. When I'm put in a position where I don't want to be there, I make sure everyone else is miserable.'

That's some confession, even for a thick-skinned man. He seems to know himself well, knows he can be selfish and that he cuts quite a lonely figure – just him and his remaining cat rattling around in that big house. He also knows he is easily bored. 'I don't have guests on my show because I don't care what other people think,' he tells me. 'Most guests are boring.' But it's not only others he is bored with, it is also, perhaps, himself. This may be what explains his recklessness, his bravado, his determination to say the unsayable. And perhaps it also explains why he never misses a beat, until you draw him out about himself — how he is difficult to live with, how he cried when his cat died, how, to his surprise, he found it helpful talking to a therapist. Only then does he hesitate. As we part he bets me a cigar from Desmond Sautter's of Mayfair that Obama won't win. I'd better go and choose one.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vote for National Survival ,American Thinker

By Walid Phares
The financial drama that we've been living through is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of an attack against America. As I argued in previous writings, the first volley was OPEC's driving the prices at the pumps as high as needed to crack our economic resilience. The hard core (and ideological) oil-producing regimes have been trying to affect the minds of millions of Americans in the same way al Qaeda's propagandists did with the upset Spanish voters in March 2004.

OPEC has just launched its second offensive -- possibly its last before Election Day -- to reduce petrol production as prices fell. After hitting US citizens with an economic meltdown, it wants to smack them with a goods shortage crisis to force them into making the ultimate decision: jump into another realm. The current economically-induced crisis is only a treatment to provoke a regime change in America. As odd as it is, the forces pushing for the change "they need" have set the US Presidential election as a mechanism to morph this democracy into the uncharted future that awaits it, if the polls are on target.

Today Americans are readying, some have already begun, to elect a new President. This testimony I am putting forth aims at explaining my vision of this electoral benchmark in view of future developments, beyond November 4th, the next four to eight years and throughout the first part of the twenty-first century. This vote, more than any previous ones, can transform America's destiny radically, and with it, the future of many nations, particularly those civil societies suffering from oppression around the world.

My analysis is not sent out to influence the outcome of the election, for it is too small a breeze in a universe of extremely powerful winds driving the electorate, on both sides of the debate. The arguments I am advancing in this piece are the least visible in the agendas of both camps, at least in the next few days. But in the next decade and perhaps as early as the next few years or even months, historians and citizens will reexamine the dimensions of this discussion of the overarching grave menace hovering over US national security. This is why, as a scholar studying conflicts, I am writing about this particular election.

As an academic and counterterrorism expert, I do not get involved in partisan and strictly political processes. But as in 2004's Presidential election, this week's voting choice will affect the current and future national defense and survival of this country. Hence it is my duty as a citizen with knowledge in this field to share my views and projections with fellow citizens: For the choices given to voters are dramatically opposed in terms of defining the direction in which this country will move to defend its democracy and freedom around the world. 

The United States' Presidency is endowed with powers that can impact global history in addition to the evolution of America as a democracy and as a nation. In this era of confrontation with the global Jihadi threats and of proliferation of catastrophic weapons, the direction selected by the next US President will affect not only this generation but the next one as well. Hence, regardless of the voting results on the 4th and beyond, it is important to testify beforehand in writing, so that future readers would draw the lessons when confronted with similar choices. Therefore, my words will be rough and direct.

The national security experience

The US primaries produced two leaders and their running mates. With the utmost respect to their personal histories, sacrifices and achievements, are these three men and one woman the best choice that could have been given to Americans? Their supporters feel it is the case, while many others, including the partisans of those who were defeated in the parties' primaries, claim otherwise. In my realm of study and concentration the question is different, simply because I believe national survival trumps everything else, in these times of world threats.

I frame it as follows: are the four contending politicians as aware of the enemy as the leaders of the enemy are aware of America's weaknesses and resources? We will see. But I argue that we've seen US Presidents learning on the job, including the current president. On the evening of September 10, 2001, President George W Bush knew much less than Senators McCain and Obama on the evening of November 3, 2008; yet he confronted the country's enemies for seven years while learning on the job.

Today, the average citizen's instincts know more about the threat we're facing than the combined advisors of Presidents Clinton and Bush before the War on Terror, as per the 9/11 Commission findings. So based on their records, speeches, length of service and publications regarding the national threat, one can project that the four leaders America has to consider for the two top offices would be ranked as follows: Senator John McCain comes first, Senator Joe Biden comes second and Senator Barack Obama and Governor Sarah Palin come equally third. This ranking is quantitative and verifiable. Based on a simple examination of past decades regarding McCain and Biden, and years regarding Obama and Palin, the strict "experience factor" in matters of war and peace, national security and defense, undoubtedly among the four, McCain would be the top man for the job, followed by Biden.

Hence since the Senator from Arizona has selected Palin as his running mate, he thus would assume the responsibility of her choice as his replacement if God forbid the worse were to happen. On the experience factor alone, it is ineluctable that, according to the famous phrase of Senator Hillary Clinton, I would trust the judgment of the former Navy Pilot, if awakened at 3 AM to address a national security calamity. But let's go beyond the mere "experience factor."    

Choice on strategic direction

What counts at this stage, in addition to experience in matters of national security, is a sense of strategic direction into the future. Senator McCain often speaks of the man who will have to face incoming international crises. He is right on that point: conflicts are brewing and the next President will have to face them head on. Senator Biden has even alluded to crises being concocted to test Senator Obama (if elected). He may be right by accident. For I argue that what lies ahead of us is already happening and will happen: the forces aimed at confronting the United States and democracies around the world aren't holding their breath to decide if they will resume their offensives or drop their agenda, depending on who will seize the White House in November. These forces have their plans for both McCain and Obama. They do not tailor their world view based on the lucky winner of US election, rather they tailor their plans, speed and maneuvers to defeat America based on the direction adopted by the winner of the Presidential contest in this country.

Therefore if the enemy wages future campaigns based on its perception of the next US President's world vision and "generates crises" accordingly, then it is logical to compare the strategic agendas of both candidates regarding the confrontation to come. In other words, if the direction taken by the new President is new, and both candidates claim they will execute change, then it is a must to check these "new directions" and compare them with the potential threats.

Unfortunately the multiple debates between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees didn't leave us with significant information about the global vision of both campaigns as to what the threat is and how to defeat it. Perhaps the scrambling by both camps to respond to the dramatic financial crumbling kept them away from drawing the map of the future regarding the global conflicts we're engaged in. But that was a mistake in both camps, even though it was more politically profitable for the Obama ticket to concentrate on the economy, and it was a vital necessity for the McCain ticket to assuage the fears of everyday Americans, as polls showed the gap between the two camps.

