Opportunity

Obama is for “spreading around opportunity.”

That’s his interpretation of spreading around the wealth.

But let’s look at this “opportunity” based on spreading around the wealth. Consider two questions: what’s the opportunity for? and how does one get this opportunity?

Obama says that by spreading around the wealth, a waitress can “can put a roof over her head.” Well, I suppose that’s a possibility. But aren’t there other possibilities as well? Obama hasn’t specified that. At least he hasn’t done so yet. But I suppose the law could require “tax refunds” to be spent on government housing. On the other hand, maybe the waitress will spend the money on cigarettes. Then we would have the “opportunity” to spend more on her healthcare. This, no doubt, could provide her more “opportunities.”

And how does one get Obama’s “opportunity”? Well, it appears to require merely a vote for Obama and his fellow travelers. On the other hand, there are other ways to get “opportunity.” Just ask around. Some might say work. Others might say beg. Some might even say steal. Those ways might get you a roof, or a cigarette or two, or a new HD television or GPS system, or even a set of wheels.

An old-fashioned scrupulous fellow who clings to God might insist on discriminating. He might insist that the American way has something to do what’s right and “opportunities” by theft are no “opportunities” at all. He might say that theft by government is wrong too.

But can we say that anything the government does is wrong? If it’s legal isn’t it right? Well, some might say it’s right or wrong, or even patriotic, depending on whether Bush or Clinton or Obama is responsible for it…..

If we do insist on a standard of right and wrong above formalities, we might need to re-examine this “opportunity.”

We seem to have forgotten that “opportunities,” (or, in that old-fashioned language, liberty) means not being forced to do wrong and not being prevented from doing what’s right. So I’m reminded of the “opportunity” of the widow. She didn’t receive her mite from the government but she was more charitable than everyone else.

What we need for opportunities to succeed is not someone else’s money, but faith that right makes might. And what’s right is to work to be able to give as God shows us those who truly need help.

I’d prefer to help my church help more those in need (like the orphans in Zambia), rather than see more tax money go to CEOs of Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN. :sigh:

Obama Reducing Abortions?

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Come inside the snake oil salesman tent at Youtube and see for yourself!

See Obama selling his abortion policy to everyone from Planned Parenthood to Saddleback church. (from cuz Jeannie)

25 Years Ago Today

Remembering the Marine Barracks

From the Naval Institute Proceedings:

I ran outside to find myself engulfed in a dense, gray fog of ash, with debris still raining down. I felt sickened as I stumbled around to the rear of my headquarters, thinking we had taken a direct hit from a Scud missile or heavy artillery. As the acrid fog began lifting, my logistics officer, Major Bob Melton, gasped, “My God, the BLT building is gone!” A knot tightened in my gut.

After an instant of disbelief, I quickly realized we had suffered heavy casualties. I later learned that a suicide driver penetrated our southern perimeter and rammed a 19-ton truck bomb into the lobby of the Marine Battalion Landing Team (BLT) building and detonated it. Forensics and intelligence later estimated the compressed-gas-enhanced device to have an explosive equivalent in excess of 20,000 pounds of TNT.

….

At dawn this 23 October, a solemn candlelight vigil will begin the day at the foot of the Beirut Memorial, nestled in the pines of North Carolina. Families, veterans, and friends will gather to pay tribute to those who “Came in Peace” on this, the 25th anniversary.

….

In the Iranian Behesht-E-Zahra cemetery in southern Tehran, there will also be a ceremony at a monument erected in 2004 to commemorate the Beirut suicide bombers. In attendance will likely be some dressed as suicide bombers, chanting the standard “death to America” and “death to Israel.”

….

The recent revelations that Iranian weapons are killing U.S. Marines and Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should surprise no one. Conclusive evidence has disclosed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force has transported roadside bombs and armor-piercing “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) from Iran into Iraq. Other advanced Iranian weapons found in Iraq include the RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade, 240-mm rockets, and perhaps the most ominous, the Misagh 1, a portable surface-to-air missile that uses an infrared guidance system.

….

In reality, Iran has been waging war against the United States for more than a quarter-century, from the 1979 hostage crisis and the Marine barracks bombing in 1983 to providing sophisticated weaponry to Sunni and Shia insurgents in Iraq. Iranian mullahs have chosen to wage a radically aggressive campaign to create and accelerate instability throughout the region

Joe, Thank You!

Thank God for “Joe the Plumber”!

Even Senator McCain got it and was able to run with it, but where has he been? Why can’t Senator McCain make it clear that “spread the wealth around” is what Obama’s healthcare, and tax “cuts” etc. are all about? Go for it McCain, remind people more that the words Obama uses, like “health” in the abortion debate, have twisted meanings.

