The Dow took a 5% plunge today, marking a new record for post election stock market drops and eclipsing the previous record of -4.5% in 1932, the day after FDR was elected. Our Messiah is already following in the great FDR's footsteps. On the whole, more than $6 trillion has been erased in this year's bear market. That's a bad thing, because none of that wealth can be redistributed.
If you live in Europe and you are an American, it's now okay for Europeans to be friends with you. Heck, some Austrian hottie might even plant a big one on your cheek. Viva Obama!
Rahm Emanuel has been reportedly tapped to be Chief of Staff in the Obama White House. The choice of Emanuel, a top adviser for President Bill Clinton, proves that our new leadership is interested in reaching across the aisle to embrace those with differing political views.
Here is a roundup of several key state questions on yesterday's ballot. Numbers in parentheses after the name of the measure indicate number of precincts counted as of this morning:
Arizona Proposition 102 defining marriage as between a man and a woman (92%)
For: 1,009,693 - 57%
Against: 777,359 - 43%
Arizona Proposition 202 revoking business licenses for hiring undocumented workers (92%)
For: 702,839 – 41%
Against: 1,020,204 - 59%
South Dakota Initiated Measure 11 to ban abortion (99%)
For: 160,697 - 45%
Against: 196,847 - 55%
Washington Initiative 1000 on assisted suicide (48%)
For: 826,229 - 58%
Against: 588,321 - 42%
No big surprises here. Arizona can't very well support tough sanctions against businesses that hire illegal aliens, because such a measure would essentially put every company that hires laborers out of business.
Perhaps the voters in Washington state are concerned about the disproportionately high cost of health care for the terminally ill during their final months of life. Or perhaps they are anxious for a simple, guaranteed way to eliminate suffering when they become ill. If only life were that easy.
They'll be tokin' it up big time in Michigan. Dude!
America still hasn't warmed up to gay marriage and gay adoptions. I only support secular civil unions, and gay foster parenting/adoption as a last resort, if there is an emergency and no other suitable foster home is available.
Many Americans believe that affirmative action has run its course and needs to be retired. This is interesting, since a majority of Americans just voted for a President who essentially believes that affirmative action was not enough, and that we must redistribute wealth in addition to giving racial minorities preference.
Finally, Americans still seem to feel that abortion is a private issue, and that there should be as little government interference with abortion as possible. I think most Americans agree that abortion should be legally available (even if you don't agree with the procedure) and should be safe. The big question is, how "rare" should it be? Partisans on both sides of that question -- unrestricted access vs. a nearly complete ban -- will never see a majority agree with either extreme position.
I think that these results show that while Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo and are longing for new visionary leadership, their basic ideals and beliefs have not changed. In short, this probably means that a hard pull to the left will not be enthusiastically received. Just some food for thought, as the Left prepares to run wild with their new "mandate" to rule America.
It's looking like a 2-3% victory in the popular vote totals for Barack Obama, just
about what the sane opinion polls predicted. He has well over 270 electoral votes, so the election is over. (Continuing vote tallies now indicate a 5-6% margin of victory.)
Anyway, certainly not a landslide, and a slim enough margin to make it difficult to declare a "mandate" -- although Democrats managed to declare a "mandate" with less than a 50% majority in 1992 and 1996. To Democrats, any victory is a mandate.
Recent history shows that Americans don't like one party rule, yet we are currently headed for a repeat of 1992-1994 "hope" and "change" (i.e. bigger government and higher taxes) except
with a far more liberal president and far more bitterly partisan
Congressional leaders. Oh, wait ... they promised us that one party
rule will be more bipartisan, didn't they? What was it that Rush
Limbaugh always said -- "bipartisan" simply means Democrats are
unopposed.
If recent history is reliable, the American people will give Obama
about two years. I don't think that he will reflexively announce an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Troop withdrawals are already ongoing, spearheaded by the Bush administration (although I'm sure the press will give Obama the credit -- "if Obama hadn't pushed for withdrawal, Bush would still be dragging his feet..." or something like that). I don't think that his foreign policy will be immediately disastrous, although I believe that Obama could very well make a major foreign policy or military blunder during his first 24 months in office.
What I think would will really hurt Obama is an immediate juggernaut of hard-left domestic policies -- deliberate
over-regulation of energy that drives energy prices through the roof,
crippling tax increases that slow down the economy and depress the stock market, massive government spending that results in out of control debt and deficit increases -- those
will mean a huge Republican congressional landslide in 2010, essentially a repeat
of 1994. Continued poor performance (like Carter in 1979-80) will mean
a one-term presidency and perhaps President Palin or President Jindal
in 2012. Or maybe president Hillary if Obama is extremely weak and the
country isn't ready for the GOP in the White House.
On the other hand, Obama could actually stay in the political center
that he has so carefully crafted during his campaign. As such, his
presidency would very likely resemble that of Bill Clinton, sans the
philandering. Clinton did not cave to his party's radical left wing after he was elected. An Obama who actually listened to the people -- especially opinions that differ from his own -- and worked to bring disparate groups together in order to find solutions could be a great leader. However, the temptation for Obama and Congressional Democrats to simply roll a radical liberal/socialist agenda over minority Republicans "just because they can" will be great, and Obama does not have a history of challenging his party. Further, Obama had a lot of "guardian angels" in Chicago and in the national Democratic party who looked out for him and, probably to a greater extent than most people realize, made it possible for him to be where he is today. They will demand to be rewarded, with both choice political appointments and guaranteed consideration of their pet agendas.
Right now I'm curious about how long it will take for bits of unsavory information about Obama -- the kinds of things that the press would have published months ago if he were a Republican -- to begin trickling out of editing rooms and video vaults, and into the mainstream press? How long will it take for mainstream media reporters to finally remember that they are journalists, and maybe they should take a second look at Obama's sketchy personal history, and perhaps begin to build a profile of him from sources other than Obama himself? A bad economy or a serious military blunder could burst the protective dam that the MSM build around Obama and cause these kinds of stories to flood the national conversation.
One curious irony is that Obama's victory has to be bad news for race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not only has the torch been passed (over them) to a new generation, but their primary cash business -- exposing "institutional racism" -- has suddenly gotten a lot tougher. They will always find plenty of hard-luck sob stories
to use as a basis for their currency of victimhood, but certainly the
election of an African-American to the White
House should finally dispel the tired boilerplate of all blacks being
consistently denied a fair chance in America because of “the system.”
Well, that's enough for tonight. No, I'm not angry. A little disappointed perhaps, but life goes on. I won't be leaving America. I won't be suffering from Post Election Stress Trauma. I'll simply live day to day, doing the best that I can, praying for the things that are beyond me, and looking forward to each new day.
Having spent all of their credibility on Obama, they will now have to validate their choice, which means they’ll continue in unquestioning support,
championing, rather than questioning, his leadership. Sadly,
questioning policy and leadership is the most valuable thing they do.
They’ll have forfeited the idea of “comforting the afflicted while
afflicting the comfortable,” because they’ll be wholly invested in
advocacy. THAT is the worst thing that happened, in this election - the
loss of our open and free press.
She also links to Michael Gerson writing in the Washington Post:
I come to this moment of national decision with deep concerns about
the next president. His victory is likely to unleash an ideological and
vengeful Democratic Congress. In the testing of a long campaign, Barack
Obama has seemed thoughtful but sometimes hesitant and unsure of his
bearings. He promises outreach and healing butholds to a liberalism
that sees no need for innovation. And as the result of a financial
panic that unfairly undermined all Republicans, Obama has stumbled into
the most dangerous kind of victory. A mandate for change but not for
ideas. A mandate without clear meaning. (emphasis added)
Obama is as much a work-in-progress as the rest of us are. I believe
one glaring error in the community of believers is that we are quick to
pray, but not always to pray as we might or should. I used to visit a
political forum and read the Christians daily blowing raspberries at
Clinton but rarely if ever praying FOR him - and we know prayer changes
things. A lot of believers prayed for Bush but either stopped when the
going got rough, or started praying that Bush would be “turned” to do
their bidding.
If God is not done with Obama, yet - and he’s not - then there is
still, always, hope. The office is bigger than any man. St. Peter would
have been no one’s idea of a great pope before Pentacost. St. Paul - a
persecutor of Christians - would have been no one’s idea of a premier
preacher and teacher of Christian doctrine. Nor, for that matter, would
Augustine have been.