Economy is a hostage to National Security    

What both campaigns have failed to understand or were unwilling to admit is the broader context of the economic quick sands we're in. Surely there are financial and managerial reasons behind the meltdown which we're witnessing. But this failure is happening within the context of a wider economic war waged against the United States for strategic reasons.

Two arguments should have been part of the debate. They will come to haunt the future of this country nevertheless.

One: a systemic economic crisis -- even if rooted in domestic mismanagement -- cannot be resolved outside a healthier international environment. That is a reality which only future economists will confirm for us. Short of unleashing a full economic revolution leading to energy independence, America is doomed to swim in financial tensions and crises: the time of insulation from overseas pressures is over. We are seven -- if not seventeen -- years late for our vital fight of energy independence.

Two: We are being attacked by an "oil empire," OPEC, which targets our ability to act internationally and eventually put us on our knees domestically. Not only our future economic renaissance is at risk but our present state of financial affairs is at a higher risk of further crumbling if we do not go on the offensive. Compare this with the state of the presidential debate: the answer is close to catastrophic. We're not even discussing it nor are we informing the public about the dangers looming on the horizons. The current economic crisis is only a piece of the mega economic debacle being prepared for us. The response to the current drama is not even economic and none of the campaigns have even addressed the mega level for fears of electoral snags.

But if we compare the two candidates on strategic economic levels, we can conclude as follows: Obama offers to resolve the economic crisis separately from the mega economic confrontation worldwide while McCain only shyly hints at a wider scale beyond the corruption in Wall Street and the mismanagement in Washington DC. McCain wants to stop sending 700 billion dollars to "regimes who do not like us." Obama wants us "not to borrow cash from China to send it to Saudi Arabia." McCain  timidly  tells us there is a foe out there somewhere, while Obama doesn't. Between the blur and the blindness, I chose the first.  

Are we at war or not?

Naturally McCain calls what we're doing since 9/11 a War on Terror. On Terror or on something else, that is another subject, but the former POW sees it as a "war," with a goal to attain and against a "foe." Obama rarely calls it a war, often putting the blame on the United States, and he is vague regarding the "enemy." In an article during the primaries, where my favorite candidate wasn't McCain, I wrote that a US President who doesn't see the enemy cannot defeat it. In the national election, I state even more emphatically that a candidate who does not admit that there is a war waged against our democracy can hardly defend us.

I would understand if Senator Obama proposes to end the War on Terror as a whole. I would obviously disagree that he can, but I would see his rationale of a unilateral pull out of the conflict which, by the way, could explain his platform of "sitting down" with actual foes such as Ahmadinejad, Assad and others. The problem remains that his position regarding the "what is" is still unclear. Is it that he doesn't believe that we were attacked in a global manner, or is it that he believes that we provoked such a Jihadi campaign? Well, between Obama's non recognition of the conflict and McCain's basic attitude that we are at war, regardless of how to win it and when, I'd chose the latter. 

Defining the Threat

In the last seven years, my main thesis in the defense of our democracy and of civil societies around the world recommended a clear cut identification of the threat. For if the latter was unidentified, unclear or subject to camouflage, the entire strategy of resistance to the menace would be ineffective and would put the homeland and allies under tremendous risk. President George Bush tried to identify the threat doctrine of al Qaeda, its allies and of the Iranian regime. But as of 2006, he retreated from educating the public on the foe's world vision. In this election campaign, we have two candidates with different visions on the threat. Senator McCain gives it a name: Radical Islamic Terrorism (he recently used the term "Jihadists" one time); and Senator Obama who doesn't identify the ideology of the terrorists. Naturally I would prefer the candidate who defines it, even if that definition needs to be improved, in this case, McCain.  

Iraq

Senator Obama voted against invading Iraq. That is a legitimate position. But one would need to know on what grounds? If the argument was that it was a strategic mistake to topple Saddam Hussein while we hadn't found Osama Bin Laden, then the next challenge will be in Darfur. Will we allow the genocide against Africans to continue in Sudan if we still haven't found the leader of al Qaeda in Pakistan? If Obama's logic is about not engaging in any action as long as "Waldo" is on the run, US efforts in rescuing endangered populations are then doomed.

But if the Senator from Illinois was opposed to the removal of Iraq's dictator because he prefers to leave the Shia and the Kurds to their horrendous destiny, then the matter is even more serious. Either way, I haven't seen or read an Obama explanation that considers the 2003 campaign in Iraq as a weakening of the War on Terror: For had this been the case, then Obama may have a legitimate point. But his votes in the Senate about the 2003 "invasion of Iraq," unless explained again, were an opposition to the War on terror not just the war in Iraq. [sentence corrected]

If elected President, Obama will remove the troops from Iraq without disabling Iran's and Syria's abilities and ambitions to penetrate their neighbor. For if he intends to engage with Tehran and Damascus to cut deals over Iraq, how can the latter be equipped strategically to perform what coalition forces are now achieving? An abrupt letting down of Iraq will lead to a catastrophic domino effect in the region opening the path to Iran to reach the Mediterranean with all the unfathomable consequences on world peace.

Undoubtedly the Bush Administration wasn't brilliant in managing the Iraq strategy. Surely there were other choices after Tora Bora in 2002 than Iraq. I'll address them in future writings. But since President Bush's team decided to do justice in Baghdad first, it could have done it faster, better and finished earlier. That is a valid critique of the Iraq war. Senator Obama's criticism is diametrically different. He was opposed to removing Saddam or any other dictator, by force or by any other means. The reality is that for a candidate "for change" as it is claimed, his platform seems to be of status quo, to the advantage of the Jihadists, Baathists and other authoritarian regimes from Tehran to Caracas.

Senator McCain has criticized the management of the War in Iraq; and he was right. He wants victory to be the benchmark of withdrawal; he is also right. But I haven't read yet what constitutes victory in Iraq. My sense is that many in Washington DC -- traumatized by the Jihadi propaganda -- aren't sharing yet with the American public what's lying ahead for us. This Presidential campaign is between a candidate, Senator Obama, who is not telling the people that he is against the whole war on terror; and the other candidate, Senator McCain who is not telling the voters how much more serious this war is with the Jihadists. In this case I would trust McCain simply because he has told us that we can't quit, even though we need miles of explanations for what is next.    

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Senator Obama stated that he would transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to put pressures on al Qaeda. Taken as is, this statement is strategically sound. Moving forces from one battlefield to another is decided by strategists and is logical if the goal is to win in both places, i.e. in the war on terror.

But I am still unsure if Senator Obama's grand plan is about winning the War on Terror since I haven't seen his grand strategy about the confrontation with the Jihadists. Actually his opposition to the Iraq campaign, unlike Senator Clinton's criticism, is based on opposition to the idea that we are in conflict with a worldwide web of radical forces. Until I read otherwise, my conclusion is that Obama's long term strategy is to end the global war with the Jihadists and replace it with deals-cutting policies with radical regimes and organizations.