Look, I’m fine with “spreading the wealth around” as long as it’s truly public wealth that gets spread. But as McCain said, we don’t need “the government” taking the money we’ve earned and have the Pelosi-Reid-Obama triumvirate give it to someone else to “buy” their vote. Come on McCain, Reagan did it, call Obama what he is: a tax and tax, spend and spend liberal.

And quit buying the Obama propaganda that 8 years of Bush caused all our problems. Bush proposed to reform Freddie and Fannie and to run them in a financially responsible fashion. See links in “Barney’s Blarney” and my comments.

I know the dream of a world with jobs, homes, and health care sounds great, but unless we want to be subjects who are told what job to do, which mass transit system to use, where and in which mass housing project to live, where to go for healthcare (and how long to wait for it if we don’t die first), we need to wake up.

Consider, what should a government do for good people who know how to govern themselves? Do we think that our representatives should serve those who can’t control themselves? Should our representatives serve those who can’t control their spending habits and can’t pay their debts? Should our representatives served the greedy and get special VIP housing loans?

What should hard working people demand of their representatives? Taxes and taxes? Why not demand that officials protect their property from thieves?

What should generous people who donate money to an orphanage in Zambia demand of government? More “tax and tax” so less is available for orphans? Why not demand that our representatives protect our property from terrorists?

What should people who save their money demand of their representatives? Spend and spend money, inflating the currency and devaluing savings? Why not demand the end of the “tax and tax, spend and spend” habits of liberals?

Do good people want to be “fixed” by the government? Or do we want to control the government, limit its power to legitimate ends, and live free?

If we want to live free, we have a duty to protect Joe’s freedom. That’s the wealth that needs to be “spread around.”

The Dream

Dreams can be powerful.

Consider the power of the communist vision on one man Sam Herman and his son Victor. Sam was a gunrunner and a Communist organizer in Detroit. In 1931 Sam and his family went to the Soviet Union. Victor says he followed his father; he did what sons do. Sam obeyed a dream that had captivated him. Sam Herman was going to help make the world a better place. After all, doesn’t Socialism mean, as Victor would later write, “the good of everyone everywhere … fairness for everyone and the good life for all?”

Victor tells of his life in the Soviet Union in his 1979 autobiography, Coming Out of the Ice. He tells how he was sent to prison and of his suffering in prison. He learned to like rat to survive prison. He tells about life in Siberian exile and how he described America to his hungry daughter like a fairy tale place where she could have “two potatoes.”

He wrote that he’d follow his father again. And of the Socialism of his father, in which all are rich, Victor saw nothing wrong.

The dream of life with no suffering is powerful. Who doesn’t want to rid the world of hunger and orphans? Who wants to see his child suffer? Socialism is captivating.

Victor reflected on consequences for decisions:

How does a father reckon up accounts when he buys and his child pays? But does not every parent make choices for himself that prove decisive in the life of his child? Isn’t this what history is?

We might say that Victor’s father Sam exercised his right of the “pursuit of happiness.” Like Sam, we might have too narrow an understanding if we think of the pursuit of happiness as the pursuit of material wealth rather than a right way of life.

Being poor didn’t make Victor less American. But you might not know that listening to politicians today. We hear politicians talk about the American dream or the promise of America, and it’s all about how much we’re going to get from the government. The right way to live seems to be defined as getting the most from government.

But if we misunderstand the pursuit of happiness, we may not be pursuing a better world. Unwittingly we may be pursuing the gulag.

Victor had insisted on the truth. He was an American. He refused to deny that. When offered the opportunity to return to America, if he came as a Russian, he refused. When given a Russian pension, he refused to give up his goal. He returned as an American. As Reagan would say of him and those like him, they became the “rulers of the guards.”

Truth is liberating.

There’s nothing wrong with being rich, and there’s nothing wrong with everyone being rich, but we can’t deny the truth and be free. We can’t believe that government can fix everything. We can’t deny that people are endowed with different talents and abilities and some are better equipped to make money than others. We can’t deny that some deal drugs or steal, rather than work.

If we have liberty, some will have more than others; and if we try to make all people the same, all “rich,” we have the gulag.

What was once sold as “socialism with a human face,” a new and improved socialism, was understood by the French philosopher Bernard-Henry Levy as “Barbarism with a Human Face.” As he said, “The dream was not born yesterday, then, but … it always turns into a blood bath.” He, rather like Victor, insists on thinking — even without believing — “the impossible thought of a world freed from lordship.” Well, rather like Victor, he sees possibilities in America.

But do we still think it’s possible to live without the lordship of big government? Once the government owns our income, our homes, our healthcare, and our retirement, what’s left of freedom?

What choices are we making for our children? Will our children know the language of freedom? Or will they only know a “socialism with a Christian face”?

Barney’s Blarney

The blame game is on. And we have a culprit identified: Ronald Reagan caused our financial crisis.