... But God tell us to pray for such as these. And for Obama, too, who I
think will need those prayers also because I think the satellites
around him are much more dangerous and worrisome than he. (emphasis added)
Agreed. It is difficult to reason with those who believe that everyone except for themselves is unreasonable. Yet Obama certainly needs our prayers, if for no other reason than the god-like powers that the Left has projected upon him. When your followers expect you to be larger than life, you will suddenly find yourself facing temptations and crises that you had never previously thought possible. Just ask Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart. Or Bill Clinton.
I voted at 9:30 this morning at Crown Heights Baptist Church near NW 50th and Western here in Oklahoma City. I waited about 40 minutes to vote. There were two lines, A-Kr and Ku-Z. Voters were lined up out the door and part-way down the building. Voters and staff were polite, and there were no problems voting. In the interior photos, you'll notice a video camera on a tripod behind the desk. Channel 9 News was there, along with a still photographer. Channel 9/NewsOK has an open comment thread for Oklahoma voters to report what it was like to vote today.
I also checked out the polls earlier, around 7:30 AM. At that time, voters were lined up all the way around the parking lot:
As of this writing (11:00AM CST) it looks like Oklahoma will have a record voter turnout, significantly higher than the record we set in 2004. This is including both ballots cast today, and absentee voting.
...
Four years ago, I voted at 9:00 AM and was ballot #475 in the machine. Today I cast my vote at 9:30 and was voter #678. My wife voted around 1:00PM and reported that the tally was over 1200.
RUSH:
You were telling us that you were in Oklahoma City and you had a little
bumper sticker with McCain-Palin on the car, and I expect what you'll
say is that you encountered some intimidation.
CALLER: Yes. It
was amazing the amount of intimidation we experienced. We had our
windows down about an inch. People were screaming things at us that I
wouldn't even repeat. I mean we had racial slurs coming at us. We had
threats coming at us. They wouldn't let us turn in. The police that
were there, there were three, they were doing zero to even let us turn
in to go vote. In order to stand in line to vote that day, we had a
three-hour wait. So if we were going to get out of the car and be
yelled at for three to four hours? I mean, that's insane. We went
ahead and left and both of us have gone and voted today at our normal
precincts, but what concerns me are two things. Number one, if there
are elderly people or other women that are intimidated to the point
where they're not voting -- and then also if this were reversed. If
these were McCain-Palin supporters that were preventing Obama
supporters from voting, it would be all over the news.
I dunno. It doesn't smell right to me. Oklahoma is predicted to go for McCain with a 30% margin.
...
The Anchoress is making this prediction, which I believe is right on the money:
If McCain/Palin wins, the press and the Dems will stroke out and Obama
will play The Ultimate Chutzpah Card and say that at least 14 states
(the big ACORN states) must be challenged because “the rolls were
suspect and the integrity of the election was compromised” - by his
very own supporters. Then he’ll proceed to tear the nation apart, in an
effort to wrest the White House from the GOP. If Obama wins, the Dems
and the press will declare that this was the “cleanest” and most
“widely observed” election in our nation’s history; they will declare
the people have spoken, call it a mandate and tell John McCain that if
he dares to challenge things, he’ll be a most dishonorable man willing
to tear his nation apart to serve his own ambition. John McCain will
ultimately not challenge such a loss, because - like Nixon in 1960 -
he’ll put his country first, and decide America may not survive such a
fight.
The chattering class -- the pundits, the analysts, the professional opinion-makers, the professors of history, political science, and law, the reporters, the editors, the entertainers -- they have invested so much in Barack Obama that a defeat simply will not be acceptable. And when the chattering class isn't happy, they will make sure that none of the rest of us are. Only a Reagan 1980-sized victory would be enough to shut them up; yet even that might not be enough. There were no accusations of "voter fraud" in 1980, and there was a third candidacy that year that both sides could credit either with victory or loss.
After the 2006 election, I stand firmly convinced that charges of "voter fraud" will be made only when there are Republican victories. And if there is a razor-thin McCain victory tonight, and "voter fraud" is moved front-and-center in the ensuing "what went wrong" debate, you can be sure that everyone in the mainstream media will concentrate of "voter suppression" (the supposed tool of eeeeeeevil Republicans) while little mention will be made of 2008's massive voter registration fraud, or potential problems with over-voting, since these two phenomena seem to be the bread and butter of the Democratic party's attempts at empowering "disadvantaged" voters. There are plenty of problems with our electoral system, but must solutions always involve such questionable tactics?
...
Okay, okay. I didn't want to go on and on about this stuff. (*deep breath*) Regardless of the outcome of today's election, please remember that God's will can be accomplished by the faithful, praying Christian regardless of who controls our government. No power on earth, no matter how malevolent, has been able to stop the Gospel and the transition of the world into God's Kingdom. Regardless of who wins, the demands of our Christian faith will not change.
This will be my last post dealing with election politics. I just wanted to make one last retrospective argument concerning wealth and class envy.
It seems that Barack Obama has been hit hard by the McCain camp's charges of socialism. His latest rebuttal (after unsuccessfully attempting to denigrate "Joe The Plumber" Werzelbacher as a loser who could never possibly earn $250,000 a year) is that anyone complaining about tax rate increases is selfish.
There is anger and frustration among ordinary Americans over tax increases, but it is not because of selfishness. It is because of reality -- only an idiot would believe that the minority of taxpayers taking home $250,000 (or is it $200,000 or $150,000 or $120,000?) or more will be the only group of people to bear the cost of Obama's colossal government expansion. And it is because of resentment. We don't resent those with wealth per se, but we certainly resent an erudite cadre of wealthy, elitist lawyers, tenured professors, political consultants, and politicians telling us what to do with our money. The Anchoress summed it up perfectly some years ago:
Every weekend I meander through the New York Times [...] And every
weekend I finally close the paper and think, this is a publication
which editorializes on the evils of capitalism while it praises
European-style socialism, and foments class resentment between the rich
and the poor…and it disdains middle-class Republicans like me…and yet
it is chock-full of people so rich I have never heard of them, people
who breathe such rarified air and move in such insulated little
conclaves that I would only be likely to encounter them face to face if
I rammed into them on the Long Island Expressway as they moved back and
forth between Town and Country, between Sotheby’s Manhattan and
Sotheby’s Southhampton, so to speak. The paper prostrates itself before
the public-education devotees who send their children to private
schools and the illegal immigrant sympathizers who have bought up the
last private beachfronts in Montauk, inviting those brown-skinned
Catholics onto their property only long-enough to erect the high walls
of their fortresses or to stain their decks.
She continues,
I, in my middle class world, with my callused-handed husband and my
Eagle Scout son, and the friends with whom we volunteer at church and
in the community, do not begrudge the hyper-rich their riches.
What we do begrudge them is their “superior” disdain for our values,
and their hectoring that we are somehow less compassionate, less
well-meaning, gosh darn it just LESSER people because we believe in
giving a hand, rather than a hand-out.
I mind gazillionaires like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, Jon Corzine
and Hillary “we’re going to have to take some things away from you for
the common good” Clinton pretending that our yearly income, our solidly
middle-class income (and very modest emergency fund) is too, too much
for us, unfair to others, undertaxed, greedy, ignoble and selfish. I
mind people who are bouncing on fluffy pillows of honest-to-goodness wealth shaking a rhetorical finger at us for daring to try to get comfortable on our foam rubber mats of hard-earned wages. (emphasis added)
And do you know what really gets under our skin? I'll let Peggy Noonan handle that one:
Our elites, our educated and successful
professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us.
I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the
elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of
our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of
Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have
accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate
peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and
pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the
knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than
non-elites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off
the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing
they can do about it.
I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the
future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided
to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble.
And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this
thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I
got mine, you get yours."
I think that many of us know, deep down inside, that people like Michelle and Barack Obama, who earn a combined annual income comfortably in the 7-figure range, are more or less insulated from the financial affects of the public policies that they support. We know that any "solutions" proposed by Ted Kennedy to our current health care problems ultimately matter little to Kennedy himself, because his family connections, political connections, and personal wealth ensure that his personal medical care will always be the finest available, regardless of location or procedure or cost. We know that the opinions of billionaires like George Soros or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates on tax policies are essentially meaningless because they will still be billionaires, regardless of what the tax code says. Likewise with Hollywood celebrities.