Hence in Afghanistan, his ultimate goal is to kill Bin Laden but to reintegrate the Taliban in Kabul. That would be the equivalent of eliminating Hitler but bringing back the Nazis to a post WWII Germany. His statements about attacking inside Pakistan if we have specific information about the location of Bin Laden are worrisome. He opposed sending troops to Iraq to save Shia and Kurds from Saddam, but he would order troops into a sovereign country, an ally and already at war with al Qaeda, to kill "Waldo." This proposition makes so little sense that I read it through the prism of reverse psychology.

In fact, since Senator Obama wants to quit in Iraq, reconciliation with the Taliban in Afghanistan and a non-intervention in Darfur, he probably decided to claim "offensive" in the only place where it will not happen. A massive US attack in Pakistan to finish off al Qaeda, unless authorized by Islamabad, is contrary to all strategic logic and could enflame the sole Muslim nuclear power with the cataclysmic risks it entails. My sense is that the Senator chose to make this bravado in public precisely because he will never issue that order if he is elected. Instead he will direct his diplomats to "sit down" with the Taliban and try to cut a deal.    

Senator McCain's approach is more simple and pragmatic. He wouldn't oppose sending troops from Iraq to Afghanistan if the military strategists would recommend so. He said a surge in Afghanistan may provide similar results as in Iraq: possible. I am not privy to his plans for "winning" in Afghanistan or his emergency plans for a dramatic development in Pakistan. But between an Obama policy that would lose Iraq, re-Talibanize Afghanistan and risk a nuclear flare in Pakistan, I'd still go with a more modest but realistic approach by McCain until better strategies are designed in the next four years.    

Lebanon and Syria

Senator McCain committed to implement UNSCR 1559; that is, to disarm Hezbollah and support the Cedars Revolution in Lebanon. Senator Obama wants to "sit down" with Bashar Assad, Hezbollah's ally. Obviously, I support McCain on this issue.

Israel and the Palestinians

Both Senators have committed to "the security of Israel." In election times this statement is standard. Both Senators said they will support a two-state solution. At this stage of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, this is also a universally accepted deal. But Senator Obama's approach to the Iran and Syrian regimes indicates that he will press Israel and the Palestinian Authority to "sit down" with Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well. The pattern of bringing in the "radicals" (at the expense of the democracy-seekers) seems to be a future foreign policy doctrine for Senator Obama. In the case of the Israel-Palestinian process, it will only weaken the moderates among the Palestinians and undermine the rise of peace-seeking forces, knowing that Hamas ultimately doesn't want a Jewish state in the region and wants to obstruct the rise of a secular and democratic Palestinian state as well. Senator McCain, more cautious in this regard, supports the Camp David and Road Map processes, putting an Israel-Palestinian Authority agreement first. I would prefer this approach. 

Darfur

Senator McCain would send US forces under UN sponsorship to help establish a protection zone for the African Muslim people of Darfur. Senator Obama's approach of "cutting deals" with Tehran and Damascus cannot but follow the same logic to "cut a deal" with Khartoum's regime. In genocide interventions, there are no deals to be cut other than saving people from dying and being ethnically cleansed. Hence, without hesitation, I would side with the McCain readiness to help "save Darfur" on the ground, a slogan used by Hollywood figures without advancing any practical solution to the genocide issue.

Alliances 

Senator Obama's spokespersons claimed their candidate will build wider alliances and reestablish a multilateral approach to international relations. This is an excellent principle which I have been promoting in my last three books but the question is "alliance about what?" If Obama sought outreach to build the widest coalition of Governments to defeat al Qaeda and its ilk, this has already been done. If the projected alliance is to reach more countries, including those who oppose our confrontation with the Jihadists -- such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea -- then we will be defeating our original purpose. If Obama wants to enhance relations with Russia and India against the terrorists, he will have to define Jihadism as a threat, which he hasn't. He will have to agree with McCain and pre-2006 Bush that there are doctrines promoted by movements such as Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Deobandism which are a common foe to this wide alliance he is seeking.

But that would contradict his opposition to the concept of a full confrontation with the Jihadi web. If by new allies he means France, Germany, the UK, Spain, and other European democracies, they are already in the fight with our common enemies. Even China is at war with the Jihadists. So who does Obama want to include in the projected new alliance? Unless the new coalition will be among those who want to end the War on terror. Senator McCain's more modest approach doesn't add much to the existing web of alliances. If elected he should break the taboos with other counter Jihadi countries and widen that type of alliance. He should do better than President Bush. I still prefer the modest advance of McCain over the foggy designs of Obama. 

America's image

Another slogan advanced by the Obama platform and inherited from the John Kerry Presidential agenda is the so-called "American image" worldwide and the necessity of reestablishing a "credible portrait." Well, this myth has to be aggressively responded to because it only serves the Jihadist propaganda. Indeed, what do we mean when we say that America's "image" has been muddied internationally? Is it because of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? And who are the people upset with the US image?

The Obama campaign and its intellectuals haven't answered much on this simply because this so-called PR problem is in fact a component of a Jihadi offensive worldwide to deter the United States from provoking democratic change in the Middle East. Washington's image is "ugly" by Salafi, Khomeinist and Baathist standards of course because American power (often used unintelligently) has caused the rise of freedom enclaves in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and beyond. That is why al Jazeera, al Aalam, al Manar and the Salafi web sites are exploding against "America's image." Surely the oil-producing regimes in the region and Hugo Chavez's oligarchic elite dislike American support of reformers and democracy forces. When America promotes democracy (with tremendous mistakes) of course the anti-democratic web will muddy its image.

So what is the image the Obama policy would like to reestablish? The photo ops with Iran's Mullahs, Damascus' bloody dictator, Caracas's populist leader, or Khartoum's genocide perpetrator? Some Obama future Presidential advisors (if he wins) have been advocating a policy of humanitarian aid only. They argue that the US should act as a peace force only. Who are they kidding? Why wasn't the US able to send humanitarian aid to the Kurds before the removal of Saddam Hussein, or establish a corridor in Darfur as long as Bashir is obstructing it, or help the North Koreans from starvation? The "academic circus" who pretend to understand the world better than your average citizen have shown us their brilliance in the 1990s. They were given eight precious years of a post-Soviet era and they failed miserably. 

McCain's plan for a better American image isn't clear but US actions to give democracy a victory are the best long terms investments to get that image restored, because unfortunately, the systemic failure of the Bush Administration to use its own resources in the so-called war of ideas is a fact. A McCain White House will have to reform all resources authorized by the taxpayers to draw support around the world from hearts and minds. A McCain Administration will have a severe uphill battle to reach out to the natural allies around the world, and the Greater Middle East in particular: the peoples. Unfortunately, as we know from their advisors-to-be, an Obama Administration will cozy up with the oppressors worldwide as a way to "change" America's image. It will only send humanitarian assistance -- and cameras to cover the show -- if and when the bad guys allow it. That is not a change in image that the masses around the world would want to see. My choice is between the uncertain success and the certain failure, I take the first.   

