Dick Durbin Does the Democrat Two-Step for Barack Obama

I happened to catch a bit of an interview this morning with Dick Durbin on CBS This Morning.  “Trickie Dickie” is the senior senator from Illinois, the bastion of political purity and honesty.  (OK, now I’ll take my tongue out of my cheek.)  Dick is also the Senate Majority Whip, responsible for keeping Democrats in line with the marching orders issued by Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Let’s face it:  Democrats have long been better at the political game than Republicans.  I’ve been a Democrat and I know that from the inside.  As a master politician and an avoider of truth, Dick did such a good job of peddling dishonesty this morning that I quickly lost my appetite and I failed to eat breakfast.  Here are a couple of gems from his commentary.

He lashed out at Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his budget-cutting plan entitled A Roadmap for America’s Future.  In my estimation, it should be entitled A Different Roadmap for America’s Future because the Obama regime already has a map and it includes a sharp decline as the nation goes over a financial cliff.  That being said, there is much in the Ryan plan that is admirable.  But Durbin criticized it for its lack of balance.  You know the complaint:  Republicans don’t want to increase taxes. 

What Durbin failed to say is that the solution must be proportionate to the problem.  The nation does not have an income problem … what we have is a spending problem.  This is precisely why the Democrat-controlled Senate, under Harry Reid’s frightening and irresponsible leadership, refuses to pass a budget (it’s been more than 1,060 days).  Any realistic budget will have to make cuts, and cuts always anger somebody.  So the Senate dodges the problem in order to give the Democrats an edge in the next election (Obama included).

Honestly, when it comes to taxes, I understand that they’re necessary.  Any community of persons that spends as a corporate body must have a system for the financing of community interests.  What we have now, however, isn’t healthy.  Spending choices have more to do with keeping large blocks of voters happy so that politicians can be re-elected.  It’s dangerous.  It will be the end of the nation as we know it.  As we move rapidly toward socialism it will mean less wealth for most of us, but more for the powerful elites in office and more for their cronies in industry and in Hollywood.

Durbin really showed his dancing abilities when the CBS interviewer asked about gas prices.  In line with the Obama mantra, he talked about alternative fuels and efficiency.  That’s all fine and good, but it’s tough to pay almost $4.00 a gallon for gasoline while you’re driving on top of enough underground resources to provide fuel for the next 100 years.  Oh, Durbin also got a chance to get to mention the re-election line that is destined to go down in history:  Obama can fix all our problems if we just give him another term.

God help us if this becomes the case.  I suspect that the 2012 election is our last chance to slow the economic blood-letting.  Make no mistake, dear reader, the election of Mitt Romney (which I predict will take place) will not change our course dramatically.  But it will slow the economic death march on which we’ve embarked.  What I fear, however, is that it’s too late to avoid some of the most difficult consequences of our past mistakes.  If the economic chickens come home to re-roost after we put a Republican in the White House, the popular tide may change again and we may quickly return to Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency.

An honest plan of real cuts to spending is our only hope.  It’s not enough to talk about cuts to future growth in spending–we need cuts now.  Many Republicans are afraid to say it, and this includes my own congressman, Steven Palazzo (R-MS).  He calls himself a conservative and certainly appears on track to be re-elected now that he has taken the Republican primary victory.  Compared to Obama he is a conservative.  In the court of common sense and national salvation … not so much.

I suppose such realities are the reason that I voted for Ron Paul in the Mississippi presidential primary.  I still harbor concerns about his foreign policy.  He’s not a perfect candidate; none of them are perfect.  But I suspect that Paul’s sense of urgency is so overwhelming that he would make immediate changes upon assuming office.  Those changes would be much like a U-turn on the interstate.  One way or the other our Ship of State has to come about.  At some point the plug in the tub will pop and the ship will sink if we remain on our present course.

Friends warned me that a vote for Paul was a wasted vote.  Perhaps.  But it sends a signal.  Nearly 13,000 of us in Mississippi cast our vote for Ron Paul.  I think we’re trying to send a message:  “it’s time to change course.”  With every passing day I am more confident that my prediction of a Romney nomination will come to pass, but signs of disappointment abound.  Illinois Republicans turned out in very low numbers.  They are not excited about Romney.  Interestly, though, Ron Paul received twice as large a percentage of the vote in Illinois as he did in Mississippi.

Our nation is at a “hinge moment” in its history.  Let’s follow the course over the next few months and let’s remember to pray for our country.  Feel free to offer your own comments on this blog, even if you disagree.  I don’t have all the answers.  Please invite your friends to join us here as well.  I suspect we’re going to be surprised by some of the things that take place between now and November.  We need a place for reasoned debate on the significance of those events.

