If the Fed ever becomes realistic about the nature of the real-world economy, it will abandon the Keynesian pretension that expansion of the money supply has the same effect as real savings by businesses and individuals.
Thomas E. Brewton
Establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 enabled arbitrary and excessive inflation of the monetary base supplied to banks and other financial institutions. In every recession since 1913, especially the 1930s Depression and our current housing and subprime mortgage bust, Fed action made bubbles larger and more pervasive and made subsequent buble-bursts more devastating than they would have been otherwise.
Over a short six-year period preceding the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Fed doubled the lendable deposits of the nation’s banks. Other over-expansions of the money supply also led to the unprecedented inflation and high unemployment of the 1970s stagflation, to the 1990s dot.com boom-and-bust, and to the current collapse of housing and financial markets.
The historical facts are available. All economic bubbles are preceded by and inflated by the presence of too much money at unrealistically low interest rates. When credit is so readily available, at such low interest rates that anyone, even with a bad credit rating, can obtain a loan or a credit card, it’s clear that banks have much money than can be absorbed by sound borrowers with legitimate needs. Under the impetus of the Fed’s cheap money expansions, financial institutions have to lower credit standards to find enough borrowers to utilize their inflated lending capacities.
During the dot.com boom, companies in the planning stage, before recording a single dollar of sales, were able to secure one or two billion dollars of institutional venture capital. During the recent housing boom, anybody could obtain a mortgage loan regardless of his capacity to handle the debt service requirements. To absorb the endless torrent of money coming from the Fed’s Open Markets desk, Wall Street computer jockeys conjured up ever more complex and larger packages of individual mortgages to tap all sectors of institutional capital markets.
A main reason, one suspects, is that accepting reality would lessen their powerful role as managers of the whole economy. What’s the point of being regarded as expert managers if you can’t regulate everyone else’s life? Simply stabilizing the rate of money supply growth is evidently a role beneath their intellectual pretensions.
Fed officials used to think there was little they could or should do to prevent bubbles from inflating. For one thing, identifying bubbles with any certainty was deemed to be too difficult. And even if they could be accurately pinpointed, pricking them might do more harm than good. Raising interest rates to stop a bubble, for instance, could slow growth in other parts of the economy that were otherwise healthy.
The Fed’s main strategy instead was to mop up after a bubble burst with lower interest rates to cushion the blow to the economy and restart growth. That strategy was a key conclusion of Mr. Bernanke’s writings on the subject of bubbles when he was a Princeton professor, and again when he first came to the Fed as a governor in 2002. It was an approach embraced by his predecessor Alan Greenspan.
Now, Fed officials admit the stance didn’t work...Mr. Bernanke falls on the side of greater regulation, an idea he has advocated in the past.
“The best approach here if at all possible is to use supervisory and regulatory methods to restrain undue risk-taking and to make sure the system is resilient in case an asset price bubble bursts in the future,” Mr. Bernanke said in answer to a question after a speech in New York last month.
Translation: keep giving excessive amounts of money to banks, but empower the Fed to substitute its judgement for bank credit committees. Don’t take a pyromaniac’s matches away from him, but decide which buildings he can set ablaze. To deal with an alcoholic’s binges, give him more booze, but restrict the locations in which he can drink.
Federal Reserve thinking, exemplified by Mr. Bernanke, is a version of closing the barn door after the horse is gone. There is no need to recognize a bubble while it’s inflating. Just don’t blow air into it, and there will be no ballooning bubble in the first place. Don’t try to manage the economy by fine-tuning interest rates, a process that involves artificially and arbitrarily manipulating the money supply.
The Fed, since the Employment Act of 1946, has viewed its role as working with the Federal government to maintain full employment. That is an illusionary goal that leads to continuous inflation of prices and recurring bubble bursts that worsen unemployment. Even the 2%, plus or minus, that the Fed considers an acceptable rate of inflation will raise the cost of living more than 60% in a 25-year working life. Most people’s incomes don’t increase that fast, year after year.