We also know this because this select group of people, with rare exception and seemingly in inverse proportion to both their physical health and their publicly-expressed concern for the poor, are themselves embarrassingly weak benefactors of charity. They are also notorious for exploiting every possible tax loophole, all the while complaining that the rich don't "pay their fair share" in taxes. What did John Edwards, champion of the poor, do during the 1990s when his lawsuit windfalls began to roll in? He formed an S-corporation in order to avoid paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Why did Ted Kennedy probate his mother's estate in Florida, even though she had been a lifelong resident of Massachusetts? Florida has no state inheritance tax. And neither John Kerry nor Ted Kennedy pay the optional higher 5.85% Massachusetts state income tax rate. And so on and so on.
We know that the super-rich will not really be affected by income and payroll tax increases, simply because such increases do not affect their principal wealth. Even if the very rich were income taxed at a rate of 100%, they would still be able to live very, very comfortably off the value of their enormous reserves of stocks, bonds, precious metals, cash, real estate, fine art, and other investments.
Perhaps they'll owe a little more under Obama's plans, but they've got theirs, and the enormity of their fortunes means that most of their money will be securely tucked away in tax shelters. And what happens to the rest of us really doesn't matter to them as long as they've paid just enough to assuage their slightly-guilty consciences.
The people who really get nailed under the high marginal taxes and estate taxes of "spread the wealth" schemes are the professionals and successful business owners who have just barely crossed over the $150,000 to $200,000 per year earnings threshold. These people will find themselves working harder to earn substantially less, permanently stuck with enough money to live comfortably, but never really earning enough to fund a retirement account that will allow them to continue to live that way after they retire, or able to accumulate enough to afford their children a comfortable inheritance. And they are the ones whose children will never have enough cash reserves to pay both extended/elderly care costs (such as nursing homes) for their parents, and estate taxes on real property or a business. This is the scenario that hits farmers and ranchers particularly hard. If a son or daughter inherits a farm valued at $2 million, where are they going to come up with the $500,000 or $750,000 in estate taxes for the government?
You may ask, what's so wrong with that? There are tens of millions of people in this country who spend their lives mired in poverty. Why should anyone support the idea that some people should be free to grow rich while others struggle from day to day?
I think the answer is two-fold. First, our nation has never enforced the principle of redistribution of wealth by the Federal government. Our Constitution was written in order to specifically define how our government would function, and to enumerate specific rights of citizens that could not be infringed by that government. The Constitution creates a Federal government that, for the most part, is limited in its ability to interfere in people's lives. It also implies that what is yours is yours, not the government's (or euphemistically, "the people's"). Under such a system, some will prosper and some will fail, but their failure cannot be attributed to persecution or limits on their individual freedoms imposed by the Federal government. In fact, under our system, state governments have more direct control over the rights of their citizens -- it was the state governments in the South that enacted "Jim Crow" laws; yet it took action at the Federal level to ultimately overrule state's rights on that issue.
Barack Obama was exactly right when he said that our Constitution "doesn’t
say what the federal government or the state government must do on your
behalf." He wants to see that changed, of course, but such a major Constitutional overhaul would give the Federal government an unprecedented and ultimately dangerous amount of power over our individual lives. I believe that the potential for the abuse of that power far outweighs any benefits to be gained from it.
Second, as a Christian I strongly object to other Christians attempting to use the government as a strong arm in order to enact their vision of social justice. Many Christians read about the equal partition of the Promised Land among the Israelites, and the communal nature of the early Jerusalem church as described in Acts, and conclude that God's plan for mankind is the equal distribution of wealth among all people. They then propose to task a benevolent centralized government with the administration of such a distribution plan. Unfortunately, the Bible contains no passages that support such a scheme. The New Testament teaches that Christians should peaceably co-exist within the framework of secular governments, and give generously to those in need, but it never teaches that Christians should co-opt those governments as a means of achieving their own ends. (Admittedly, the Church and much of Christendom has repeatedly failed in this regard.)
And in the Old Testament, God does indeed partition the land equally among the tribes of Israel, but He also clearly establishes that the land belongs to Him; the Israelites are merely tenants. They are forbidden from selling land in perpetuity, and whatever land is sold or mortgaged is to be returned to its original owners every 50 years. Therefore, whenever land is sold or mortgaged, its value is to be prorated according to the proximity of the 50 year Jubilee. The Israelites are also required to pay the Temple (i.e. God) an annual tithe of 10% of everything they own. (The Old Testament narratives indicate that the Israelites also failed to honor these commandments, just like the Christian church throughout the ages.) And God specifically requires His people to be generous with the poor and to refrain from profiting from their misfortune. Yet outside of these requirements, the children of Israel are allowed to honestly earn whatever they can, and -- with the previously noted exception of possessions that have been borrowed or purchased from others -- God never commands His people to redistribute their own personal wealth.
There is also one other thing. Redistribution of wealth schemes will do little to solve the primary affliction suffered by the poor in this country -- civic poverty -- which is the belief that they are irrelevant to the course of events in their communities. Civic poverty is most prominently displayed among African-Americans, who suffered persecution and loss of basic civil rights in this country for over a century after they had been freed from slavery. Even though civil rights laws have been amended, and even though academia and the professional workforce has striven to provide affirmative action and equal opportunities for Blacks during the last 40 years, there is still (particularly at the lowest economic levels) a basic distrust of America, its government and its financial systems among Blacks.
So far, all of our attempts to fight poverty have involved material solutions. And honestly, our poor enjoy a much better standard of living that average working-class citizens in many nations. But no one has been able to explain to me how a massive, materially-oriented redistribution of wealth scheme will somehow make the lives of the civically impoverished any better. Theirs is an emotional and spiritual deficit, and money will not make the hurt and distrust disappear, nor will it mend broken families or dysfunctional communities of any kind. In fact, I believe that such a scheme would make the lives of the civically impoverished even more miserable, because receiving free money with no required interaction could very well create an even greater temptation to stay disconnected from society at large.
So how do we fight civic poverty? The same way that Jesus taught us to spread his Gospel -- through relationships. By listening. By lending a hand whenever people are truly in need. By teaching others self-worth and self-respect. By helping people overcome addictions and hangups. In short, by getting our hands dirty, making ourselves vulnerable, and doing it all voluntarily, without coercion or intimidation from the government.
Such a solution is difficult, frustrating, painfully slow and seemingly hopeless. You can't accomplish it simply by writing a check or creating a government bureaucracy and then hoping everything works out OK. Is America capable of such a task, right now? Probably not. Certainly not without a spiritual awakening and revival, which is what I pray for daily for my own life and for our nation. Shouldn't we do something in the mean time, then? Yes, but only if our stop-gap measure is not worse than the problem at hand. I believe that socialism -- even non-violent, "democratic" socialism approved by voters -- is not the answer, because it only alters behavior by force of law; it does not fundamentally improve the character or spirit of its subjects. And it takes our allegiance away from God and lessens our responsibility for each other, since socialism recasts government as the ultimate owner of all wealth, and, subsequently, the sole source of our livelihood and well-being. When we turn the state into a God, we are not doing His will.
That's what I believe, and that's why I cannot support redistribution of wealth as a solution to America's current financial and spiritual problems. Please join me in praying for a better way.
The Columbus Dispatch reported yesterday that invasive state government searches into the private files of Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher actually ran deeper than first reported, and included inquiries into whether he owed unemployment taxes or was receiving state welfare benefits.
The Dispatch quotes Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, who explains the reasoning behind the searches:
"Given our understanding that Mr. Wurzelbacher had publicly indicated that he had the means to
purchase a substantial business enterprise, ODJFS, consistent with past departmental practice,
checked confidential databases ," she wrote.
"Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance
is receiving significant media attention which suggests that the person appears to have available
financial resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to take note and
respond," Jones-Kelley wrote.
Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 … $270-$280,000 a year.
Obama: All right.
Joe: Your new tax plan's gonna tax me more, isn't it?
Obama:
Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you
would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so
you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would
actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above
$250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same.
It is true that for … say, from $250,000 up, from $250,000 to $300,000
or so …
Joe: Well, here's my question …
Obama:
I just want to answer your question. So, for that additional amount,
you'd go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill
Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95 percent of small
businesses make less than $250,000 so what I want to do is give them a
tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers,
auto workers who make less … I want to give them a tax cut and so what
we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $250,000
that that marginal amount above $250,000, they're gonna be taxed at a
39 instead of a 36 percent rate.