Defeating Racism in America

One noble cause I would support without hesitation is to see a minority man or woman become the President of the United States. What a joy to see the son of an immigrant, a matter I can relate with directly, enter the White House. This is the country I decided to emigrate to almost twenty years ago. In the past quarter of a century, I saw the nation I joined wholeheartedly rapidly rejecting racism. An African-American General in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then Secretary of State, and then an African American woman becoming a national security advisor only to succeed her predecessor as a Secretary of State as well. A Middle Eastern American from Michigan becoming an Energy secretary, Hispanics and Asians across Congress and the executive powers including in the cabinet, and finally a half African American nominated for the Presidency of the United States, and very possibly a head of state in 2009.

That's how racism has been defeated at the highest levels. But I resent the imposition of an ideological worldview on good hearted Americans under the aegis of the racism issue. For Senator Barack Obama to be nominated by a major Party is an ultimate defeat to racism. But his election to the Presidency is about his agenda not his (half) race. We would be all happy to see a minority becoming a President but not to use such an equation to give a pass to an international agenda which would hurt minorities and underdogs around the world.

To defeat racism and oppression of minorities worldwide the next President of the United States should be determined to save Africans from genocide, ethnic minorities from persecution in the Middle East and women from suppression across the Third World. That mission isn't determined by skin color in Washington but by commitment to confront the oppressors of any type around the world.

Had the Obama agenda been unequivocally pro-freedom internationally, rejecting concession to totalitarianism, and very precise in identifying the threat doctrines of the terrorists, then he could have won my support with little questions asked.    

The heart of the matter

Unlike many of my colleagues with whom I share counterterrorism views for the future, my choice for the next President was not shaped by the most visible components of the debate. It wasn't "Joe the plumber," "spreading the wealth," the real estate crisis, the financial meltdown or the battle for taxes. These are crucial issues but I believe the economic problems we're facing need more than one presidency and a mixture of solutions to address them and solve them. Pure Socialism or unleashed Capitalism aren't going to fix the economy or satisfy the frustration of millions of Americans over the next decade.

Maybe the two party system isn't able anymore to provide full answers in the 21st century. As a Political Scientist and a US citizen I think that the American system will correct itself gradually simply because there are no larger middle class societies around the world than the American one. The swing between liberal and conservative measures every decade or so are regulating factors until an appropriate system is found. But this normal swinging is now occurring during a world conflict and can be affected by outside forces aiming at the nation as a whole. It is Constantinople which is targeted, not its emperors. Those who are set on voting for Obama because they fear for their social security and healthcare and those who want McCain because they fear high government taxes are right to be concerned in their own way. I am concerned for a state of affairs where we may not have a national homeland, let alone either high taxes or a solvent social security program.

Homeland Security First

Yes, we need to live our lives the best we can; consequently, we need to make the best decisions about the next President and his agenda. But all that has to happen not in a void, but in the context of a secure homeland. Twice in this decade we saw the country vacillating. In September 2001, the coming down of the twin towers was an end of a peace era. Last September 2008, the coming down of our financial towers was an end of an era of economic security. Beware of a "September" that could bring down the towers of our national security.

The flames of the urban uprisings in France, of the train bombings in Madrid, of the subway blasts in London and the school massacre in Beslan are only handwriting on the wall. The OPEC aggression against the US economy, the formation of gas cartels by Iran, Qatar and Venezuela with the enticement to Russia to join; all that are just ominous signs of what is ahead. And in such a world environment, US homeland security seems to be where the final game will be played. As an analyst of terrorist strategies, I do believe that the most dangerous stages for our national security are yet to come and my concerns are very high as to how to address them.

The penetration of our systems, including educational, legal, bureaucratic, technological, defense and security by the Jihadists is ongoing and is projected to expand. The world may have harsh crises but no crisis can equate the collapse of US Homeland Security. Al Qaeda has often stated that it wishes to commit genocide of four million Americans, including women and children. Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his regime have openly stated that a world without America is possible and better. These attitudes, if anything, indicate that the American national homeland is a target, a real target. If the enemy is successful one time in blasting our defense system to the core, the entire debate about the economy is over because there won't be one to discuss.

There are large segments in our society which have been disabled from understanding that the nation is at risk. They were made to think that this war against us is a matter of foreign policy and a President who can just "talk" to some people out there will simply solve it and maintain the paychecks flowing. Many among us don't understand that the world around us can simply crumble if we don't have leadership that can strike a balance between defending the country and the free world and at the same time managing the economy successfully. But the bottom line is that these two are linked, deeply linked.

Senator McCain declared that the threat to the Homeland is a movement and an ideology, Jihadism. Senator Obama didn't tell us if that is his view as well. Instead we saw shreds of political alliances between his campaign and groups affiliated with this particular ideology. I am not impressed with the "Weather Underground" network story as much as I am concerned about the access the political Jihadists will have to US National Security.

If that happens, Homeland Security will be at risk. Hence until I get answers to this fundamental question from Senator Obama's campaign, I do have a national security concern. Until then I can project a spread of Jihadi sympathizer networks within the country and even throughout many layers of Government. Over four years, and possibly eight, such a growth would become malignant. Over less than a decade, Americans could find themselves in situations never experienced since the Civil War.

One ballot today -- regardless of the sincerity and good intentions of candidates in November 2008 -- can affect where and how future generations will have to fight for survival years from now. A strong counter argument was made to me about my concerns: among the national security advisors and experts to enter the executive branch with an Obama Presidency are people who see this threat with clarity, so why the concern? My answer as an analyst in Jihadi long term strategies is that, in the absence of a defense doctrine that identifies the threat, no one can guarantee that the enlightened counter terrorism experts potentially moving in as of January 2009 will be there the following year, in four or even eight years from now. This is the real bottom line.

If the Obama campaign had provided a strategic document on the Jihadi threat, my entire case wouldn't have been necessary. I haven't seen such a document or even a simple statement. Moreover, what convinced me that we're dealing with a potential change toward the worse in US National Security are the writings and declarations of those who constitute the Senator's academic and security elite. In fact, not only we may get four more years of the Clinton eight years -- when the Terrorist doctrine was missed catastrophically -- but we could get four years of unparalleled threat growth. I do hope I am wrong and I am still hoping I will get answers before Election Day.        

Freedoms and Educating the public

Last but not least, and for the first time since the end of the Cold War, there seems to be a concern about a scrupulous respect for freedom of the press and of expression in some "ideological" quarters of a potential Obama Administration. Although I do believe that the Senator from Illinois has kept a strong record on the necessity of a balanced debate regarding the nation's fundamental issues, and although Senator Biden has been a proponent of free speech, there are signs that radical groups could use Government positions to harass media that would be critical of an Obama Administration on national security grounds.