Inflation is really a tax that falls most heavily on the lower and middle income segments of the population. The purchasing power of lifetime savings erodes continuously as the cost of living continues to climb. But, because inflation always and everywhere is a function of too much money, the highest income brackets, especially Wall Street investment bankers, thrive mightily. Excess money and low interest rates boom the stock market, at least in the early phase of a Fed money gusher. With the Fed pumping a torrent of excess money into the system, thereby driving interest rates below a real market level, financial institutions can grow their business at a pace far in excess of underlying real economic growth.
Money and price inflation engineered by the Fed, not free-market capitalism, is the source of the multi-million dollar bonuses that produce the widening gap between middle-class income and the top earners, the gap that so inflames Democrat/Socialist politicians and mainstream liberal-progressive media such as the New York Times.
If the Fed ever becomes realistic about the nature of the real-world economy, it will abandon the Keynesian pretension that expansion of the money supply has the same effect as real savings by businesses and individuals. It will acknowledge that its repeated over-expansion of the money supply is the genesis of boom exuberance and the economic collapses that always ensue. It will simply foreswear creating bubbles, rather than attempting to manage them.
The ability of common citizens to link up and share news of this nature, despite the derision of the political “establishment” and its media lackeys, has completely altered the manner in which these battles are fought.
Christopher G. Adamo
Outrage over the suppressed data refuting “global warming” at the East Anglia Institute in England, now spans the world. Though as a result of a liberal media “blackout,” news of the event currently remains primarily confined among the intellectually honest participants in the climate debate.
Nevertheless, with each passing day, ever increasing numbers of common citizens are realizing that every aspect of their lives, from the nature of the vehicles they own to the type of lighting that will be “allowed” them by their beneficent government, is being dictated by a hoax bearing no more substance than the “Bermuda Triangle.”
Yet the global warming hucksters continue, as if the cooked and contrived data records and suppression of inconvenient facts debunking the motion of rising global temperatures were never uncovered. These eco-alarmists are compelled to do so. They have too much invested in this fraud, and it has been far too lucrative for them in the past to simply abandon it merely because it has been wholly discredited. But their seemingly confident public front belies an undercurrent of panic and desperation. Keep a straight face, continue demanding “funds” for further research and advocacy, and hope for a perpetuation of the revolving door of government monies and increased political power to continue business as usual.
Barack Obama is attending the Copenhagen climate summit on that very premise. Were he actually concerned with the best interests of this country, he would immediately empanel an investigative team to determine the truth of “climate change.” But in light of the recently publicized evidence, such a course would certainly find “global warming” to be a myth, and thus would dispel the incentives for bigger and more powerful governments to invade and manage every detail of the lives of their citizenry. And such a world, in which the state acquires unbridled power, has emerged as the true Obama agenda.
When a political movement uses lies and fraud to advance a stated cause, it should be self-evident that the “cause” is of no real concern, but only a means of gaining leverage for an ulterior agenda. Such is the only plausible conclusion that can be drawn from this revelation of total fraud at the highest levels of the “global warming” advocacy.
Even a cursory examination of liberalism, and how it has operated in this country over the past several decades, indicates that massive deception is the standard weaponry by which the movement advances. But though the brazen dishonesty is outrageous and infuriating, it also represents the “soft underbelly” of this incursion. For at the moment each ruse is exposed, even with the frustration of competing against a thoroughly corrupted nightly news, its principal members are compelled to run for cover.
The “sting” operation of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, who uncovered widespread corruption in the leftist organization ACORN some months ago, is a sterling example. O’Keefe and Giles, private citizens who received no funds or backing for their effort, took on a well-funded and well-connected organization that has successfully conducted election fraud and other illicit activity on a massive scale throughout the nation. The result was that ACORN was put to flight, and lost significant congressional funding (Though Eric Holder, the similarly corrupted U.S. Attorney General, now contends that the organization is entitled to some of those funds.).