Joe: Well, the reason why I ask you about the American Dream I mean, I work hard. I'm a plumber, I work 10-12 hours a day …
Obama: Absolutely.
Joe:
… and I'm, you know, buying this company and I'm gonna continue to work
that way. Now, if I buy another truck and adding something else to it
and, you know, build the company, you know, I'm getting taxed more and
more while fulfilling the American Dream.
Obama: Well, here's a way of thinking about it. How long have you been a plumber? How long have you been working?
Joe: Fifteen years.
Obama:
Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren't making $250,000, you
would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more
money, which means you would have saved more, which means that you
would have gotten to the point where you could build your small
business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways
of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've
become more successful …
Joe: Through hard work.
Obama: … through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much.
Joe: Exactly.
This short exchange was then followed by Obama's long-winded "spread the wealth around" explanation.
Joe simply says, "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 … $270-$280,000 a year." He doesn't say what the company is worth. He doesn't say what he will be paying for the company. He doesn't say when he will purchase it. He doesn't imply that such a purchase is already in the works. Jones-Kelley wants us to think that any responsible citizen -- after hearing this exchange -- would assume that Joe The Plumber is rolling in money, and would want the state to make sure that he isn't on the welfare rolls and doesn't owe any taxes. She tries to make herself look like a heroine, looking after the best interests of John. Q. Ohio Public, but she is simply making stuff up in order to cover her own ass. Period.
By her standards, anyone who mentions, in public, a future goal of attaining
wealth is immediately considered a fair target for a state
investigation, on the assumption that you wouldn't be telling your
dream to someone else unless you already had the "available finances"
to make your dream into an immediate reality. What utter nonsense.
Such checks are run by state departments when an individual or group
actually files to purchase a company, not when they express interest,
whether on air or over a beer at the pub. That's the whole purpose of
filling out the reams and reams of official forms and applications.
Jones-Kelley's lying explanations should be treated as such, without
equivocation. (emphasis added)
Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are
“thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come
into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved
public assistance.
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve
never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does
that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today. (emphasis added)
Conservative blogs are going wild over an excerpt from a 2001 interview with Barack Obama that was originally broadcast on Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ. Here is what Obama says that is so stunning:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.
So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit
at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be
okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political
and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that
extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren
Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to
you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t
say what the federal government or the state government must do on your
behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the
tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights
movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency
to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities
on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of
power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some
ways we still suffer from that. (emphasis added)
My first reaction when I read this quote this morning was simply, "Okay, now we know what the Obama "litmus test" for Supreme Court justice nominees will be."
Sure, Obama says that the Court itself cannot specifically order the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. That would be unconstitutional. But the
massive power grabs that Congress must necessarily impose in order to
make socialism a reality here in the USA will certainly generate
numerous individual lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.
Just as FDR packed the Supreme Court with sympathetic justices
in order to legitimize the Constitutionality of the New Deal, so must
Barack Obama pack his Supreme Court with socialist justices, in order
to legitimize his redistribution plans. Someone has to keep discovering and defending those emanations and penumbras.
I also believe that any appellate court justice
who embraces the notion of "social justice" through the government-enforced redistribution
of wealth would, almost without exception, support
government-sanctioned abortion on demand. Therefore the abortion
"litmus test" is redundant and can probably be ignored. This will be to
Obama's advantage, as it could make his appointees more palatable to
the Religious Right.
What Obama actually seems to be advocating is a rebirth of the Poor People's Campaign,
which was about to be undertaken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at the time
of his assassination. The PPC was focused on the plight of all
poor Americans, regardless of race or geographic location. King's plans
included a demand for an "Economic Bill of Rights" that, among other
things, guaranteed a living wage-based permanent income for the poor.
You should also recall that Dr. King unapologetically supported government-sanctioned wealth redistribution
and himself wrote, "good and just society is neither the thesis of
capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious
democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and
collectivism."
MLK is considered a modern-day prophet. Could Obama's embrace of MLK's ultimate fight be the deed that elevates Obama to the level of modern-day Messiah?
In America, we have a Constitution that was written by a group of men
whose lives had been deeply affected by persecution at the hands of
various government and religious groups. The men who wrote the
Constitution wanted to make sure that future generations did not suffer from persecution as they had. That's why they wrote the Constitution in a way that stressed the limits of the government. They wanted to ensure that the government of the United States never directly interfered with the ability of its individual citizens to fully enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Has America been perfect in this regard? Of course not. Our economy has occasionally been overtaken by robber-barons. Our citizens once held slaves. Local and state governments used denial of the franchise as a powerful political weapon. Our Federal government stood by while its citizens faced discrimination and persecution. And in some cases, the government led that persecution. But even for all our failings, the principle of freedom for the individual has never been abolished.
But Barack Obama wants to change that. To Obama, the failure of the Supreme Court to eliminate the limiting character of the Constitution is a tragedy! Obama wants a Constitution that empowers the government, rather than limiting it. He wants a Constitution that gives the Federal Government a mandate to guarantee financial equity and equality of outcome for all Americans, presumably with an unlimited scope of power in order to be able to enforce that mandate. And he believes that such a Constitution is the only hope for the collective salvation of our nation.
This is, in short, the most radical vision for "reinventing government" ever articulated by a major (and currently leading) Presidential candidate. And it scares the living hell out of me.
But Mike, if you're really a Christian, don't you want to see hunger and hopelessness abolished? Don't you want to see an end to the suffering of the working poor? Don't you want to see everyone have a fair chance?
Absolutely. And I have been involved in Christian social justice efforts here in Oklahoma City for about two years now. I have even attended community organizing meetings. But I would like to see true change, brought about by spiritual revival and the work of the Holy Spirit, not government mandates. Because such mandates will give the Federal Government an incredibly dangerous amount of power over our bank accounts, our income, and our private lives. And trust me, it will be used to punish those who don't toe the party line -- regardless of what party is in control. That kind of a power grab by the Federal Government is not a manifestation of "holiness," nor is it "justice," nor will it increase freedom or security for anyone. We don't need it and I don't want it. Period.
ADDED: If you want to understand the dangers of giving government absolute power to enforce its own definition of "fairness," then you should watch this disturbing video, part of a 1982 documentary on the Weather Underground -- the group co-founded and led by Barack Obama's mentor Bill Ayers -- entitled No Place To Hide:
It features former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated
the Weather Underground and helped law enforcement put an end to their terrorist activities. Grathwohl's tips stopped several attempted bombing attacks by
the group. In the video, Grathwohl describes a high-level group meeting held by the group to discuss the logistics of the American People's Revolution that they were attempting to lead:
I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take
over the government. You know, “we” become responsible then for
administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics, how you are going to clothe and feed these people.
The only thing that I could get was that they expected the Cubans
and the North Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all
want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also
believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect
against what they called “the counter-revolution.”
… I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t
reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d
have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of
which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known
educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the
elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious. (Emphasis added)
Liberals often accuse conservatives of being paranoid, suffering from delusions of Red Army bogeymen swooping down on America and locking everyone away in concentration camps. But we aren't making this stuff up. It has been discussed at the highest levels of academia and in all the major camps of the progressive movement. Does it not frighten you that a group of domestic terrorists, led by Ivy League-educated elites, sat around coldly planning the murder of 1 out of every 10 Americans for none other than purely political reasons? Does it not frighten you that the leader of that group mentored our current leading Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that government records were searched for evidence to discredit and destroy an ordinary citizen who dared to challenge that Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that the previous Democratic presidential candidate believes that the Communist reeducation camps set up in Vietnam were no big deal, because the former inmates of those camps are now "thriving?"
Maybe we'll end up like Sweden, with suffocating government control over education, career choices, employment opportunities, salaries, benefits, profit levels, and retirements, yet without the need for a secret police force, or armed troops in the streets, or "reeducation" camps. Maybe. But the truth is that the progressive intellectual and moral "brights" who walk the marble halls of our finest universities and political institutions seem to have no problem with "social justice" in America at any price, even the intimidation, imprisonment, and death of anyone who dares to oppose their vision of Utopia. If that's how we must achieve a "better America," then God help us all.