What's more is the dangerous possibility that (short of a counter Jihadi doctrine) elements of Wahhabi and Khomeinist advocacy circles would take advantage of a "new direction" to strike at the counterterrorism community in the private sector, targeting the advances made for the last seven years in educating Americans about the threat. Such a development would be a red line for the nation's defense. To be direct about it, already under the Bush Administration, the Wahhabi and Khomeinist lobbies have wreaked havoc throughout the bureaucracy, blocking major reforms needed to educate civil servants and citizens to learn about the threats looming over the country and its next generations. Under a McCain Administration there are no guarantees that the "Jihadophile lobby" will recede, but chances are much higher for new counterterrorism education to make a breakthrough than under an Obama Administration.

Under the latter, Muslim reformers in America won't have an equal chance with the Jihadi pressure groups to have their message received by their communities. Middle East dissidents will have their stories marginalized in the public sector so that it won't perturb the deals to "be cut with the regimes in the region." All that is predictable and projectable, hence the options are really limited if not set in terms of choice.

The choice  

On the one hand, Senator Obama has a character to be admired and has skills to make other politicians jealous. He would make America look very good. Had we not been in a confrontation with the Jihadist forces worldwide, I would have gladly voted for him. Strange as it may be for many of my colleagues, his alleged "socialism" doesn't intimidate me, nor does his "radical liberalism." America's society will only absorb what it can digest.

On the other hand, Senator McCain is a national hero and a product of real American traditions. I would have liked for him to have been elected in 2000 so that he would have been the Commander in Chief on September 11 (with all respect due to President Bush). There are other men and women who are also qualified to lead this nation in these politically and economically trying times such as Senator Clinton, Governor Romney and others. But our political process has selected McCain and Obama and one of them has to become the President.

"Primo vivere" says the Roman adage. You've got to survive first and you've got to be free too. I have learned this the hard way. Hence in this 2008 Presidential election, I will vote on national security, that is national survival. All other issues are linked to our ability as a nation to make it through these very critical years. After having reviewed the two platforms from that perspective, and short of discovering what can change my analysis in the next few days, I wish Senator Obama good luck and, as a registered independent, I will vote for Senator McCain for the President of the United States.

Ultimately Americans will decide about their future and whatever it will be, we will continue to try to make it better for our children.  

Dr. Walid Phares is an academic, author and analyst.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/vote_for_n
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obamacatastrophy IBD EDITORAL

 

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Sen. John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their takeoff into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the U.S. under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9% when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25% before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy.

Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions — none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cory the Driller's Letter to OBAMA... Thanks Blake

Mr. Obama,

    Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe, the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself.  While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses.  But first, let me introduce myself.  You can call me 'Cory, the well driller'.   I am a 54-year-old high school graduate.  I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go 'conquer the world' when I finished high school.  25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom.  I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any.  I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job.  My businesses did not start not a result of privilege.  It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly.  From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job.  I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well-drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels.  I had to use my 10-year-old, ½-ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2-ton truck). 

    A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a 28-year-old, worn-out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area.  I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs.  Through these years, I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills.  I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes.  I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure.  I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

    I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas .  2 years along the way, I hired another full-time employee for the drilling business so we could provide full-time water well pump service as well as the well drilling.  Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business #2.  5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine.  I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine.  No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills.  Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full-time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.  

    2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig.  This provided another 2 full-time jobs for East Texans.  Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me.  For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business. 

    A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs.  I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off.  Customers immediately started coming out of the woodwork to buy the pumps, but there was a problem.  I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps.  With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going. 

    Yes, once again, I had everything hanging on the line in an effort to start another business.  I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months).  How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life, I cannot tell you, but there were plenty.  I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas .  Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast.  I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister).  I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards.  During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews.  Also, the screen service business continued to grow.  No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's okay, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any.  I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.     

    Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distributes $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy.  Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer-controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop.  The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide.  Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well.  This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months.  This should work out, but if it doesn't, it will be because you, and other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country's (and the world's) economy by meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. 

    You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit, or worse yet, bad credit.....even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets).  While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans.  It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country. 

    You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on.  I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead.  I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and wouldn't demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself.  I'm the guy you characterize as 'the Americans who can afford it the most' that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution 'to spread the wealth' to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything.   You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture.   

   I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political careers.  What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of to themselves.  Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominantly liberal media and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

    What is so terribly sad about this is this:  America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self-reliance, self-motivation, self-determination, self-discipline, personal betterment, hard work and risk-taking—a culture built around the concept that success was in reach for every able-bodied American who would strive for it.  Each year less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together.  We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states.  If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self-reliance.  You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act upon them.  When people act upon such ideals, they succeed.  America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating.  But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama?  The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem-solving was best left with individuals instead of the government.  You and all your liberal comrades have a vested interest in creating a dependent class in our country.  It is the very business of liberals to create an ever-expanding dependence on government.  What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement-mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life. 

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before.  Hundreds of them over these 25 years.  People who simply will not show up to work on time.  People who just will not work 5 days a week, much less 6.  People always looking for a way to expend less effort.  People who actually tell me that they would do more if I would first just pay them more.  People who take off work to sit in government offices applying to get free government handouts.  (Gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?)  You see, all of this comes from your entitlement-mentality culture. 

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate.  Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again.  You see, I've seen what average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce the words "politically motivated"). You averaged less than 1% annually.  And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years.  Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving.  I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden! (Don't you just hate Google?).  Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country.  You represent the culture of government-dependence instead of self-reliance;  Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement;  Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated;  Political correctness instead of open-mindedness and open debate.  If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems.  Like all of western Europe.  All countries on the decline.  All countries that, because of liberal, socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy Independence R.I.P.

 
We will never be energy independent.
The ruling elites in Washington and New York have systematically sabotaged the domestic energy companies for the past 50 years. It has been policy to retard the oil business by government. It has been a fact that tax policy has been skewed toward going offshore to find and develop the resources of foreign entities while ignoring the vast supplies of oil, natural gas and coal in the US.

Alaska has not been developed; it’s been tested    and logged but barely exploited. Manmade Global Warming and Peak Oil are hoaxes used to lock up the keys to energy independence. Do you think any politician with any common sense would ever let a snail, polar bear or a fish kill our economy?

Oil prices are now going down, do you ever ask yourself why?

A few months ago we were running out of petroleum and the price was $147 a barrel. I am seeing financial reports in major world publications calling for $50 oil and you soon there's plenty of oil in other places than the US.

Thinking about what’s happening with our economy I cannot come to any other conclusion other than this was a set up. Think about it-$147 oil to kill the economy and $50 oil to kill off the dollar and the domestic energy business. The net result is more ominous than just $2 gasoline at the gas pump.