I know, this is old news from the Charlie Rose show: it’s the news according to Barney Frank. He’s shameless (but we all knew that).

Barney Frank wants to call September 15th “free enterprise day because that was the one day in which the Bush administration apparently stuck to its professed commitment to free enterprise….”

He says that a “true understanding” capitalism recognizes the need for “appropriate regulation.” He says that “by virtually totally abstaining from the market” Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration caused the financial problem. He doesn’t understand “free enterprise” or the facts, although I’ll agree that we lacked “appropriate” regulation.

(And I was surprised during the Biden and Palin debate that Governor Palin didn’t answer the question about regulation. The problem, again, was the government, so why not defend deregulation? Why couldn’t she have made a stronger case for free enterprise? Doesn’t she like freedom?)

The Left wants us all to believe that the “free market” can “fail” and then we all suffer. Only the government can do what’s right and protect us. But what’s the failure of a buyer and seller agreeing to an exchange because they both think they will benefit? If the failure is fraud, we have laws for that…. Is the failure a lack of payment? or non-delivery of goods? We have laws, laws, and more laws for all aspects of commercial transactions.

Law enforcement, of course, is not premised on the coming of a Utopian age when mankind lives in perfect harmony. Instead, it’s premised on the idea of mortal man being fallible and the breaking of laws. It’s also requires proof in court.

So what’s the proof? who’s the culprit? Does Barney understand “appropriate”?

The dictionary doesn’t seem to help much in understanding what is “appropriate” legislation of “free enterprise.” The OED defines “appropriate” as “specially fitted or suitable, proper” and “enterprise” as “a bold, arduous, or momentous undertaking” and “free enterprise” as “the freedom of private business from state control, esp. as an economic doctrine.” This doesn’t help much because we only see here that “free enterprise” means “freedom of private business” and we don’t see what’s “fitted or suitable” regulation of “free enterprise.”

Now it might seem that “appropriate” doesn’t help much, but that’s not entirely the case. Consider who should decide what’s “appropriate”? If “appropriate” is whatever Barney decides, then we lack a rule of law. And without a rule of law, we lack liberty. (See Federalist No. 51 and Montesquieu’s definition of liberty in the Spirit of the Laws, Book 11, Chapter 3. )

But with the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged loans to low and moderate income (LMI) applicants, guess who is deciding “appropriate” regulation? Under the “legislation,” banks were rated on their community development efforts. And community development is open to the “public” for “comment,” Appendix A (at end of CFR 228). So bank ratings of their compliance with the law and approval of mergers, etc. were subject to the comments of “community organizers” like ACORN and NACA. (ACORN says this comment period is “crucial.” And see ACORN’s “comments” in opposition to modifying CRA.)

So banks aren’t under the “appropriate” regulation of the rule of law as applied in court with independent judges. As explained here in 2000, they are subject to a form of extortion. Banks either make community “investments” or their CRA rating is lowered because of adverse “comments” by groups like ACORN and NACA.

There’s nothing “appropriate” or “democratic” or “community” about regulation by special interest “comments” designed to extort money from people without the protection of an independent court.

The comments that should count are the ones we make to our congressmen.

Free enterprise means that “government” isn’t the only entity for deciding what’s “appropriate.” What’s “appropriate” is not the mere will of Barney, or merely a matter of power. A sound loan is a sound loan because of the particular facts of the case, not because some ideology says making LMI loans and “community development” is a good thing to do. Barney’s ideology may say that, but Barney’s voice is not the voice of God, it’s just blarney.

The problem, again, is that what’s “appropriate” is not relative. The freedom of “free enterprise” is not relative but is grounded in morality. Free enterprise is merely an aspect of political liberty and as Montesquieu said, “political liberty does not consist in an unlimited freedom [to act as we please]. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will.”

Public Prayer

So now Virginia Chaplains are not to pray publicly in the name of Jesus, and six have resigned.

What’s wrong with the view of Sam Adams? From the journals of Congress it is recorded:

That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché.

Has prayer in the name of Jesus made Christians unpatriotic? Do we now have bigots objecting to prayers? Does anyone still speak of “piety”?

I ask you, what’s wrong with what Sam Adams said?

Obama intimidation and NRA

Heh. I never thought I’d say this: “Good luck Obama.” The NRA isn’t going to be bullied.

Of course, it’s really not Obama vs. the NRA. Obama is simply trying to do damage limitation by using legal action against those who do business with the NRA.

Obama’s legal team has sent intimidating letters to tv stations and cable operators warning them of possible legal action for running NRA ads. The letter cites Factcheck, but see the factcheck of the Factchecker….. why trust gun idiots to judge the truth about guns?

Good grief Obama. What ever happened to “change” in campaigning? Intimidating critics in Missouri? Or is this all part of “community organizing.”