Who can forget the fraud from the left during the 2004 presidential election? CBS news producer Mary Mapes along with Bill Burkett, brought to national attention a supposed letter from one of George Bush’s superior officers, disparaging his conduct when he was in the Texas Air National Guard,. Upon a cursory investigation, that letter turned out to be as phony as the mass extinction of polar bears. By liberal standards, Bush’s behavior while in the military was being judged on the basis of a blatant fabrication.
Meanwhile, across the aisle, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry was campaigning against Bush as a great hero of the Vietnam War. Kerry’s record of receiving three Purple Hearts for battlefield “injuries,” during barely four months of service, was hardly questioned by the liberal media.
Nevertheless, a group Kerry’s compatriots, who knew the truth of his “deeds,” banded together and formed the “Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.”
This organization proceeded to disseminate a strikingly different account of Kerry’s real performance during his brief tour of duty.
As disinterested as were the major media players in any serious examination of Kerry’s record, they immediately sought to undermine and discredit the Swiftboat Veterans. To this day, “Swiftboating” is used by the left as synonymous with character assassination through the orchestrated telling of lies. Unfortunately for the left however, this situation presents them a problem.
Regardless of how fiercely they attacked the Swiftvets, no evidence whatsoever of inaccuracies in their accounts of the Kerry Vietnam tour could be established. In fact, it was Kerry who insisted on clearing his record, but never made the effort to get the truth out. In fact, his military records remain sealed to this day.
So it will be with the burgeoning “climate change” scandal. The evidence of a methodically implemented scam is ample, and being widely distributed throughout the world. Those on the “inside” who perpetrated this, the biggest fraud in history, will continue to make their claims as if the truth was never uncovered. Any who question the veracity of such claims will be demeaned and ridiculed, in hopes that they will simply get discouraged and eventually go away.
However, this is not the world of the statist propaganda monopolies of the past. The ability of common citizens to link up and share news of this nature, despite the derision of the political “establishment” and its media lackeys, has completely altered the manner in which these battles are fought. The left is on the run. And as is invariably the case, it is running from the truth.
Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com
Any presidential aspirations that Mike Huckabee may have been entertaining for 2012 are over. Or at least they should be.
Tim Dunkin
On Sunday, December 29, Maurice Clemmons walked into a coffeeshop in Lakewood, Washington, and gunned down four police officers in cold blood. Clemmons had a long history of violent criminal activity. He had numerous violent felony convictions in his home state of Arkansas. He first went to prison there when he was 17 years old, his crimes being serious enough to earn him a 48-year prison sentence for five of these convictions. He had additional time tacked on for good measure resulting from further charges of robbery, possessing a handgun on school grounds, and theft, bringing his total sentence to 108 years. After migrating to Washington, he accrued to himself eight more convictions. At the time that he murdered these four police officers, the 37-year old Clemmons was out on bail, charged with the second degree rape of a child - she was a mere 12-years old.
Now, you might ask yourself, if Clemmons had been handed sentences totaling 108 years of imprisonment in Arkansas when he was 17, what we he doing in Washington a mere 20 years later, walking around free and adding to his criminal exploits in that state?
That’s where Mike Huckabee comes in. After Clemmons had served only eleven years of his century-plus sentence, Huckabee, then the governor of Arkansas, felt sorry for Clemmons. After all, poor Maurice was only 17 when he committed the crimes that landed him in the clink. A mere child, how could he be held accountable for what he did? How terribly draconian of the criminal justice sentence to rob this young man of the life he had ahead of him, just like he had robbed others at gunpoint. Because of the harshness and unforgiving attitude of the state of Arkansas’ justice system, Gov. Huckabee decided in 2000 to give this poor young man a break, and commute his sentence to 47 years, making him immediately eligible for parole. Huckabee then pushed for Clemmons’ parole, something which the equally soft-headed Arkansas parole board (which had to sign off on the decision) acceded to.