Our dollar is now near worthless. You will see the end game soon, regardless of who wins the presidential election.

I have capitulated, drill here –drill now and energy independence will never happen because our rulers don’t want it.

See who capitulates next.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

$50 Oil, You'rre not going to like results

Analysts at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch are predicting that the price of crude oil could fall to $50 a barrel by December if the global economy slips into recession. Opec is due to meet this week and it is expected that the group will announce a cut in output.

The Gulf States will pull out of US Treasuries. The dollar will be almost worthless. Good bye 401K'S.Hello slavery.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sold Out by Liberal Government, Not Capitalism

By M. Jay Wells
Obama's economic narrative of the mortgage crisis ignores the facts. He has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in that market.

On September 15, with banking giant Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection, Obama was given the opening to begin weaving his anti-capitalist storyline. And that he did. Artfully blurring the mortgage industry crisis with generalized tax policy, Obama declared,

"I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

The words were carefully chosen.  That day in Colorado marked his return to the teleprompter and a strictly refocused campaign message intent on surreptitiously fusing the mortgage industry woes and free-market capitalism in general. Confident the American people are primed for his socialist brand of "change," Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme, "What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."

His chat with a Toledo, Ohio, plumber showcases his socialist, redistributionist ideology:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

He had already said as much at an April debate where he said his plan was to "look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness" (after having just admitted that raising the tax would reduce revenues!). For Obama, increased federal revenue be damned, tax increases are nonetheless necessary for redistributionist "fairness."

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.


The Growing Government Hand


1933-1938


President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of "New Deal" reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.

1968

As part of President Johnson's Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a private owned yet government chartered company, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) providing authority to issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys home mortgages in order to preserve liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the Federal government.

1970

President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae. Designed to help grow the secondary mortgage market, Freddie Mac purchases mortgages from lending institutions to either be securitized as MBS and sold in the secondary market or held by Freddie Mac. At this time the secondary market for conventional mortgages was small.

1977

Sen. Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) introduced a "creeping socialism" community reinvestment Senate bill. Opponents argued the bill would allocate credit without regard for merits of loan applications, thereby threatening depository institutions. Proponents countered that it was only to ensure that lenders did not ignore good borrowing prospects in their communities. The bill's sponsor stressed it would neither force high-risk lending nor substitute the views of regulators or those of banks.

President Carter, pressed by grassroots organizations -- though opposed by the banking industry, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In the years following the Act has undergone several revisions.

To boost community development laws, CRA was a provision designed to stem bank "redlining," the practice of drawing a red line around low-income communities and denying lending in these areas. The original intent of CRA was to encourage banks to foster homeownership opportunities in these underserved communities in which the lending institutions are chartered.

According to Section 801 of title VIII, "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs [i.e., credit and deposit services] of the communities in which they are chartered to do business." Accordingly, "regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation" to meet these needs. Moreover, the title required each "appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions."

1980s

With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what "affirmative obligation" might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the "discrimination" provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.

August 1989

To deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like ACORN to further influence bank lending practices.

1990s

With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.

The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.

Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became "a feeding trough," in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.

The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.

In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.

February 1990

Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, who responded that they were being bullied into irresponsible "affirmative-action lending policy."

1991

ACORN interfered with a House Banking Committee meeting for two days protesting a move to bring CRA reform.

1992

Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants." Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because "community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities."

According to the Times, however, "the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against."


Frank Quaratiello, writing in the Boston Herald, cites Stan Liebowitz, "My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result." Said Liebowitz, "Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it."


According to Quaratiello, Syron became Freddie Mac CEO and chairman in 2003 and "faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed's guide had, in effect, served to legitimize." Regarding Syron's total compensation in 2007 of $18.3 million, Liebowitz reportedly quipped, "Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending."

September 1992

The Chicago Tribune described the ACORN agenda as "affirmative action lending." And, writes  Kurtz, "ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities."

October 1992

Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to "amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development." The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to "ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely." It also "established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas."

Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was "hamstringing" the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a "weak regulator." Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."

September 1993

The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN's Talbott with five area lenders "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.

July 1994

Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had "intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction," calling their action "racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices."

November 1994

President Clinton addresses homeownership: "I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."

June 1995

Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.

As Kurtz notes,"ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond." What resulted was the broadening of the "acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis."

The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed "to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000." The plan was "to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership" which was "amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities."

Kurtz concludes, "Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system -- far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness' -- and the contagion spread."

Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, "We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears." With the new policy in full force, "No loan is exempt; no bank is immune." "For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement," reiterated Reno.

1997

HUD Secretary Cuomo said "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas . . ."

1998

By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.

April 1998

HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, "discrimination isn't always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that's hidden behind a smiling face."

Before the camera, Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to "affirmative action" lending that would result in a "higher default rate." The institution would "take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes; to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, yes; they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes. It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes. . . . With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio."

May 1999

The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing the growth to breathing "the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act." This breath of "life" mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income ratios which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.

By now all pretense had disappeared, lending practices were based upon concerns of discrimination in the banking system regardless the consequences. The administration threatened to veto a bill passed by the Senate which had "shortsightedly voted to retrench" CRA, as the advocative Times put it.

Under pressure, Fannie Mae was resisting increased targeting, arguing that the result would be more loan defaults. Barry Zigas, heading Fannie Mae's low-income efforts, argued, "There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can't push [the banks] to produce," the Times reported.

Fall of 1999

Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly."

September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.

September 1999

A study by Freddie Mac, confirming earlier Federal Reserve and FDIC studies, contradicts race discrimination arguments for CRA. The study found that African-Americans with annual incomes of $65-$75,000 have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000, showing that the difficulty in qualifying was not because of race but because of bad credit records. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas accordingly entitled a paper "Red Lining or Red Herring?"

2000

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition instructed on how to exploit the new CRA regulations, "Timely comments can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating." NCRC asserted, "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." That is, the mere threat to intervene in the CRA review process had equipped the ACORN groups for the massive shakedown.

Moreover, ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers.

Winter 2000

City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.

March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler testified in favor of GSE regulation. He argued that the bill would promote private market discipline, increase transparency and preserve market competition, reducing the potential for subsidized competitors to distort financial markets.

Fannie Mae spokesmen responded by calling the testimony "inept," "irresponsible," and "unprofessional."

Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute testified to the subcommittee that the bill was "a milestone in Congressional efforts to gain control of the Government Sponsored Enterprises." He added that the "political courage and stamina that was required to introduce this bill and to continue to press it forward cannot be overstated." He emphasized that the bill was only an "interim step in the necessary process of dismantling the GSEs and eliminating both their threat to the taxpayers and to the private financial sector of our economy."

Wallison explained why Fannie and Freddie "pose a serious problem for both the public and private sectors." First, they contain an inherent contradiction. "It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits."