I can do without this “organizing”; let me judge the NRA ad like any other ad. (At least the NRA has been around for awhile, unlike the “pro-hunter” front AHSA group.)

Godspeed to us all who have to wade through the ads and campaign literature of honest as well as shifty politicians.

Humpty Dumpty and “taking responsibility”

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men
Cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Did you know Humpty Dumpty was a Royalist cannon that couldn’t be put back into action?

So who can put the economy back together? Is this going to be like putting Iraq back together?

Awhile back I caught a snippet of an O’Reilly interview with Obama about Iraq and his criticism of Bush’s policy. He thinks “the Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility.” So I’ve paused to think about getting someone else to “take responsibility.”

Obama supports an Iraqi pullout to get the Iraqis to “take responsibility.” But getting someone to “take responsibility” is also a tv show. (Yes, Jen’s influence is here.) But that technique is called an “intervention.” I think it’s also called “tough love.”

In his NYT piece Senator Obama says:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

Hmmmm, turning “Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government” that–as the premise of this argument–is lacking a “comprehensive political accommodation.” That sounds like the sovereign government isn’t entirely sovereign. And maybe that’s like an addict, an independent adult person who is not entirely “sovereign.” So, sure, quit supporting the “addict” and force him to “take responsibility.”

But note, the interventionists don’t kick the addict to the street when he wants to reform. I think they get checked into rehab. They need a little “protection” until able to guard themselves from their old “friends.”

And what about this “financial crisis.” Who’s going to “take responsibility”? Who is going to do the “intervention”?

Again, there has to be a judgment about what is healthy and what isn’t, what is just and what is unjust. The healthy needs support and the unhealthy needs to be curbed. And I suppose the “intervention” may take some time.

A “bailout,” however, doesn’t sound like an “intervention”; it sounds like “enabling.”

I’m skeptical about the proposed “cure.” And I’m skeptical about “bipartisanship” as the solution. I think too much “bipartisanship” contributed to the problem. I think President Bush and the Democrats want “bipartisanship” so they can be “enabled” and not make the real changes necessary.

Note that President Bush mentioned “working with Congress,” “a spirit of cooperation,” and being “bipartisan” but barely mentioned Congress as part of the problem.

Note President’s Bush’s idea of the problem. First he mentioned that America is a great investment. He mentioned low interest rates as part of the problem.

But investment and low interest rates are not a problem. Were the “investment” a loan and were we not paying, then that would be a problem. Investment and low interest is not a problem but a great benefit that typically comes from a good credit rating.

Second, President Bush gives a reason that sounds more substantive. High risk loans and securities created by Freddie and Fannie were bad deals, but they found buyers and sold the securities around the world because they appeared to be backed by our government. That is, we’ve borrowed money from foreign countries to finance how we live and we don’t dare tell them to hold the securities and take the risk.

And with defaults on bad loans, housing prices quit rising and that led to more defaults. And who wants to pay more for a house than it’s worth?

But there’s the clue. People run away from their debt to save themselves.

And guess what? Even with backing these risky securities created by Fannie and Freddie, we still won’t be paying what we owe. We’ll go back to “tax and tax, spend and spend.” We have NO plan to pay what we owe. President Bush mentioned no plan to stop the “excesses” of Congress spending money without a plan to pay what is owed.

Bush said this problem “developed over a long period of time.” But he didn’t suggest it went back to FDR, to “tax and tax, spend and spend,” like Reagan understood.

From the beginning of Social Security recipients received more than they ever paid. And we continue to support politicians who promise to give us money we don’t have to pay back….

From the nation’s beginning, however, we’ve had real “interventions.” Alexander Hamilton did the first one. And we had lower interest rates that were not a “problem.” Reagan intervened and reduced the misery index and strengthened the dollar. A real “intervention” can be done, but I didn’t hear it coming from President Bush. And I wish Senator McCain would address it more….

Oversight

Oversight seems to be a big concern of some in Congress these days.

I guess there was an oversight. $700 billion. Some “oversight.”

So, where have these congressmen been? Aren’t they the “overseers”?

And do these congressmen not understand who oversees the Secretary of the Treasury? I thought that was the President.

I know, trusting the President scares some people. And trusting the President seems especially to scare congressmen. But I don’t think trusting the President should scare us anymore than trusting congressmen.

And I don’t trust their oversight boards either. The Freddie and Fannie “boards” didn’t help. And today my bro sent along an article about the Railroad Board. They never saw a disability claim they couldn’t approve. (Bro then related treating a “disabled” person. He was disabled and couldn’t work because he had an anger management problem.)

Riddle me this: Who oversees the overseers?

Well, when it comes to trust, I’ll repeat a comment on an earlier post. We have to oversee ourselves. We need to learn not to trust people who want to give us money—especially when it’s not their money. It really isn’t any different than Lincoln’s idea of liberty and democracy: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.