Among conservatives, the "story that won't die" about Barack Obama is the tale of his close ties to 60's radicals who still identify very strongly with Marxism. The biggie is William Ayres. Another radical who has now been linked to Obama is Michael Klonsky.
Anyone who has studied the Progressive movement in America, from its turn-of-the-twentieth-century origins up until today, should not be surprised that Marxism has always been the dominant philosophical influence of the contemporary American left. In other words, progressivism has always been synonymous with Marxist thought, particularly Marx's concern for the plight of the underpriviledged, under-educated, underpaid, and under-represented working class.
And just in case you haven't yet figured it out, progressivism and its core values of egalitarianism and benevolent distribution of wealth (as opposed to conservatism and its core values of peace through strength and the free market) is the dominant philosophy of America's "chattering class," those who craft and perpetuate our cultural mythos --philosophers, historians, social scientists, educators, journalists, artists, and entertainers. Thus our contemporary cultural narrative, as taught in universities, as expounded in editorial pages, as explored through songs and poems and films, is steeped in progressivism, and by extension, Marxist ideals.
But that wasn't always the case. The paradigm shift that brought about the wholesale conversion of the cultural chattering class to progressivism and Marxism was WWII, because the evils committed by Germany -- considered by many to be the cultural center of Western Europe -- caused the academic world to drastically re-think the theological, philosophical, and economic ideals that shaped Europe during its great period of colonial expansion during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
Western intellectuals tackled not only what went wrong in Germany, but also what was happening in lands that had long been oppressed by European colonial governments and military forces, specifically Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. Support for "people's revolutions" around the world grew rapidly among intellectuals, who by this time (the early 1960's) had begun to teach their students that the treatment of natives by Western colonial powers was just as evil as the oppression inflicted by the Nazis on the European nations that they conquered.
Thus a new generation of students was indoctrinated in the philosophies of Marx, and taught to believe that capitalism and military power were de facto marks of evil, and that the third world revolutionaries who promised political and cultural equality and financial equity for their people were truly the last best hope for freedom and stability in the world. "Baby Boomers" like William Ayres and Michael Klonsky were part of this new generation. They willfully ignored, and in many cases supported, the unmitigated use of violence that coincided with "people's revolutions," and stood unwaveringly behind any Communist regime that was opposed by the United States government. And in the late 1960's, the Baby Boomers became the dominant force behind American popular culture, which remains dominated by leftist ideals to this very day.
Another branch of progressivism, one that has been heavily involved in issues of social justice for more than a century, is populated by many Christian activists who have dedicated their lives to organizing and enabling the poor and oppressed. They are almost exclusively pacifist: while they support non-violent civil disobedience, they universally condemn warfare and the sale of arms and munitions for profit. They argue that the resources spent on warfare would be much better spent educating and equipping the poor, and breaking down the barriers between the different classes within our society. Christian progressives also espouse thrift, stewardship, charitable giving, and communal living. Dorothy Day's Hospitality Houses and Clarence Jordan's Koinonia Farm are two of the best known examples of Christian-oriented communal fellowship.
Because of their absolute refusal to support the U.S. military -- even for "just" causes such as the liberation of Europe from the Nazis -- and because of their continuing efforts in support of labor unions, community organizing, and unrestricted government benefits for the poor, Christian progressives have often been accused of being Communists; this was especially true during the "red scare" decade of the 1950's. In truth, many early Christian progressives did form partnerships with socialist and Communist activists, beginning with the period of economic and racial unrest that blanketed America after the First World War. Ironically, these Christians considered the nascent Communist movement to be one of their strongest allies in the struggle to give a voice to the working poor. (Today's evangelical Christians should use this curious fact as food for thought and discussion.)
Finally, black intellectuals have wrestled with the themes of socialism and government intervention for over a century. Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois led both sides of this debate: Washington argued that the black man was capable of achieving surpassing greatness if the government simply kept others from impeding him; DuBois felt that the government had an obligation to directly give back both the financial and social status that it had robbed from the black man. DuBois' side eventually won out, and his line of thinking culminated in the democratic socialism espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and in the Affirmative Action programs implemented by the Federal Government.
So what does all of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, it's rather simple really -- Barack Obama is the first major Presidential nominee who is entirely a product of these three main streams of progressivism: Afrocentric democratic socialism, Christian social justice and pacifism, and the Marxist ideal of worker-led revolution, or "change" if you prefer. Obama's mother was a self-proclaimed Bohemian free spirit, politically progressive and disdainful of traditional Protestant Christianity. Obama went to Ivy League schools and was heavily involved in community organizing and social justice issues. He was mentored by William Ayres and became a trusted peer, aiding Ayres in his attempts to reform the public education system in Chicago. He struggled to identify with the black community (which originally shunned him because he is Ivy League educated and half white) so he joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, perhaps the most Afrocentric church in Chicago and unabashed practitioners of social justice, community organizing, and Black Liberation Theology.
Naturally, Barack Obama is going to have many associations with people whom conservatives would immediately label "communist." (And a few associations with people such as William Ayres, who describe themselves as full-blown revolutionaries and Communists.)
So what does all of this mean? Well, first off let me say that I don't expect an immediate "people's revolution" and the establishment of the Democratic Socialist States of America if Obama wins. But what is troubling to me is that on the campaign trail, Obama himself has never been straightforward about where he stands within the continuum of hard-left, left, and moderate-left ideals. "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher coaxed Obama into accidentally admitting that he believes government has an obligation to "spread the wealth around." But what else does Obama believe? It's probably safe to say that he doesn't directly endorse the kind of violent Communist revolution that Bill Ayers was hoping for thirty five years ago. But exactly what does he want? This?
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the
New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her
idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular
retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers
transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement
accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600
(inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also
have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the
government would pay a measly 3 percent return.
Such a plan would of course make it impossible for workers and employers to afford to continue contributing to private 401(k) retirement accounts. And on top of potentially massive corporate income and capital gains tax increases, the loss of market capital from such a plan would be devastating not only to the stock market, but to our economy as a whole.
Also, Obama has pledged to slash defense spending, to eliminate new weapons systems development, and to pursue unilateral disarmament. He has even pledged to meet with the leaders of dangerous nations without preconditions. Just exactly what are his views on defense and the necessity of military preparedness? We really don't know.
The true danger in an Obama victory lies in the seriousness with which his star-struck radical leftist and Marxist supporters will interpret such a win. Will it be considered a "mandate" for hard-left public policies and a final attempt to purge the last traces of traditional conservative political thought, free market economics, and Protestant Christianity from contemporary American culture?
A sobering truth about progressivism is that it is fundamentally incompatible with free thought. Progressivism celebrates the triumph of the human intellect, and such a philosophical underpinning necessitates the creation of intellectual classes, particularly the "enlightened" vs. the "helpless" or "ignorant." The "brights" know that eventually the inferior intellectual classes will tire of being controlled. I absolutely believe that given enough access to government power, contemporary progressive intellectuals will try to stifle any dissent or inquiry that deviates from the progressive party line, because deep down inside they know that such chilling policies are the only way to keep the "non-enlightened" from becoming discontent with their intellectual overlords.
My concern about all of this can be summed up in one of Ronald Reagan's famous quotes -- it's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that simply isn't true. If Barack Obama wins, we will have a perfect opportunity to find out just how much Progressives really know -- or don't have a common-sense clue about.
...
ADDED: Here's yet another video about Barack Obama that is being circulated through conservative blogs:
The video contains audio excerpts from a 1995 interview with Obama about his book Dreams of My Father. During the interview, Obama uses a favorite stereotype of progressives -- the "white executive" who lives out in the suburbs because he "doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children." (I wonder what Obama thinks today, about his own Rev. Jeremiah Wright moving to one of Chicago's choicest suburbs?)
Obama also articulates the belief that his own salvation is dependent upon "a collective salvation of the country," which in turn is directly related to the elimination of systems that allow certain groups to prosper, while other groups (specifically African-Americans) are doing "bad if not worse."
How do we save the country? We "make sacrifices."
Obama is not just espousing Marxism here. Obama's statements also represent one of the fundamental tenants of Liberation Theology, which is that God not only judges individuals, but nations (that is, communities bound by covenant in the Old Testament sense, not just modern nation-states). The "Black Liberation Theology" of James Cone that Rev. Jeremiah Wright
so fervently taught to his flock at Trinity UCC is simply an
Afrocentric variation of classic liberation theology.
Liberation theology expands the definition of "sin" beyond personal transgressions; it teaches that communities can collectively sin, based on how they treat the least among themselves. (Recall that God judged the entire nation of Egypt, not just Pharaoh.) Liberation
theologians teach that even though God's plan for personal salvation
has been fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's nature is consistent, and He still judges righteousness
collectively, just as He did in the Old Testament -- specifically among
communities who claim to follow Him and whose leaders publicly pray for
His
guidance. Under such a standard, of course, the United States stands
to be judged most harshly by God; this makes American liberation
theologians particularly fearful, because there have always been
drastic inequalities between the poorest and the richest in our nation.
I have blogged about economic injustice and God's judgment of nations elsewhere. And while I agree with much of what liberation theology teaches, I am strongly concerned about the Marxist plans that Obama and his minions have for America. There is a massive difference between a people led to justice through the work of the Holy Spirit voluntarily sacrificing in order to create equality and security among their bretheren, and a group of ruling elites forcing the masses to "sacrifice" in order to feed an enormous, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracy. Such a system is guaranteed to make everyone poorer, and to do little else.
I haven't put together a random news story post in a while, so here goes --
The current Battleground Polls show a statistical tie between Barack Obama and John McCain. And the latest AP poll seems to confirm what Battleground is finding. But it's the trend of the Battleground results that is important -- over the past two weeks, Obama has been losing momentum, and McCain has been steadily gaining. Undecideds have remained relatively steady.
Yet John Zogby just released a poll showing a nearly 10 percentage point lead for Obama. What gives?
DJ Drummond the "go-to" source for poll analysis, has repeatedly stated that polling internal numbers have been skewed heavily in favor of registered Democrat voters, based on the premise that Democrats are more excited about their candidate and therefore will go to the polls in greater numbers. Drummond also notes that state-by-state polling results tell a different story than national polling results -- Barack Obama is in trouble in a lot of states that should be decidedly blue. (As for Oklahoma, my home state, McCain has a roughly 2:1 lead over Obama.)
The conclusion is simply this -- it ain't over 'till it's over. The race is currently too close to call. Despite the outward confidence of Democrats, they are secretly very nervous. Always remember this simple rule -- the only poll that matters is the one open on Nov. 4.
...
Connect the dots:
1) The United States Military is the only -- ONLY -- area specifically mentioned by Barack Obama as a target for budget cuts.
2) Joe Biden admits, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."
3) Ralph Peters lists 15 possible tests, and concludes, "Think Bush weakened America? Just wait."
...
This item didn't receive much mainstream press coverage, but when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in New York last month addressing the United Nations General Assembly, a group of Quakers and Mennonites held a dinner and invited Ahmadinejad as their honored guest. The dinner was hailed as a success, and according to the American Friends Service Committee, "The president was
glad to meet. He was genuinely interested in further conversation with the
religious community and engaging in a real discussion with the U.S.
government." A concurrent counter-protest, held outside the hotel that hosted the dinner, was organized by Women United, the Jewish Action Alliance, Stand With Us, Center for
Security Policy, the Catholic League, the The Ethics & Religious
Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Alliance of
Iranian Women. It is interesting to observe how Christians who espouse absolute pacifism, and those who support the doctrine of Holy War, choose to interact with leaders of nations hostile to the United States and Israel.
...
Those who consider "spreading the wealth around" to be a superior economic policy should note that a cholera outbreak in Africa's most oppressive Communist nation, Zimbabwe, has already claimed dozens of lives. When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, it was the bread basket of Africa. But after years of violent, corrupt, and inept Communist rule at the hands if dictator Robert Mugabe, the nation has been economically destroyed. Zimbabwe no longer has enough resources to provide even basic health care for its people.
Meanwhile, the same level of corruption and ineptitude that has crippled Zimbabwe has also severely damaged Venezuelan oil production. Oil is Venezuela's primary source of income, and falling oil prices coupled with Hugo Chavez' clumsy mismanagement of Venezuela's oil production infrastructure could mean trouble ahead for this nation. We could very well see a Venezuela-Cuba-Russia alliance form during the next 24 months.
Here is a comprehensive report on ACORN activities in Oklahoma. I guess the Obama campaign's $800,000 never made it this far south. Apparently ACORN abandoned its OKC office with rent left unpaid. Sifting through the papers that ACORN left behind, a reporter found evidence of deliberate attempts by ACORN (supposedly a "non-partisan" organization) to use their organization efforts strictly for the benefit of Democrats.
...
Stanley Kurtz recently published a must-read piece at National Review Online about ACORN's direct involvement in the low-income sub-prime mortgage business. Poor people didn't break the banks, but outfits like ACORN certainly helped because ACORN failed to understand simple mathematics -- within any income group looking to purchase homes within any price range (starter homes to McMansions) there will be a finite number of people who are a match for both the kind of home you are selling, and the cost of the loan. ACORN simply kept pushing people into mortgage loans they couldn't afford, after the pool of qualified home buyers had essentially run dry.
Steven Sailer published a similar article a few weeks earlier, citing the pursuit of diversity over common sense as a prime reason for bank failures.
Orson Scott Card believes that if the chain of events leading to the current credit crisis clearly pointed to Republican malfeasance, the mainstream press would have immediately christened it "Fanniegate" and would still be running lead news stories about every Republican who was involved. He asks, "Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama
so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is
supposed to stand for?"
But then again, who knows? Maybe it's all God's doing. It seems that a lot of charismatic/Word of Faith churches who preach the "prosperity gospel" foolishly interpreted easy credit as a blessing from God. Yet another reason to stay as far away from the prosperity gospel peddlers as possible.
...
With all the worrying going on about politics, and the helplessness that each of us as individuals seems to feel when financial and economic circumstances are completely out of our hands, it is easy to succumb to acedia. "At its Greek root, acedia means the absence of care, and in personal
terms it means refusing to care, even that you can't care. It is a
supreme form of indifference, a kind of spiritual morphine: you know
the pain is there, but can't rouse yourself to give a damn."
For Christians, acedia represents a pattern of thinking that, along with pride and anger, has the potential to lead us into periods of deep despair. Kathleen Norris writes,
Acedia in particular could shake the very foundations of monastic
life: once a monk succumbed to the notion that his efforts at daily
prayer and contemplation were futile, life loomed like a prison
sentence, day after day of nothingness. In a similar way, acedia can
make a once-treasured marriage or vocation seem oppressive and
meaningless.
Western culture lost the word acedia because the monks' subtle
psychology of the bad thoughts was eventually solidified into the
Church's doctrine of the seven deadly sins. What the monks had
recognized as temptations that all people are subject to became seen as
specific acts or omissions, and as acedia was not easily characterized
as either, it was subsumed into the sin of sloth, which came to signify
physical laziness rather than a more serious existential indifference. (emphasis added)
Even though the world around us confounds us, we should never forget that there is always hope in Christ, and in the work necessary to build His Kingdom. In the face of insurmountable adversity and turmoil, what can we do? Perhaps it is as simple as helping the defeated among us wash away the dust of everyday life:
With her hair dyed an unnatural shade of red and a thin green shawl
draped over her, Carmelite Sister Begona Arroya stands out among nuns
in a convent overlooking St. Peter’s Square.
But when she is ministering in southern Spain to prostitutes from all over the world, she blends right in.
“I dress so I won’t intimidate the women I need to reach,” said
Sister Begona, 41, with a smile.
... “It is so terrible. The girls get in the car, and when they come back,
most look completely gone, like they don’t exist, they are destroyed by
this,” she said. “We talk to them and pray with them. We serve them hot
tea.”
We can also pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world whose lives are threatened every day because they believe in the Gospel. In Saudi Arabia, a young Christian girl was recently burned alive by her father in an honor killing, because she had published a profession of Christian faith on the Internet. And this weekend, a young Christian missionary was gunned down by a Taliban remnant group in Kabul, Afghanistan.
And finally, we can pray for our nation and for ourselves as we vote. We can pray that the election is honest, and we can ask for God's divine guidance to be bestowed upon the winner. Above all, we can ask that we, the American people, continually seek His will and work to build His Kingdom.
And why did it fail? Would you believe ... "People who were already able to afford health care began to stop
paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the
administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I
don't believe that was the intent of the program."
No shit, Sherlock. But can you blame them? Think about it. You and your wife both work, you make a decent living, and then get gouged by the government through taxes so you can have the privilege of paying for someone else's health care, while barely being able to afford your own. Who wouldn't want to get back just a little of what they were forced to pay into the system?
The reason for this, of course, is that the failure of socialized medicine in Hawaii doesn't fit "the narrative." It doesn't jibe with the image of the compassionate Big Rock Candy Government lending a helping hand to anyone in need, and the unteachable, pitifully-ignorant masses wiping the tears from their eyes and kissing the feet of their Dear Leaders, unspeakably grateful to them for "leveling the playing field" and "spreading the wealth around."
...
The next item is the endorsement of Barack Obama by Colin Powell. Powell is a Republican (Ooooooooo!) and served as Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term, so the cable networks, mainstream media bloggers, and newspapers have been wild with anticipation about it all weekend -- there used to be a lot of buzz among Republicans about a Colin Powell presidential run, and if Powell is endorsing Obama, then that must mean that a lot of Republicans will give Obama a second look, and if that happens ... so you see why the mainstream media is so excited.
Now let's look at another interesting political endorsement -- the endorsement of John McCain by JOE LIEBERMAN. Remember him? The 2000 DEMOCRAT VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? Bet you didn't even hear about that endorsement, unless you read a lot of conservative blogs. Where is the media hype? Where is the buzz? Where is the day-in/day-out news cycle coverage of his continued campaigning for McCain? Why isn't every Sunday talking-head show chattering endlessly about it?
I'll tell you why -- if Lieberman is endorsing McCain, then a lot of disgruntled/PUMA/conservative/redneck Democrats might give McCain a second look, and if that happens ... which doesn't fit the narrative of an Obama landslide of hope and change on Nov. 4. So it cannot be discussed, period.
...
Finally we come to "Joe the Plumber," Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, a plumber's apprentice from Ohio who was approached by Barack Obama last week during an afternoon of door-to-door campaigning by The One. Wurzelbacher committed the unpardonable sin -- he coaxed His Holiness into giving an off-the-cuff speech, sans teleprompter, and Obama made a little Marxist Freudian slip. John McCain seized upon Obama's slip and mercilessly beat him with it during last Wednesday's debate.
The dirt-diggers started Googling. And the next morning, six-term Sen. Biden launched
the first salvo against the Ohio entrepreneur on NBC’s Today Show,
challenging the veracity of his story: “I don’t have any ‘Joe the
Plumbers’ in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year.” (Does Biden have ANY plumbers in his neighborhood? -ed)
... Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama
that he might be “getting ready to buy a company that makes about
$250,000, $270,000″ a year. His simple point was that Obama’s punitive
tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream.
Obama’s followers couldn’t handle the incontrovertible truth. Left-wing blogs immediately went to work, blaring headlines like “Not A Real $250k Plumber!” Next, they falsely accused
Wurzelbacher of not being registered to vote (he’s registered in Lucas
County, Ohio, and voted as a Republican in this year’s primary).
... Then, suddenly, the journalists who wouldn’t lift a finger to
investigate Barack Obama’s longtime relationships with Weather
Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright sprang into action
rifling through citizen Joe Wurzelbacher’s tax records. Politico.com
reported breathlessly: “Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed
against him to the tune of $1,182.92. The lien is dated from January of
‘07.” Press outlets probed his divorce
records. The local plumbers’ union, which has endorsed Obama, claimed
he didn’t do their required apprenticeship work and didn’t have a license to work outside his local township. (DailyKos also published Wurzelbacher's home address. -ed)
... After Wurzelbacher told Katie Couric that Obama’s rhetorical tap dance was “almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr.,” the inevitable cries of “bigotry” followed. (There are now tens of thousands of hits on the Internet for “Joe the Plumber racist.”)
And if that wasn't enough, The Messiah then took it upon himself to mock Joe Wurzelbacher:
A commenter noted, "Obama says the words "a plumber making $250,000 a year" with such disdainful contempt. Like a mere plumber couldn't possibly
work his way into the elite white-collar tax bracket that Obama and his
Ivy League pals inhabit, oh no, that's a laughable presumption for
peasants like Joe."
Jim Treacher observed, "Is it just me, or have we seen more vetting of an Ohio plumber in the
last 2 days than we've seen of Obama's mentor William Ayers all year?
(Not to mention Obama himself!) Both Bill and Joe are embarrassing to
Obama because they've given us glimpses of his true nature, and yet
only one of them is being put through the wringer. Only one of them has
to fear for his job. Weird, huh?" He also notes, "The whole "He's not a licensed plumber!" non sequitur is really
fantastic. So, if you happen to be standing in front of Obama when he
publicly reveals his socialism, what does the media do? Demands to see your papers. That's just delicious, is what that is."
Well here's a funny thing, Mr. Messiah-to-Assholes. I happen to know an honest, hard-working young man who is an apprentice plumber. He is not "licensed." Currently he manages a plumbing supply store. Yet a friend and customer of his, a retiring plumber, really, really likes my friend and has offered to sell him his plumbing business when he retires. When that happens, of course, my friend will get his license and join the union. Incredibly, it happens all the time! So thank you, Barack Obama, for making it perfectly clear how you feel about people like my friend -- "Screw you, you'll never be successful, and I only give a shit about you when it makes me look good. And here's your puny tax cut, because you're too dumb to ever make enough money to afford my glorious tax increases."
I've written a lot during the past few months with regard to concerns that I have about an Obama presidency. But finally -- FINALLY -- I can tell you without reservation why Obama in the White House scares the living shit out of me. Well, actually I think I'll let IowaHawk tell you:
Politicians -- Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, et al. -- obviously have to
put up with some rude, nasty shit, but it's right there in the jobs
description. Joe the Plumber is different. He was a guy tossing a
football with his kid in the front yard of his $125,000 house when a
politician picked him out as a prop for a 30 second newsbite for the
cable news cameras. Joe simply had the temerity to speak truth (or, if
you prefer, an uninformed opinion) to power, for which the
politico-media axis apparently determined that he must be humiliated,
harassed, smashed, destroyed. The viciousness and glee with which they
set about the task ought to concern anyone who still cares about
citizen participation, and freedom of speech, and all that old crap
they taught in Civics class before politics turned into Narrative
Deathrace 3000, and Web 2.0 turned into Berlin 1932.0.
Make no mistake about this. This is pure Nazi-style propaganda. You want to Godwin me? Fine. But the media's obsession with Joe The Plumber is meant for one thing and one thing only, which is to distract you from what Barack Obama actually said in reply to Joe's question. That's a primary function of propaganda, and the media is serving it up in heaping spoonfuls right now.
When radicals went a little crazy and burned down the Reichstag in 1933 (the assembly hall for the Wiemar German Parliament) Adolf Hitler and his minions wasted no time demanding an "investigation" into the fire, while stirring up fear of an impending violent revolution if "something wasn't done" about the German Communist Party. The Nazis quickly fixed blame for the fire upon a group of Communist operatives, and Chancellor Hitler wasted no time petitioning President von Hindenburg to enact restrictions aimed at limiting the influence of the Communist Party in Wiemar Germany. With the Communist party outlawed, the Nazis and their sympathizers were able to easily win control of Parliament. And because they were caught up in the sensationalism of the Riechstag fire conspiracy, average Germans failed to notice that the real purpose of Hitler's decrees was to limit all civil liberties in Germany, and outlaw every publication critical of the Nazi cause. Hitler had successfully used the Reichstag fire to distract Germans just long enough to establish the mechanism that would enable him to gain absolute power over the German government. The man was a master of smokescreen propaganda.
Obama's message. Obama's message. Obama's message. Please stay focused. Ignore the smokescreen. Listen to the message.
With the exception of African-Americans (and I do wonder if they’re
doing better since welfare changed in the 1990s), America is still
a singularly fluid social and economic country. That’s part of why,
despite our vast immigrant influxes, we don’t have the banlieus of
France (riot central a few years ago, as you may recall), or the
tremendous immigrant unrest one sees in other European countries such
as Germany, Italy and England. Our immigrants start poor, work hard
and, always, have the possibility of “moving on up” — and this is true even if not all of them are able to act upon that possibility. It’s the American dream.
Obama’s plan, however, announces the end of the American dream. In
Obama’s USA, there’s no benefit to be had in moving on up. If you move
to the head of the line, his government is just going to bat you right
back down again.
There’s no doubt, of course, that those who are really, really rich
will probably still stay fairly rich, because their vast wealth may
take decades of government siphoning before it vanishes entirely. The
problem is that those who wish to be rich — and who for America’s whole
history could reasonably make that happen — will never get rich in
Obama’s America. That’s what Obama told Joe the Plumber.
America just heard the President Presumptive tell them, essentially, “don’t dream too big. Don’t dare to dream too big, because if you do, we’re just going to chop you down to size, so that everyone is the same.”
That is not an American recipe. It is a recipe that’s been tried
several times and all it ever does is sap people of ambition,
creativity and freedom. What’s the point in excelling if your
excellence will be the equal of mediocrity? What’s the point of
dreaming, if your dreams are going to be subject to the whims of others?
America likes its dreams, its ambitions and its freedoms. Between Obama’s slip-of-the-tongue and the increasingly troubling stories of voter fraud - excuse me, voter registration fraud (which is mean to enable voter fraud) - rampant in one state after another, he’s making a lot of Americans wary.
America is the can-do nation; it does not like being told it can’t do something. Americans do not like being told not to dream glorious dreams.
They do not like being told that excellence must subdue itself. And
they really don’t like cheating the vote. And while Americans may
tolerate little lies, the big, bold ones can get under their skin.
Things turn on a dime. This election may well turn not on who “Joe
the Plumber” is - but who Barack Obama is revealing himself - finally -
to be.
Team Messiah knows this. They really do. That's why they've resorted to harassment and intimidation in order to suppress any effort to connect Obama with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. That's why they want to shut down conservative talk radio and blogs with the "Fairness Doctrine." That's why they've targeted Sarah Palin. That's why they are destroying Joe The Plumber. And they will continue to take away your right to free speech and destroy average people as long as it allows them to keep their precious 'Obama Is Our Savior' narrative untarnished.
Hitler had his gangs of youth -- not really card-carrying Nazis, so their association could be disavowed whenever it was beneficial -- to do his dirty work. And today's liberal media has the loony fever-swamps of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground and MoveOn.org. They're not official paid members of the Obama Campaign or staff writers at The New York Times, but somehow they always end up being go-to sources every time the mainstream media needs pro-Obama dirt for its front pages.
It is now obvious beyond all counter-reasoning that the very things liberals accused Bush and Cheney of promoting -- fascism, statism, intimidation, persecution -- are the very same tactics that liberals can't wait to employ against enemies of the Messiah once they assume power. The difference is that you would have a damn hard time finding specific examples of exactly how Bush and Cheney intimidated, persecuted, and indoctrinated average Americans. Yet I've just given you a whole laundry list of examples of how Obama supporters on the Internet, in the mainstream press, and perhaps eventually in the Commerce Department, Justice Department, IRS, and Congress, will do whatever it takes to establish Obamaism as the lone ideology that is legal in the United States. Any dissenters will be castigated as liars, capitalist thieves, and racists. That's going to be the big one. RACIST.
Of course we still have the power to vote. And in 2010, if we no longer approve of our new socialist overlords, we can vote them out. Just like we did in 1994. Because unlike 20th century Europeans, we Americans still have the power to decide our own destiny.
It's looking like a 2-3% victory in the popular vote totals for Barack Obama, just about what the sane opinion polls predicted. He has well over 270 electoral votes, so the election is over. (Continuing vote tallies now indicate a 5-6% margin of victory.)
Anyway, certainly not a landslide, and a slim enough margin to make it difficult to declare a "mandate" -- although Democrats managed to declare a "mandate" with less than a 50% majority in 1992 and 1996. To Democrats, any victory is a mandate.
Recent history shows that Americans don't like one party rule, yet we are currently headed for a repeat of 1992-1994 "hope" and "change" (i.e. bigger government and higher taxes) except with a far more liberal president and far more bitterly partisan Congressional leaders. Oh, wait ... they promised us that one party rule will be more bipartisan, didn't they? What was it that Rush Limbaugh always said -- "bipartisan" simply means Democrats are unopposed.
If recent history is reliable, the American people will give Obama about two years. I don't think that he will reflexively announce an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Troop withdrawals are already ongoing, spearheaded by the Bush administration (although I'm sure the press will give Obama the credit -- "if Obama hadn't pushed for withdrawal, Bush would still be dragging his feet..." or something like that). I don't think that his foreign policy will be immediately disastrous, although I believe that Obama could very well make a major foreign policy or military blunder during his first 24 months in office.
What I think would will really hurt Obama is an immediate juggernaut of hard-left domestic policies -- deliberate over-regulation of energy that drives energy prices through the roof, crippling tax increases that slow down the economy and depress the stock market, massive government spending that results in out of control debt and deficit increases -- those will mean a huge Republican congressional landslide in 2010, essentially a repeat of 1994. Continued poor performance (like Carter in 1979-80) will mean a one-term presidency and perhaps President Palin or President Jindal in 2012. Or maybe president Hillary if Obama is extremely weak and the country isn't ready for the GOP in the White House.
On the other hand, Obama could actually stay in the political center that he has so carefully crafted during his campaign. As such, his presidency would very likely resemble that of Bill Clinton, sans the philandering. Clinton did not cave to his party's radical left wing after he was elected. An Obama who actually listened to the people -- especially opinions that differ from his own -- and worked to bring disparate groups together in order to find solutions could be a great leader. However, the temptation for Obama and Congressional Democrats to simply roll a radical liberal/socialist agenda over minority Republicans "just because they can" will be great, and Obama does not have a history of challenging his party. Further, Obama had a lot of "guardian angels" in Chicago and in the national Democratic party who looked out for him and, probably to a greater extent than most people realize, made it possible for him to be where he is today. They will demand to be rewarded, with both choice political appointments and guaranteed consideration of their pet agendas.
Right now I'm curious about how long it will take for bits of unsavory information about Obama -- the kinds of things that the press would have published months ago if he were a Republican -- to begin trickling out of editing rooms and video vaults, and into the mainstream press? How long will it take for mainstream media reporters to finally remember that they are journalists, and maybe they should take a second look at Obama's sketchy personal history, and perhaps begin to build a profile of him from sources other than Obama himself? A bad economy or a serious military blunder could burst the protective dam that the MSM build around Obama and cause these kinds of stories to flood the national conversation.
One curious irony is that Obama's victory has to be bad news for race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Not only has the torch been passed (over them) to a new generation, but their primary cash business -- exposing "institutional racism" -- has suddenly gotten a lot tougher. They will always find plenty of hard-luck sob stories to use as a basis for their currency of victimhood, but certainly the election of an African-American to the White House should finally dispel the tired boilerplate of all blacks being consistently denied a fair chance in America because of “the system.”
Well, that's enough for tonight. No, I'm not angry. A little disappointed perhaps, but life goes on. I won't be leaving America. I won't be suffering from Post Election Stress Trauma. I'll simply live day to day, doing the best that I can, praying for the things that are beyond me, and looking forward to each new day.
Added:
The Anchoress says, regarding our press:
Having spent all of their credibility on Obama, they will now have to validate their choice, which means they’ll continue in unquestioning support, championing, rather than questioning, his leadership. Sadly, questioning policy and leadership is the most valuable thing they do. They’ll have forfeited the idea of “comforting the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable,” because they’ll be wholly invested in advocacy. THAT is the worst thing that happened, in this election - the loss of our open and free press.
She also links to Michael Gerson writing in the Washington Post:
If God is not done with Obama, yet - and he’s not - then there is still, always, hope. The office is bigger than any man. St. Peter would have been no one’s idea of a great pope before Pentacost. St. Paul - a persecutor of Christians - would have been no one’s idea of a premier preacher and teacher of Christian doctrine. Nor, for that matter, would Augustine have been.
... But God tell us to pray for such as these. And for Obama, too, who I think will need those prayers also because I think the satellites around him are much more dangerous and worrisome than he. (emphasis added)
Agreed. It is difficult to reason with those who believe that everyone except for themselves is unreasonable. Yet Obama certainly needs our prayers, if for no other reason than the god-like powers that the Left has projected upon him. When your followers expect you to be larger than life, you will suddenly find yourself facing temptations and crises that you had never previously thought possible. Just ask Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart. Or Bill Clinton.