He sounded an alarm on a "vicious and dangerous cycle." "Fannie and Freddie must grow in order to maintain their profitability and hence their high stock prices, but there is no countervailing check on their growth - no effective competition, no required government approvals, and no fear in the financial markets that there is any risk associated with financing this growth. Moreover, their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders require them to exploit their subsidy to the fullest extent possible. These are agencies that are - in the fullest sense of the phrase - out of control."

Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives vigorously attacked any such criticism. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets," rebuffed Sharon McHale, Freddie Mac spokeswoman. Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives prevailed.

June 2000

Fred L. Smith Jr., writing  in Investor's Business Daily, recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE "special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy." He warned that these GSEs were "strange organizations, neither private-sector fish nor political-sector fowl" and that "as a result, no one is quite sure how these entities should be evaluated or held accountable." These new debt portfolios "will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania): "Mr. Smith, that is almost a fallacious argument," adding that rapid growth of GSE debt holdings was nothing to worry about as it simply reflected "inflation and the growth of population. "Everything, proportionately, is that much larger."

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.

April 2001

Fiscal Year 2002 Budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity," says a White House release.

July 2001

Subcommittee hearing on a bill proposed by Rep. Baker to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and abolish the OFHEO.

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) responded: "This bill would dramatically restructure the current regulatory system for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my opinion, it also represents a solution in search of a problem. Nearly a decade ago, Congress created a rational, reasonable, and responsive system for supervising GSE activities, and that system with two regulators is operating increasingly effectively. H.R. 1409 would unfortunately interrupt this continual progress."

March 2002

Business Week interview with Fannie Mae Vice-Chairman Jamie Gorelick about the prospects for the coming year:

Gorelick: "we are expecting a very, very strong 2002."

Gorelick: "We believe we are managed safely. . . . Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions. . . . . And we have consistently exceeded every standard that the examiners have set for us."

May 2002

In an OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, the President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.

2003

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with GSE oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was informed by OFHEO "on the salaries paid to executives at both companies," according to the Washington Post. Reportedly, "Fannie Mae threatened to sue Baker if he released it, he recalled. Fearing the expense of a court battle, he kept the data secret for a year." "The political arrogance exhibited in their heyday, there has never been before or since a private entity that exerted that kind of political power," he said.

June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.

July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

The New York Times reports that the Administration recommended "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," calling for new supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury Department. Reportedly, Congressional Democrats "fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies  that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements, says a White House release.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. . . . I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina): "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.

Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE," says a White House release.

February 2004

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator," reports a White House release.

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

June 2004

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System," the White House reports.

September 2004

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up." Again, GSE pressure prevailed.

October 2004

Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: "Then there's the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it."

Baker adds, "Although their bonds bear the disclaimer ‘not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,' the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies' risk strategies to the taxpayers' pockets."

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): "It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure. . . . The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "And as well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "What would make you, why should I have confidence? Why should anyone have confidence, and uh, in, in you as a regulator at this point?"

Armando Falcon, OFHEO Director: "Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the ‘34 act, they weren't under the ‘33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I'm tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can't hire them."

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): "So the concern that I have is you're making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You've imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a 48-hour ultimatum on them without having any specific regulatory authority to put that kind of ultimatum on ‘em. Uh, that sounds like some kind of an invisible line has been crossed."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. And for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum not the maximum."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "I find this to be inconsistent and a and a rush to judgment. I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae as OFHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "Because banks don't, there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans."

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."

January 2005-July 2006

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."

April 2005

Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system," from a White House release.

May 2005

At AEI Online, Wallison warned that "allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

January 2006

Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators." He stated, ". . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie's and Freddie's investment portfolios."

March 2006

Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.

May 2006

After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

May 2006

Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. . . . OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."

McCain stressed, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

April 2007

Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.

April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."

September 2007

President Bush: "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."

2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Today 2008

The narrative is of another socialist experiment failed, this time a massive federal effort, imperiling the whole US banking industry. Facing this economic disaster, will an informed American people put their trust Obama's socialist ideology to bring remedy? To do so is to trust in an acetylene torch to put out the fire.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html at October 26, 2008 - 07:07:55 PM EDT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democide, How Many People Must Die

By J.R. Dunn

"Over the past fifty years, something on the order of a half-million Americans have been killed by liberal policies."


That line appears to have gotten to people, as it should. Among the many welcome comments on my piece on Christopher Buckley, a number both on AT and elsewhere referred to that statement -- my contention that liberalism is not only a failed ideology, but a deadly one, an ideology that kills, and kills in large numbers. Many of the comments called it "incredible", "unbelievable" and "shocking".

That's in no way difficult to understand. Achieving awareness of the lethal nature of liberalism's excesses is much the same as coming to realize that your friendly, familiar neighborhood is actually overrun by vampires.

But while there's no such thing as vampires, there are such things as killer governments. And as the record clearly shows, the federal government of the United States of America -- that is, the government that rules and orders the lives of almost everyone reading this page -- must take its place among them. Not as a monster state, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but as a kind of halfwit state, one that kills not out of malice but out of stupidity, lack of attention, and softheaded idealism. But whatever the motives, the dead remain still all the same.

The topic was originally suggested to me by an AT reader - which gives us a solid idea of the caliber of this site's readers -- who asked, "Is there such a thing as a Black Book of Liberalism, like those dealing with Nazism and communism?" I had to admit that there wasn't but that -- as I'm sure that reader intended -- there certainly ought to be. And it would have to be a book. An article or essay simply wouldn't do. It needed that heft, and required that impact. The concept takes in too much history, too many years, and too many topics, to be dealt with on a smaller scale.

Among those topics is that of crime. When liberals in the late 1950s decided to tackle crime, how did they go about it?  Through the strange means of decriminalizing criminals. Lowering prison sentences, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment, community action over policing. A series of Supreme Court decisions followed -- Mapp, Escebedo, Miranda -- disrupting the criminal justice system and effectively evening the odds between criminals and the public.

And the result? Beginning in 1964 -- the year of the Escebedo decision -- the murder rate shot up as if strapped to a rocket. Within a few years it exceeded 10,000. By the mid 70s that number had nearly doubled. Rapes, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes mushroomed as well. It went on for thirty years, with terrified neighborhoods taken over by thugs, entire cities destroyed by crime. All the while, liberal experimentation continued: prisoner rights, legal bans on executions, special release programs. It ended (if, in fact, it has ended) only with the restoration of public order by people like Rudy Guiliani.

A deficit of 260,000 Americans were murdered during this period. Over a quarter of a million people, dead before their time, many under the most terrifying circumstances conceivable. It is possible that no family in the United States has not been at least indirectly affected.