The Clemmons commutation, unfortunately, was right in line with the policy pursued by Mike Huckabee while he was the governor of Arkansas. While Governor, Huckabee commuted the sentences of 1,033 Arkansas criminals, allowing many of them to get parole early. Another high profile case involving Huckabee was the case of Wayne Dumond. Dumond was also a career criminal, with murder, rape, and child molestation to his account. He was serving a life-plus-twenty year sentence for the 1984 rape of a 17-year old cheerleader who also happened to be the distant cousin of Bill Clinton. Clinton, rightly, recused himself from consideration of the case from a parole standpoint, because of the obvious potential for conflict of interest. However, when he left office to run for President, his Lieutenant Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, reviewed Dumond’s case, and commuted the sentence to 39 years. When Huckabee later entered office, he actively sought for Dumond’s parole, even to the extent of lobbying five of the state parole board members, illegally, in a closed door “executive session” that violated Arkansas’ Freedom of Information Act. Huckabee had his way, and Dumond was released in 1999, after which he moved to Missouri and continued his recidivist pattern of sexual assault and murder. Eventually, Dumond died in his prison cell in Cameron, Missouri in 2003, most likely from the esophageal cancer from which he suffered, while awaiting the filing of charges for raping and killing a pregnant woman.
This pattern of executive clemency despite obvious evidence of recidivistic patterns clearly indicates a failure on the part of Mike Huckabee to exercise good judgment. The Dumond case came out during the 2008 primary seasons, and was likely a contributing factor to the failure of Huckabee to win the GOP nomination – the law-and-order Party doesn’t like soft-on-crime guys. It was certainly one of the reasons why I didn’t support him. Indeed, Huckabee’s tendency in this area is part of a larger pattern of poor judgment stemming from a soft heart not tempered by a calculating head. Lest we forget, during his tenure in the Arkansas executive mansion, Huckabee supported a number of government-expanding, wealth-redistributing programs ostensibly designed to “help the poor” – on somebody else’s dime, of course. Between 1996 and 2004, Arkansas’ state budget increased by 65%. He signed several tax increases on fuel, nursing home care, and other commodities, and worked to remove the lowest income brackets from the tax rolls – demonstrating his support for “progressive” taxation schemes, seemingly at odds with his later vocal support for the FlatTax. Likewise, Huckabee was repeatedly on the record, not only as supporting Bush’s immigration amnesty, but for insinuating that those who are opposed to illegal immigration are “racist.” Further, Huckabee has stated that “confronting global warming” is a “moral issue.” Despite being right on a number of issues, he shows a disconcerting pattern of being wrong in a consistent way in several important areas.
The reason for this, I believe, is that his theology has taken him in the wrong direction. Now don’t misunderstand, I am not one of these critics who have been suggesting that Huckabee’s problem is that he allows his personal religious and moral beliefs to direct his stances and his thinking on the issues. Indeed, any person who tells you that we should, or that they can, separate opinions about religion and morality from ideas about public policy is either a fool or lying. You simply can’t do it. Everybody’s political opinions, how they vote, etc. are influenced by their approach to religious beliefs, for or against. Conservative Christians will generally be conservative – because of their underlying moral worldview. Liberal Christians will be leftist for the same reason. Left-leaning atheists, for the same reason. Libertarians will be what they are, for the same reason. And so on. The issue is not that people allow moral and religious stances to influence their approach to politics. The issue, ultimately, is what those stances are, which is why we have the cultural divide across our society to begin with.
I think there is a good case to be made that, when it comes to the interface between the Christian believer and the social system, Mike Huckabee is a firm believer in the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel is a soft, man-centered heresy that essentially says that Christianity has a responsibility to better the world around us – specifically by utilizing the power of government to “level the playing field,” caring for those less fortunate, and using government intercession to fix broken lives. This latest, Protestant version of this idea originated during the late Victorian period, when social do-gooders in several of the Christian denominations began to de-emphasize traditional Christian theology that centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ from a rigorously doctrinal standpoint, and to replace it with such notions as “bringing the kingdom of God in” and saving the world system through “doing good unto others.” The rise of the Social Gospel was concomitant with the increasingly regulatory role that the government began to take to itself in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and helped prepare the way for the acceptance of Roosevelt’s New Deal. In other words, the Social Gospel represents a confusion between the legitimate work of Christian churches, and the illegitimate work of ever-expanding government. It took what should have been the province of local churches and individual Christians – to help our neighbor, to care for those less fortunate, to give altruistically to those in need without expecting anything in return - and made it into the duty of the government, acting as “Christ’s agent in the world.” In essence, the Social Gospel is basically a Protestant form of papocaesarism.
The problem is that this is not the stated purpose for the churches, as given in the New Testament. The primary responsibility given to Christians is to preach the true Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. The responsibilities of the churches are to edify the saints and to evangelize the lost. Nowhere in this is seen the duty to use the police powers of the state to pick one person’s pockets to give to another person – no matter how seemingly noble or good the cause. Charity within the Christian context is private or congregational. We are enjoined to “do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10) and to “ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men” (I Thess. 5:15). The local church is tasked with caring for “widows that are widows indeed” (I Tim. 5:3, 9-10) and individual Christians are to provide for their own, especially of their own households (I Tim. 5:8). Clearly, the model pictured in the New Testament is that of the poor and needy being taken care of by their own families and their own circle of believers within the context of their local congregation, and one cannot deny that if this were dutifully followed, it would eliminate a lot of the purported “need” for massive social spending by our government. Charity should be local and private. And this should extend to outside the churches. If people – believers or unbelievers alike - want to start a charity to provide assistance of one sort or another, using money from voluntary donors, more power to them. But it’s definitely not the “Christian thing to do” to use the police powers of the state to hold a gun to somebody’s head and force them to provide for others. Charity is not virtuous when it is not voluntary.
This Social Gospel – and the paternalistic attitude that it engenders – are behind Huckabee’s moderate-to-liberal record on the issues I detailed above. In the Social Gospel worldview, it is “Christian” to use the government to provide for those less fortunate. In this worldview, it is “Christian” to fall inline with the environmentalist movement’s increasingly noxious support for “doing something” about global warming. It is “Christian” to be soft on illegal immigrants who have broken our laws. It is “Christian” to oppose the death penalty, even though the Bible itself established the sword in the hand of the ruler. Conversely, it is “hard-hearted,” “unloving,” yea, even “un-Christian” to stand for law-and-order, for wise economic principles, to oppose theft-by-government.
And that brings us back to Mike Huckabee and Maurice Clemmons. In line with his other confusions of the role between church and state, one of Huckabee’s stated reasons for commuting so many sentences and enabling so many paroles during his tenure as Arkansas’ governor was that he believes in “redemption.” He believes in giving poor misguided souls “a second chance.” Redemption is a theological term. It describes the action of buying back something that has been lost, and in Christian terms, refers to the purchasing back to Himself of the soul and life of the lost sinner by Christ, through faith and trust in the work that Christ did on the cross and the blood that He shed as an atonement for our sins. As such, “redemption” has absolutely nothing to do with releasing recidivist rapists and murdered back onto the streets so they can victimize more innocent people.
Yet, in Mike Huckabee’s mind, it apparently does. That’s because of the Social Gospel mentality whereby theological terms and concepts are taken out of the spiritual realm, and applied to liberal social policies. Redemption is no longer about the work of Christ on the cross, it is now about giving hardened criminals a second chance, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that they feel any remorse for their actions. Indeed, in the case of Maurice Clemmons, he was obstinate in his rebellion against the law from start to finish. In one of his many court cases, he smuggled a weapon into the courtroom, and he routinely made threatening and disruptive comments throughout his legal proceedings. He was a man who clearly believed that he had the “right” to do whatever he wanted to do to any body he felt like doing it to – and the government was in the wrong for restraining him from it. Yet, Mike Huckabee believed that a man like this needed “forgiveness.” Again, that’s an unbiblical outflowing of the Social Gospel mentality. In the Scripture, you do not see forgiveness extended, either by God or by man, until it is first asked for. It is a Christian virtue to be ready to forgive, when the offender genuinely repents of what they have done and asks for it, and it is Christian to then give that forgiveness. It is not, however, a Christian virtue to use “forgiveness” not asked for as an excuse to implement unjustified leniency.
Even then, we should also understand that Christian forgiveness between individuals involves the settling of personal disputes, and between God and the individual, it involves the wiping away of that person’s sin debt – they are pardoned for eternity from the guilt of their trespasses against God (Romans 8:1). This does not, however, mean that spiritual salvation is a “get out of jail free” card. God instituted civil government all the way back in Genesis 9, and reiterated its authority in Romans 13. For the New Testament believer, the civil authority is a separate sphere from the spiritual. What this means is that while a person who has committed horrible, horrible crimes may indeed come to Christ if they truly repent, and receive everlasting pardon, this does not absolve them of the responsibility for their actions before men. Yet, his confusion on this point played directly into Huckabee’s push for the parole of Wayne Dumond – who claimed to have had a “religious conversion” while in prison. Because of this, Huckabee championed him, though Dumond’s activities after he got out of prison suggest that his “conversion” was more one of convenience than genuine.
In conclusion, because of the results of his Social Gospel-style beliefs, Mike Huckabee’s judgment has been impaired in a number of ways. The problem is certainly not that he is religious, the problem is that he’s not applying spiritual principles correctly. He apparently accepts the premises of a heretical approach to Christianity that relies upon the government for its strength, while peddling an unbiblical and dangerous approach to the way the Christian believer interacts with and applies the law. He confuses the biblical with the profane, and as a result, four police officers are dead, among other tragedies. That is not what we need in a potential standard bearer for conservatives and Republicans in 2012.
Doesn't he owe an apology to every tea party protestor who he labeled as rebellious trouble makers?
Michael Bresciani
Years of writing opinion editorials has assured me that my opinion is no more important than anyone else's but at times I understand that it may be more called for if not seriously necessary.
President Obama's speech to the cadets at West Point not only begs to be analyzed but some of the blaring errors in theology and history should not go un-noticed.
Looking for a complete transcript of the speech made on December 1, 2009, my online search brought up a full transcript the morning after on the Huffington Post, that liberal bastion of everything left and accepted as nearly liturgical in the progressive camp. It's almost as if the President speaks ex-cathedra for this site and the rest of belligerent liberalisms force de-farce. There, front page and next to news items on Miss Argentina's lethal cosmetic buttocks problems, the 29 best chalkboard gags in the "Simpsons" and Katie Holmes' explanation of Suri's high heels was every blessed word of the President's speech. Where else?
There is little question that history was made in the Obama speech because in the history of this or any other country in the world it will be the first time a war was announced with a specific date for its complete cessation. If only all wars in history could be fought with such precision and efficiency.
Far more palatable than George Bush's promise of a long war that may even cross generational lines, the nice neat 18 month war is great news for anti-war folks and it's just in time for a blame free re-election bid for the White House in 2012. Who wants a darned war hanging over their re-election efforts when facing a possible war with the likes of Palin or Bachmann in the 2011 campaign year?
Wars and skirmishes have been going on in Afghanistan for well over two hundred years, but now we know that stiffening up the security forces with accelerated training and equipment is all that's needed to put an end to that long and bloody history. File this under the new definition of extreme naiveté.
Few people who are at the least only nominally versed in theology would argue that it was President George Bush's lack of theological understanding that led him to say that Islam is a "peaceful religion." He spoke as the President not the nation's chief theologian so mitigation is appropriate.
Now we have another level of theological misrepresentation on an all new and much higher elevation with President Obama's proclamation that Islam is "one the world's great religions." He was careful to note that it was only al-Qaeda's perversion of the great religion that caused both 9/11 and the current insurgency in Afghanistan. Conspicuously missing from the Presidents assertions is the fact that the Quran itself, that bible of Islam, calls for the death of all infidels. Unfortunately the infidel is anyone who is not Muslim!
Islam has been one of the most violent forces on earth since its inception under the visions of its prophet who himself had grave doubts about its efficacy and its veracity. This is history, not conjecture or mere speculation as in the horrors of the inquisition, the dunking of the Puritans and the misguided witch trials of Salem that modernity's historians never fail to reference. Islamic wars and its history of violence are too well known to sweep under the politically correct carpet of even this President and that history stretches much further back than just these present days of al-Qaeda.
Leaving theology and on to the Presidents unprecedented remark that he "owed" something to America. He said, "Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less," regarding giving both his generals and the American people an answer on the Afghanistan question.
It may be the first time the President has acknowledged that he owes the American people anything but if he is going to start recognizing that fact can we now hand him a bill for everything else that he owes?
Doesn't he owe an apology to every tea party protestor who he labeled as rebellious trouble makers? When did those exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and right to re-dress their grievances become rabble? Should someone inform the President of "change" that whether it's traditional or constitutional, denial is not a legitimate form of change?
Does he owe an apology for leaving the so called "birthers" and a few million other Americans who are still waiting with baited breath to see some of the missing school records and other documents of his past out in the vast cold land of total silence? They have been shoved off into a fringe category and summarily ignored even as the rest of the nation stands in shock not for what we don't know about the President but for what we now do know.
If the country should outlast the blast of new socialism and leftist hammering it is now enduring, wouldn't we even then be seeking these documents at least for something to put in the Obama Presidential Library? We have dates of birth, documents, diaries, letters and even the wooden false teeth of George Washington to show the American people. What would we have for President Obama except a controversy and a plethora of defense lawyers saying "you can't take no look!"
Finally, although I am no Cal Lightman (Fox's series, Lie to Me) I would bet that the look on all the Cadet's faces on the eve of Obama's speech was not totally one of belief. Besides the one Cadet who fell asleep during the oration, TV camera's constantly scanned the Cadets faces. Discounting for the rigidity that is an offshoot of military discipline anyone would be hard pressed to say that all the Cadets had faces that countenanced Obama's credulity.
Even young officers have time to read about failed stimulus packages, costly health care proposals and appointees that look like leftovers from the Joe Stalin's generation or America's Capone era. Were all the brave young men and women convinced? Don't count on it!
When speaking on the controversy surrounding the Iraq war the President stopped short of blaming President Bush yet once again. The few times he did illicit applause from the Cadets may have been laced with murmurs and boos if he had. As one writer recently said "the statute of limitations has expired for blaming Bush." Some believe the speech was delivered at West Point for effect as in other recent photo op situations the President exploited. There is no doubt that this speech was made smack in the middle of the enemy's camp and not among a chosen or handpicked contingent of sycophants and media cronies.
As the Ancient and wise King Solomon once said "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter," (Ec 12:13) in three easy to understand sentences. Wars are not finished until someone wins and someone loses. American Presidents owe the American people nothing less than full accountability. The world has lots of religions, some greater than others but it still has only one Savior.
http://www.americanprophet.org is the place for news, articles, reviews and great links. Rev Michael Bresciani is columnist and writer for many online journals and magazines. His articles are read by millions across the globe. In its fifth year the American Prophet site is still known as The Website for Insight
Keywords:
West Point, Cadets, Huffington Post, American Presidents, King Solomon, Cal Lightman, Lie to Me, birthers, tea party, Puritans, Islamic wars, witch trials, Salem, al-Qaeda, false teeth, presidential library
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America . Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances, and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude???
Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks.. Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids. Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case, and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
We are a Christian Nation even if Mr. Obama says we are not.