A New-Year Reminder: We Can Have Any Government We Want

The title of this post is certainly accurate, but it’s also a vast oversimplification once you begin to perform any genuine analysis at all.  The reason for this complication is that “we” is a really big word.  “We,” the citizens of the United States, entitled as we are to the right to vote for our elected representatives, are many different things rolled into one.  When it comes to political identity “we” are Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and more.

That’s why we need smaller government. 

One of the truths that was so perfectly grasped by our nation’s Founders is the reality that humans are social animals who act in mobs–and this includes political mobs.  I mean no disrespect by the use of the word “mob.”  I’m simply trying to represent the fact that people tend to think and act in groups.  It’s a psychological factor that allows us to experience a sense of correctness or a sense that what we’re up to is the right thing or the necessary thing.  We’re comforted by being in groups that act and think as we do, and we’re often quite uncomfortable stepping outside the group to think or act independently.

Our Founders recognized that people have a tendency toward what we today call “group think,” which can be used to limit the rights of those who disagree with the majority.  That, my dear reader, is what is known as majoritarianism. 

To the minds of our Founders, the majority had no more right to impose its will on the rest of a society than a king or emperor. 

For this reason, members of the House of Representatives, though elected by popular vote, were limited to terms of only two years.  The Senate, on the other hand, was elected not by popular vote but by vote of state legislatures.  The Senate was to be a place where cool heads prevailed and where populist ideas were allowed to die.  The Founders knew that if government were used to give free reign to every possible necessity, it would have to be big enough to limit the freedom of its citizens.

Perhaps it’s true that we’re all fiscal conservatives when it comes to the things on which other people want to spend money.  But when it comes to our own preferences, it seems we want government intervention and we want it immediately.

This is destroying us.  Government is not–and cannot be–the cure for all of our ills.  But as long as we continue thinking it is so, we will dig ourselves into a financial hole that is deeper and deeper and deeper.  There will be a price to pay … there always is.  The Austrian economists have demonstrated it and they will soon be vindicated by historical events.

I fervently believe that our only hope is to elect officials who will not be sent into office to do something, but who will empower citizens to do for themselves.  And let’s pray in this new year that it’s not too late for that.

Bank of America Settlement Drips with Irony

The Obama Justice Department has announced a record settlement with Bank of America which will provide $335 Million in compensation to thousands of borrowers of African and Hispanic ethnicity.  According to accusations by the DOJ, these applicants suffered discriminatory loan practices by Countrywide Financial from 2004-2008.  Bank of America purchased Countrywide in 2008.

If the lender did engage in the alleged behavior, it should be fined.  But the irony of the situation is so thick as to demand commentary.  Why so?  Because the current crisis that is destroying our economic vitality was in great part caused by federal regulations requiring mortgages for persons unable to pay for them.  Is this a justified settlement, or another example of excessive zeal on the part of government?  We may never know for sure.

What we do know, however, is that the irresponsible behavior of the federal “watchdogs” has cost millions of Americans of every ethic background piles of money and years of security that can never be adequately accounted for.  While accepting their generous salaries and benefits, and while allowing the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to receive millions in salary and bonuses, members of Congress like Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warning bells that could have brought about governmental reform before crashing our economy.  

All the while, members of Congress were getting sweetheart loan deals from Countrywide Financial.

Ever vigilant in the cause of equal justice (except when certain paramilitary radicals are standing in front of polling places with batons), Attorney General Eric Holder stated that financial institutions “should make judgments based on applicants’ creditworthiness, not on the color of their skin.”  Agreed, but that standard cuts both ways–in finance and in regard to the freedom to vote unimcumbered by threat.

Sleepless Economics

A man doesn’t reach the age of 51 without experiencing some sleepless nights.  Over the years I’ve had my share of them, of course, and for any number of reasons.  The reason that keeps me awake in recent months is one that I never before imagined.  This is because I never found myself fearing that our nation could face economic and societal collapse.  There was a time when I would have laughed at any such suggestion, but I’m no longer laughing.  This post is an explanation of why this is so.

I won’t pretend to have expertise in areas that I don’t understand.  But I do understand people, and I understand history.  I know that in my wallet right now I have a total of $32.00.  All that really means is that I have four pieces of paper known as “Federal Reserve Notes.”  One is marked “20,” another “10,” and two are marked “1.”  Each is clearly marked as “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” as demonstrated in the photo above.

Most citizens don’t reflect on what this means in practical terms.  There was a time when paper money could be redeemed for gold or silver.  This offered two points of satisfaction.  First, government was limited in its ability to print money.  It could print no more money than the total value of its holdings in precious elements.  Second, it offered a bit of confidence to those who used paper money.  Since it could be redeemed for something truly valuable, trust in printed paper remained solid.

Today the only solidity that backs the US dollar is the credit of our government.  That credit is increasingly declining.  There is talk of another credit-rating agency downgrading our national credit.  Yet our elected representatives on the federal level tell us we have to keep spending and going deeper into debt.

Paper money is only valuable as long as people are willing to recognize it as such.  In the days of gold and silver coinage, even if people lost faith in the government that minted the coins, there remained the inherent value of the precious metal used in the coins.  They could be traded as silver or as gold rather than as government-approved money.  We don’t have that luxury when it comes to pieces of paper in our wallets.

Besides the word of our government, what else is propping up our dollars these days?  Well, the faith of the people still gives it value.  That faith, however, is gradually slipping.  People who can afford it are buying gold.  Other precious metals are starting to rise in value for the same reason.  Even those who think the precious-metals bubble is bound to collapse have to admit that there’s a reason for the record-breaking increase in the value of gold.  Trust in the dollar is declining.

One other factor keeps the dollar strong.  It serves as the international currency for the oil trade.  It’s called the “petrodollar.”  As long as nations are buying and selling oil based on the dollar, the dollar is propped up as a necessary international monetary tool.  But what if those nations decide not to use the dollar because they no longer trust our credit?  Russia and China have already decided this very thing. 

What if this is a sign of things to come?  What if OPEC decides that the dollar can no longer be trusted?  Add to this possibility the political realities of the Muslim world and the growing need of Russia and China for oil, and one simply can’t dismiss the possibility that this could happen.

Even if our close allies in Canada continue to sell to us, and even if we convince our numbheaded politicians to increase drilling in the US, this would not prevent immediate economic difficulties for every portion of the country as transportation slowed (or halted) and grocery shelves became increasingly bare.  Without the ability to move goods and get personnel to and from work, our economy would come to a standstill.  Saddest of all is the fact that dead economies usually result in dead people.  That’s the basis for societal collapse.

Obviously, this is a personal expression of fear on my part.  But it’s not irrational fear because it’s based upon a very real possibility.  The leaders of our government, primarily as an effort to influence their voting constituencies, are spending money that we simply don’t have.  Oh, they are printing plenty of money–but when I say that “it’s money we don’t have,” it’s because that money is increasingly losing its value and its attraction.   That’s true here and abroad.  The evidence is clear about that.

It’s my sincere prayer that these fears of mine never come to pass.  Still, they keep me awake.  I can’t bring myself to write about the possible consequences to what I’ve already described if an economic collapse does come.  One thing that concerns me most is just how many solid, serious, mature people I know already expect that it’s too late to prevent what I’ve described, though we may debate the actual details about the trigger that will bring it about.

My first college degree years ago was in history, so I’ve always known that nations come and go.  Professors showed me that the US would no doubt one day face its own decline as the ebb and flow of history continued its advance.  What I didn’t consider was the possibility that I might actually be alive to see that decline.  I mourn the fact … and I worry that the decline has already begun.

This is not the stuff upon which to begin a good night’s sleep.  I might sleep a bit better if I believed these fears were keeping the President and the Members of Congress awake as well.  Based upon their continued irresponsible spending, I find that difficult to believe.

Printing All the Political News That’s … Been Around a While?

 In an article published today, the Sun Herald demonstrates why print media either has to change or go the way of the dinosaur.  One of its front-page articles is entitled “Potential Palazzo Challengers Lining Up.”  Written by Geoff Pender, it’s hardly worth front-page status since it reports absolutely nothing that is new.  Everything in the article is a rehash of what’s been around the blogosphere for weeks.  In addition, the title is misleading in its claim that challengers are lining up.  It reports only a list of those who are “pondering” a run against Rep. Steven Palazzo.  In other words, at this point they are just potential challengers. 

All of the contenders listed by Pender are among the well-known players of their respective parties:  Democrat Gene Taylor (former ten-term congressman), Republican Michael Watson (state senator for District 51), and Republican Brian Sanderson (a coast businessman who helped lead Gov. Barbour’s  post-Katrina recovery and whose wife is a policy director for the governor).

There is no mention of the other names that have been circulating in the 4th Congressional District, nor is there any substantive analysis of what must be happening in the ranks of the GOP leadership that would allow “big names” in the party to consider a primary challenge to Palazzo.  Has he become an embarrassment to the Republicans?  Has it become that obvious that he has been advanced beyond his abilities? 

To his credit Pender does list the issues that are causing dismay among Palazzo’s constituents and he did interview representatives of the Tea Party who are rightfully disgusted by the freshman representative’s record since his election in 2010.

According to the article, Palazzo stated recently that “overwhelmingly the people sent me up here to be responsible” and “level-headed.  They didn’t send me up here to be reckless, dangerous, to shut the government down or to default on the national debt.”  Yet, as genuine conservaties would have it, he’s done exactly what he says he hasn’t.  His support of the debt-ceiling increase was neither “responsible” nor “level-headed.”  True conservative leadership, which Palazzo claimed he would give us, would have refused a debt increase. 

Such a vote would have sent an immediate signal to his district and to the world that he was serious about bringing government spending under control.  Putting us deeper into debt was not an example of leadership.  It was an example of party loyalty.  As an assistant whip, Steven Palazzo fell in line behind Speaker Boehner and the rest of those Republican sheep who are assisting in the economic demise of a great nation. 

Essentially, their vote to raise the debt limit (August 1, 2011) accomplished two immediate things:  it brought about a reduction in the national credit rating from Standard and Poor’s Rating Services and it turned on another spigot of cash for the Democrat Party and its union allies.  Most disastrous of all, it moved Barack Obama one big step closer to re-election.

For a guy who is a CPA, Mr. Palazzo isn’t very good with numbers; he should rethink his comment to the Sun Herald about being voted into office “overwhelmingly.”  He only received about 5% more votes than Gene Taylor.  He has some election worries, to be sure.  Big worries.

Barack Obama’s Speech in Kansas: A Communist Manifesto for Our Times

 No matter how many times they’re rejected by their constituents, the ideas of the Ultra-Liberals never go away.  They get repackaged and rebranded.  Karl Marx had his Communist Manifesto; Barack Obama has his speech from Kansas.

Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Jules Witcover says Obama has finally found “his voice.”  Perhaps it’s better to say that he has now become bold enough to speak outloud using the internal voice that has always guided him.  With this speech Obama has come out of the closet:  he is a Marxist through and through.  Like all good Marxists his political language is flowered with talk of equality, but it is regulated by force.  And it is directed by a powerful political class enjoying the finest that life has to offer.

What matters to Obama and his like-minded liberal elites is not the building up of a nation and its people but the tearing down of a society so that they can maintain power and cherry-pick for themselves the positions of prestige and wealth.  Being a narcissist, Obama believes he can do this through the sheer force of his will.  He lectures Congress, he calls down the Supreme Court, and he pressures the leaders of other nations.  In his own mind he is the good-hearted dictator who acts for the ultimate good of his people. 

As political commentator Charles Krauthammer has said, you cannot understand Obama just by listening to his words.  They are nothing but theatrics, designed to distract us from his true agenda.  When you hear him speak on television, turn down the volume and let the picture inform you.  As distasteful as it is, drink in the image.  He is one one man, arrogant in his posture, wealthy in his dress and lifestyle, and surrounded with the trappings of power.  Has any imperial leader in history ever done a better job of packaging himself for consumption by the masses?

He cannot implement his vision by telling us the truth.  Most of us would reject it out of hand.  And so he lies.  He pits us against one another because a divided nation is easier to rule.  Gradually, and with increasing speed, he and other political elites are withdrawing the liberties that make it possible to respond in opposition.

Operation “Fast and Furious” is a perfect example.  Weapons were purchased in the United States by agents of the federal government and provided to Mexican drug lords.  Thousands of weapens of every type.  The intended goal was that once these weapons began showing up in the drug wars south of our border, public opinion in the US would support stricter gun laws.  But it backfired.  The truth of this governmental deception is now emerging.

Transfer this scenario to our economy and the disastrous decisions that are destroying our economic vitality.  Mr. Obama and his elite cronies are telling us that this worsening situation is not their fault.  They are doing everything they can to help the economy, not to destroy it.  Turn off the volume.  As Krauthammer suggests, ignore what is being said and watch what is being done.  Remember that during his campaign Barack Obama promised a fundamental remaking of America.  It has begun.

Overextension of the national and international debt are intentional.  To remake the global economy a disaster is needed:  “out with the old and in with the new.”  The house of cards is soon to fall.  The economic endgame is near.  The European economy is about to collapse.  Our collapse will come soon afterward.  There are already calls around the globe for ending the American dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  The Obama Administration has sent signals to the world that this is acceptable.  What will take its place?  A new centralized, global control of currency.

This is the brave new world into which Barack Obama is leading us.  His “new nationalism” is global citizenship where the rights of a nation’s citizens are subject to ratification by a centralized global authority.  If he told us of these plans, most of us would reject this loss of national sovereignty.  It’s blatantly unconstitutional.  Like “Fast and Furious,” the goal is to manipulate public opinion.  If no crisis is at hand, a crisis must be  invented.  The advocates of centralized global finance are convinced that if the collapse is painful enough we will accept their solution imposed from above.