We can add the CAFE standards, federal regulations dictating mileage rates for new cars. The only method of achieving the drastic new rates was by cutting automobile size and weight, increasing impact dangers to drivers and passengers. Studies by Harvard University and the Brookings Institution suggest that the numbers of ensuing deaths may exceed 120,000.

Then consider the mentally ill tossed out onto the streets unprepared and unsupervised as a money-saving measure beginning in the early 1970s. The aged veterans thrown out of VA hospitals today. The banning of halon, the single most effective fire retardant, with no suitable replacement. The children murdered while in the hands of state family-service agencies. (For an example of this type of atrocity, read this account of a young girl who escaped death by a whisker while agents of our government, paid for with our taxes, looked on.)  AIDS policy, drug policy, immigration policy... we could fill a page with no more than the list itself. While the actual numbers  remain hazy -- no one is keeping track, after all -- there can be no question that the death rate caused by government intervention is no less than horrifying.

Moving out into the world at large, we will examine the banning of DDT, implicated in the deaths of up to 30 million malaria victims -- most of them children. And the foreign policy initiatives so brightly informed by liberal idealism in such places as Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iran, and Zimbabwe. Now we're talking real numbers.

It will come as no news to readers of this site that liberal policies tend to fail. But some of them fail catastrophically. And when they do, they kill. They kill in large numbers. They have been killing for decades, and they will continue to kill for as long as we allow it.

The process is called democide, the murder of a populace by its own government. It can occur through malice, or indifference, or through incompetence. Almost always, it is instigated by an ideology -- fascism, Nazism, communism... and liberalism. According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, the sole scholar of democide (you'd think there would be droves of researchers working on such a critical topic -- but you'd be wrong), 262 million people have died by such means over the past century. Against that number, a half-million is a bagatelle, a drop in the bucket. 

But it happened in our country. It happened in America.

The book I've written is provisionally titled "American Democide: Liberalism and the Politics of Death" --- though can be improved. The manuscript is now effectively finished, and ready to make the rounds. I've written books before this, and I'll write others afterward. But this one is different. I'm not so arrogant (believe it or not) to think it will change anything when it appears. But I will say this: in a time when liberalism appears to be resurgent nationwide, and may soon be in a position to inflict yet another series of lethal policies on the people of this country, the facts in this book can act as a new weapon to arm the opposition, when the old ones seem to be losing their edge.

Liberals have turned their backs on the price of their gaudy little dreams. They have walked away from their failures and their victims, all the while posing as the humane, the decent, the moral superior. It's time for that mask to come off.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/democide.html at October 26, 2008 - 06:58:53 PM EDT
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This is Your Country..Act Like You Own It!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Weathermen , Ayres and Obama..What they believe

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See Carters Tax Rates.. Understand OBAMA'S

Check out the tax rates when Jimmy Earl Carter served as "president" in '78.



That's right. Carter's tax rates "spread the wealth" by confiscating 70% of any earnings over $203K. Seventy percent! That motivates a lot of folks to demand cash, hide income, cheat, operate in the black-market and/or not bother to work any harder. Even if you earned only $47K, Carter wanted half. Half!.

As for the results? In 1980 Time magazine put it this way.

...inflation is not only a frightening economic problem but is rapidly becoming Carter's most dangerous political liability as well... In the past few weeks, however, a new side of inflationary psychology has begun to show itself among businessmen and investors: plain, old-fashioned fear. Executives talk of inflation rates going to 20% or more in the next few months, creating an environment in which reasonable planning is impossible. The jitters have unhinged the investment markets. As recently as mid-February, stocks were widely considered a hedge against inflation and thought to be grossly undervalued. The Dow Jones industrial average hit a high of 904 on Feb. 13. But since then it has tumbled 92 points, to 812; nine points of the decline came last week. The average is now lower than it was 16 years ago.

Sound familiar? Maybe there's validity to the contention that the recent stock market turmoil can be termed an "Obama Panic". That is, investors anticipate a disastrous set of Carter-esque policies that send the economy into a tailspin and respond accordingly.

What were the results of Carter's "wealth-spreading" policies?

Inflation rose dramatically, nearly touching 15% by 1980.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Unemployment rose to 11% shortly thereafter. The economy didn't return to health until President Reagan spearheaded lower tax rates.

The history is clear: oppressive tax rates for the "rich" (really, just businesspeople small and large) is disastrous for employment and wounds the economy.

Starting to get the picture? Really feel like experiencing a 1980's style economic disaster? Then I urge you to vote for Barack Obama.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is $50 Oil Here?

 

A few days ago I received an email from a long time friend with a link to a Youtube video by Lindsey Williams. I watched his 8 part video from November 2007. He explained that Peak Oil is a hoax and Alaska has a 200 year supply of oil and gas for the US that’s being kept under wraps.

Then he said we would soon have $5 gasoline. Ok he’s lucky I thought.

Then Mr. Williams stated the Mortgage Crisis and the high price of oil would destroy the economy.

So, I looked at some more recent video post. These posts are from radio shows that I don’t listen to but heck, I believe he’s right on about peak oil and gas did go to $5 and the economy has taken a hard hit. I am no Ron Paul fan.

In late July while Oil prices were at their peak he said Oil will soon go to $50 a barrel ($2 gas)and that there are 2 huge oil fields that are coming on line that have more oil than the Middle East. One field is in Indonesia and the other is north of Russia, he continued.

If this happens the way Lindsey Williams suggest our domestic oil & gas exploration business will be destroyed in a few months, the countries of the Middle East will not be able to buy our Treasury Debt, the dollar’s value will be near worthless and our nation will not be able to service its debts. He said it will take us years to recover from this capitulation.

I pray he’s wrong. The scary thing is he’s been right too much for my comfort level. Oil prices are currently at $64 a barrel; weeks ago it was $140.

Glenn Beck calls this a perfect storm, Williams calls it an agenda. I hope it’s just Halloween.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Man Taped Predicting $5 Gas and Crash Last Year

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Maybe to Late for Cheap Leases, Hugh Oil Reserves will soon be announced

Oct 21 (Reuters) - Shares of Petrohawk Energy Corp rose 17 percent on Tuesday, after the company announced a new natural gas field discovery in Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas and its third well in the Haynesville Shale was placed in production at a rate similar to the first two wells.
The oil and natural gas producer said the discovery well in the Eagle Ford Shale was placed on production at a rate of 9.1 million cubic feet of natural gas equivalent per day (Mmcfe/d), and that it has leased over 100,000 net acres in the area.
In a separate statement, Petrohawk said its third operated well in the Haynesville Shale was placed on production at a rate of about 17.0 Mmcfe/d.
The company's first well in the Haynesville Shale had an initial production rate of 16.8 Mmcfe/d and second well tested at a rate of 16.7 Mmcfe/d.
The stock was trading up 13.27 percent at $16.99 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange. It had earlier touched a high of $17.55.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive