Recognizing Fascism

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day." I Samuel 8:18

It is fashionable to associate fascism with the political right. Like most popular conceptions, it is also erroneous to do so.

As a history teacher in the early 1990s, I began to be fascinated by Bill Clinton's seeming use of fascistic tactics and philosophy in first advancing, and then preserving, his administration. This led me to purchase and then read Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (Payne is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, hardly an outpost of conservatism). Payne surveyed the entire fascist landscape - there were fascist movements throughout both Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent in the Americas) throughout the time period covered by his book - and arrived at a "definition" of fascism that was both striking and chilling.

The faux intelligentsia of liberal Western culture often pretends that fascism can be boiled down to two basic propositions: Nationalism and Racism. As with all of the left's conclusions, this conclusion is arrived at more out of an attempt to bolster their own self-conception than out of dealing fairly with history. Since, publicly (though on the race front, ONLY publicly), the modern left finds nationalism, racism, and the political right all objectionable, it makes sense to simply assign nationalism and racism to the political right and thereby conclude that fascism is an extreme movement emanating from the right wing.

Where evidence exists, it all points to the opposite conclusion. The first tip-off, which most eighth graders would recognize (but since the left's understanding of social sciences is mired in a kindergartner's view of the world, an eighth-grade understanding is far too advanced for the left), is that the word Nazi, the title of the most well-known of the fascist movements, is an anglicized shortening of the words "National Socialism," or in the original German Nationalsozialismus. While it is commonly held that Nazism was opposed in principle to communism, it is important to note that its opposition was national (i.e., a preference for Germany over the Soviets) and political (i.e., political power is viewed by fascists as a zero-sum game so that, even within Germany, the Nazis were compelled to destroy Germany's communists and socialists so that they themselves could wield power without restraint), not ideological. In fact, the full title of the Nazi party was the "National Socialists German Workers Party," a titular formula that has been mimicked time and again by both socialist and communist organizations worldwide.

Secondly, however, note that the goals of fascism have always been the same as those of communism and socialism: the concentration of political power in a party bureaucratic structure rather than in the hands of private citizens, the state control of capital with varying degrees of redistribution, the use of Keynesian spending strategies as a means of consolidating political power, attempts at mass mind control and brainwashing, and the transformation of the citizenry from a free people into subjects - wards of the state. For this reason, there has never been a fascist movement that did not have as its goal the founding of a socialist structure in which capital was controlled, to one extent or another, by government. Fascism, then, in its effect, is to always have economic aims that are more compatible with the left than the right.

Payne, in A History of Fascism, determined that attempts to define the ideology of fascism essentially missed the point - fascism is not so much an ideology as it is a methodology. In fact, he stated that one of the universal signs of fascism was the fact that it tended to exist within an ideological vacuum: other than the tendency toward a socialistic tyranny, the ideology of fascism tended to be different in every state in which it existed.

That fascism lacks a coherent and stable ideology makes sense when one understands Payne's definition of fascism, which has nothing to do with right-wing politics, nationalism, or racism. Rather, fascism, according to Payne, is an ideologically vacant grab for raw power at any cost with a consequent concentration of governmental power in a socialist bureaucracy and the subjugation of the people of a nation.

So fascism is not an attempt to support an ideological viewpoint, it is an attempt to seize power and subjugate nations minus any coherent ideology. Fascism is not about beliefs, but rather about the pure, naked exercise of raw power.

One can see that, in fact, strongly-held beliefs would tend to get in the way of the exercise of raw power. If one's goal is power, strongly-held beliefs merely complicates matters: what if the population I am trying to subjugate doesn't share my beliefs? So the defining element of fascism was its ability to adopt whatever belief system aids it in its pursuit of raw power.

The vagaries of history made Germans susceptible to a myth grounded in national expansion for economic purposes and in blaming national and economic troubles on Jews. But note that the same was NOT found in the Japanese form of fascism, where the cultural climate rather lent itself to a positive mythology of supernatural destiny without an accompanying negative mythology of blame (i.e., the Japanese did not hold the Koreans or Chinese accountable for any specific set of problems in Japan, they merely saw them as population groups that were destined to be conquered). In Italy, fascism was much more practical, restrained, and opportunistic, without a coherent metanarrative to match that of the Germans or Japanese. Three fascist regimes begat three types of ideology, but they were all the same in one way: their thirst to consolidate all power within a single political party and use such consolidation to subjugate the population to governmental control.

Bill Clinton was the first fascist president of the United States. That he was a master of using the big lie (and thousands of smaller ones) for the manipulation of the population, as were the Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Japanese under Tojo. He had a nebulous, undefined platform defined more by unjustified and unprovable complaints ("the worst economy in 50 years") and sloganeering ("the man from Hope") than by specific policy statements. Further, he was so unattached to any ideas at all that once the Republicans captured the Congress in 1994, he was able to contort himself from a social liberal par excellence to a Republican lite, championing hundreds of small, insignificant "initiatives" (which nevertheless had the effect of consolidating power, both economic and political, in a left-leaning bureaucracy) and "ending welfare as we know it" to the horror of his liberal base.

Clinton displayed fascistic tendencies in his lack of attachment to a coherent ideology, in his incremental consolidation of large chunks of political power in deceptively arcane or benevolent-sounding legislation (his changes to the Violence Against Women Act, which likely permanently destroyed the stable nuclear family as an institution, for example), and his willingness to gain, maintain, and increase power at any cost (including treason, as he sold forbidden technology secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, admitting as much in his "Republican Juggernaut" complaint).

Barack Obama, however, does not display fascistic tendencies. He is a full-bore, spot-on, absolute fascist. From the use of propaganda posters modeled on Soviet and Nazi propaganda to his scorched-earth policies regarding his political enemies, in many ways he out-Hitlers Hitler. While nobody who lived through the Clinton administration ever thought they would see a liar to match his output of lies (if not skill in lying), Barack Obama uses the lie in the very same way as the Nazis and Soviets did: by never telling the truth, he builds a cultural numbness to the fact that he is a liar and he also overwhelms, undermines, and exhausts all community morality by encouraging a culture in which the significance between lying and telling the truth is forgotten. It is important that the culture be morally exhausted, because it takes the strength of character and moral conviction to withstand tyranny.

He is, of course, like all fascists before him, ideologically vacuous, lacking a coherent ideology except for the obvious hatred of American ideals and his intent to destroy everything that has made the United States an exceptional country among the nations ("hope and change"). Barack Obama, like Clinton before him, and like Hitler and every other fascist, sees the written law of the land and the expressed will of the people only as obstacles to the fulfillment of his utopian plans, as the recent health care debacle has illustrated. He is a lawless gangster, in the same mold as Hitler. And while he is still perceived by the most intellectually vacant and politically ignorant of our populace as a savior, it is very obvious that his agenda has far more to do with concentrating power in government and subjugating the population than it does with "health care" or "saving the planet" or "rescuing the economy."

(The government takeover of health care, of course, gives no benefits until 2014, while demanding that payment begin immediately. Would you purchase a car under a similar plan? "Cap and Trade" has, by all admission, no chance of significantly reducing CO2 emissions because the nations who are the worst offenders will not adopt similar legislation - "Cap and Trade" is merely a way to apply a brake to the U.S. economy, removing entrepreneurship and investment as income options and causing millions to become dependent on government consequent to the loss of private sector jobs. And the woeful stimuli plans have had no positive effect on the economy whatsoever, but have incurred large debts that will result in the bankrupting of the nation when coupled with Obama's other expenditures, likely within the next ten years.)

Fascism is here. And its ravages are not complete. Following the government takeover of health care, Congress and its fascist leader, Barack Obama, are now turning their sights to schemes to naturalize millions of illegal aliens and to passing "Cap and Trade" prior to the 2010 elections. Again, their intent is to consolidate as much power as possible in an unaccountable, socialist bureaucracy in as little time as possible so that, even if there is an election reversal in 2010 and 2012, it would be impossible for the nation to ever recover. Given the superstructure of unconstitutional legislation that would need to be repealed, the bureaucracy that would need to be rooted out, and the debt that would need to be paid, the damage could well be done by the next presidential election.

If the United States does not resist, it will have been transformed into a fully fascist state by the time of Barack Obama's reelection, should there be one, in 2012.

It is now necessary to ask, "How did we get here?"

Obama Administration Signaling Public Option May Be Off Table

Excerpted from AP Reports:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

....

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

....

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

....

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

Left-Wing Comic: Obama Should Resign

Ted Rall, a left-wing syndicated cartoonist, has become so frustrated with the Obama administration that he is calling for Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama's immediate resignation.

We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied....

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I'm going out on a limb and predicting 1) Obama never had any patriotism from which to have any left, 2) He won't be stepping down willingly, 3) His purpose is to drag us further into the abyss.

But nevertheless, Mr. Rall, we accept your apology for voting for this train-wreck of a man. And by the way, if you recognize a gap in a man's character that is so obvious that you can honestly say "We expected broken promises," perhaps don't vote for such a man in the future, huh?

If they will lie a little, they will lie a lot, my granddad always said....

These Trillions are Starting to Add Up!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday released its initial evaluation of the Democrat-sponsored "Affordable Health Choices Act." This analysis did not factor in the entire cost of the legislation, a point that the CBO director is at pains to make, as only the major provisions of the bill were evaluated.



As if the trillions of dollars already introduced into the federal deficit by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama were not enough, the initial, and incomplete estimate of the CBO for this preliminary Democrat-Socialist health care legislation confirms two major points that skeptics of Obama's fantasyland health plans have been making.

* The U.S. cannot afford a major restructuring of the health care system, as the (again, preliminary) estimate is that the cost of the Democrat plan would add more than $1 trillion to existing deficits.

* That any plan such as the nationalization of health care favored by Democrats and Obama would effectively function as a disincentive for private insurance.

In other words, those who now are paying for private insurance would drop their own coverage in preference for the subsidized or free health care offered by the government. This last point undeniably indicates that the socialization of health care has very little to do with the uninsured, and rather has to do with inflicting a command-and-control economy on the United States.

The CBO director wrote on the CBO blog:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

In addition, the CBO frets that the total cost for social welfare/socialized health care spending is not likely encompassed even by the outrageous Democrat proposal at issue, since Democrats are also proposing an expansion of Medicaid, the fiscal consequences of which will not be known until the extent of the expansion is decided.

Obama Gonna Put a Cap in Your... Wallet

In his crusade to "mobilize the citizenry" to combat the mythical beast of global warming, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has promised to "cap greenhouse gases" in such a way that "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Congressman Steve Scalise recently gave an interview to The Amerian Spectator and talked at length about The One's energy policy. While Obama Budget Director Peter Orszac's estimate that, to obtain a mere 15% decrease in carbon emissions would increase the average family's power bill by $1,300 per year is well known, it is less well known that this simultaneous increase in power costs will also be met with an estimated loss of up to 4 million jobs nationwide, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

I don't know about you, but $1,300 per year is more than my wife and I spend on power bills to begin with. Last year, we spent slightly more than $1,000 on electricity. If we were an "average American family" by Orszac's reckoning, we would have our energy bill increase by well over 100%.

Combined with the rampant overspending of the Obama administration and the impending crisis in Social Security, the United States seemed poised for some much-vaunted Change.

A couple of years from now, if Obama continues to have his way, we will, no doubt, be a second-world nation. I see now that Obama's change is real, but is it what the harebrained masses who voted for him were seeking?

Obama Budget Revealed: "Long Way To Go"

"Obviously, the bottom line is frightening," said Rudolph Penner, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "They have a long way to go to show fiscal restraint."




The Obama administration unveiled its FY 2010 budget today, a $3.4 trillion, 1500 page monstrosity.

He followed the release up with a statement that "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not a problem." Do tell!

John McCain, on Twitter, quickly criticized the budget's proposed cuts of $17 billion as being only 1/2% of the total budget.

The total budget works out to spending an amount equal to approximately $11,000 per person in America for the fiscal year.

Here's an idea. Take out all the money needed to maintain the military and its operations at home and abroad - estimated at about $700 billion - and simply give the American people what is left as a block grant. So figure that every American man, woman, and child gets 80% of $11,000, or $8,800, and the government gets a year-long vacation.

My prediction: With $8,800 returned to every PERSON in America, there would be no more economic meltdown.

My second prediction: Since Obama cares about expanding a Fascist regulatory regime, and not curing the economic problems of the country, it couldn't possibly be on the radar.

But it does make one think. If government simply getting out of the way would solve the economic woes of the nation, why, exactly, are we expanding the role of government right now?

Celebrating May Day: Commies Love Obama!

When I awoke this morning, the air just seemed more... RED. I couldn't figure it out, but then I realized that it was May Day. Something like Christmas to the socialist, communist, and Obamazombie, May Day is a celebration of the international proletariat.

So in celebration, it seems fitting to revisit yet one of a thousand indications of the thoroughly socialist nature of Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama that have been completely ignored by the media. A January 31, 2009 speech by Sam Webb, somebody you have never heard of.

But maybe you should have heard of him. Because it seems to me that his endorsement of Barack Obama's agenda tells us at least as much about The One as does Barack's association with Reverend Wright.

Because Sam Webb is the leader of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA). The speech comes from a People's Weekly World event in Cleveland. The People's Weekly World is the publication of the CPUSA.





While the speech is filled with generic commie palaver and the vagaries of someone who is compelled to say something meaningful but doesn't know what they are talking about (perhaps Mr. Webb needs to employ a teleprompter?), it is obvious that Webb is repressing the high-pitched squeel of a six-year old girl who has just gotten a pony for Christmas when he says things like, "an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream."

Hope and change, get it?

Webb rejoices that "larger Democratic majorities control Congress!" And yet conservatives are continually criticized for the close association that they find between the ideology of Dems and Commies when they design bumper stickers like this:




But there is obviously some sort of congruence between the values and agendas of Democrats and Communists when the Communists rejoice at Democratic control... nyet?

Webb, after a lot of blathering on about Reaganite neoliberalism, how capitalism (and capital itself - odd, given The One's pronouncement that "Now is not the time for profits!") fails to produce wealth, Webb gets into the "meat" [sic] of his speech when he makes the case for Obama's "New New Deal."





Of course tax cuts or making a hospitable environment for business is not the way to build the economy. Typical Communist doublethink - we do not build the economy by increasing economic activity; it is almost like Obama's spendiing orgy being characterized as "financial responsibility."

Rather, it is "thru massive injections of money from the federal government into the economy, into the hands of people who will spend it.... In this regard, the President's stimulus bill passed this week in the House and should be welcomed and supported."

Two observations, in the form of questions: 1) Whence cometh this money "from the federal government?" How munch money does the federal government earn in a year? 2) Isn't this precisely the hair of the dog that bit us? Wasn't it "massive injections of money [at the behest of] the federal government into the hands of people who will spend it" on a mortgage that they cannot afford that brought us to the utopian economy that we currently enjoy?

In order to ensure economic recovery, Webb stated that the Obama administration "will almost inevitably have to consider - and they already are [considering] - the following measures:

* Public ownership of the financial system....

* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope....

* ... public takeover of the energy complex....

* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into "no profit" zones.

* Rerouting investment capital... [into a] green economy and public infrastructure."


How, odd, that Sam Webb's goals, even his words, are so eerily echoed in the words of Obama and his administration. Can you hear the echoes? "Never waste a good crisis." "No profit zones." "Progressive." "Green economy." "Government takeover of the banking system."

Webb's conclusion? The Obama administration, for the CPUSA, represents a "once in a lifetime opportunity!"

But for who? For Communists? Really? Sam Webb, a person who has dedicated 40 years of his life to attempting to erect a socialist/communist economy in the United States, sees the Obama administration as a "lifetime opportunity"? Does anyone see this as... odd?

Webb finally states, "But I think we can confidently say that change is coming.... Yes We Can!"

I'm sure he is merely being ironic with that last little bit of sloganeering.

So to all the Obamazombies, Commies, and all their fellow travelers, Happy May Day! Enjoy your once in a lifetime opportunity!

What I Find Enchanting: 100-Day Surprises!

This morning I received a call from a New York Times reporter asking me what I found most enchanting about Obama's first 100 Days in office. But, enchantment aside, I will at least list a few things that I found most surprising about his initial three months or so....

1) Most surprisingly, I learned that for all of the Messianic worship cast his way, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is actually NOT the Messiah. Now, I did not learn this from his followers (who still seem to believe he is The Second Coming) or the press (who don't believe he is the Second Anything, but rather that he is The One), but Obama himself confessed it during his 100-Day snoozefest press conference.

Recall, if you will, that the Biblical record of the coming of The First Messiah contains this claim:

"10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.... 13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. 14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. 15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. 16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." (Matthew 8:10-17)

When The First Messiah came, he performed miracles in fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, to demonstrate that he was, indeed, the Messiah.

But while confessing that he is engaged in the process of "remaking America," The One also noted that what he has done to this point "is only the beginning of another long journey.... We've got a lot of hard decisions and tough choices and hard work ahead of us."

Then he said, to an audible gasp and the sound of a thousand rosaries being retrieved and violently clutched close to hearts, "I am not a miracle worker."

Officially, I suppose that removes The One from the Messianic sweepstakes.

Other surprises?

2) While it is not surprising that Obama blames his predecessor, George W. Bush, for every problem known to man, including the presence of mold on sliced bread, it is surprising that he is sticking with the whole "fiscal responsibility" charade.

In a meeting with citizens at a public high school in Arnold, Mo., preceding his orgy... ummmm... "enchanting" press conference with lustily-drooling reporters on Wednesday night, Obama responded to a question about the budget deficit that he inherited by saying, "That [deficit spending] wasn't me."

Really? The most liberal member of the Senate didn't spend any money during his time in office, huh? Who'da thunk it?

In an AP story on Obama's response, Calvin Woodward wrote:

"Congress [controlled] the purse strings, not [George W. Bush], and [Congress] was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending."

Hmmmm. Is there something about the water fountain at the DNC that makes people liars? First Bill Clinton, now this....

So then The One keeps repeating that his spending is actually going to decrease the deficit? He says that his budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term", which even the AP calls an "eye-roller." Apparently his solution for inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, a criticism that he repeats frequently and with zeal, is to add $4 trillion of his own in deficit spending.

Obama's expansion of health, education, and other spending will nearly quadruple the deficit, according to the AP. Only in Obamanomics is this known as "fiscal responsibility."

3) I find enchanting that the need for photo-ops showing off Der Feuhrer, I mean, The One, and his new toys are worth $329,000 and the fear of the people of New York.




4) What I find most enchanting about Muhammad's... errrrr, Obama's first 100 days is the abject worship rendered to him by the media. "What do you find most enchanting?" Was that a serious question? And all night long not one of these lap-dogs in the White House Press Corps asks a question on the economy?

And he says he is engaged in "remaking America" and there are no questions as to whose image the country is to be remade into? Maybe it is because they already know which direction "hope and change" is taking us....

Barack Obama: Teleprompter Whore

The Messiah was elected to office, not based on any of his accomplishments, but based on the fact that he is "hip," and "the greatest orator of our time."

Ahhhhh, but now the truth is out. Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is actually a much better READER than a SPEAKER.

His addiction to teleprompters, and his consequent revelation that he is not a man whose words emerge from an inner, burning conviction, but rather a man whose words are inserted into him by his handlers, continues.

Yesterday, before the National Academy of Sciences, Obama started to reintroduce some luminary that he had already introduced, then realized he was ahead of his teleprompter, and had to request that the teleprompter be fast forwarded a bit....

"In addition to John.... sorry... the, uhhhhhhh, I just noticed that I jumped the gun a little bit. Go ahead and move it [the teleprompter] up. I had already introduced you guys."





This, of course, is not the first time that this has happened to The Messiah. It seems that his innate knowledge of politics doesn't extend very far beyond, "See Jane run."



And without a teleprompter to begin with, the man is positively an embarrassment.




Gaffe, thy name is Obama - with or without his trusty teleprompter.

Bush, McCain Warned of Economic Crisis; Obama Ignored

Be sure to watch this video before YouTube pulls it!





As far back as the Clinton administration, Republicans, particularly John McCain, and later officials of the George W. Bush administration, warned Democrats of an impending housing market problem due to the politicalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Beginning in April 2001, the Bush administration complained that the size of the two quasi-governmental entities, coupled with a troublesome regulatory environment inherited from the Clinton administration (i.e., the subprime loan initiatives rammed through Congress by Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus), portended a "potential problem" which could lead to "strong repercussions in financial markets" if not immediately addressed.

In 2003, the Bush administration upgraded its warning concerning the two housing giants to the status of "systemic risk," indicating that problems with the two would likely extend beyond the housing market itself and have a detrimental effect upon the entire American economy. That year, Treasury Secretary John Snow was pushing Congress to more actively exercise its regulatory powers over both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking for a regulatory agency that would focus on "the safety and soundness of their activities."

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (MA), however, who had already placed one of his homosexual lovers, Herb Moses, in a leadership position at Fannie Mae, oddly enough as Assistant Director of Product Initiatives (a position that had direct oversight of subprime lending programs), indignantly insisted to Snow that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT in a crisis." In fact, Frank insisted that the role of the federal government was to encourage more subprime lending to minority and low-income homebuyers.

Frank said, "The more people... exaggerate the [lack of] safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see... we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] which are fundamentally sound financially... and even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out [HUH?!?!?!?, ed.], ... then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing." Emphasis added.

In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Greenspan specifically tied the potential insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, and consequent meltdown of the financial system, to the lack of a responsible regulatory regime.

John McCain, in a Senate speech in 2006, stated, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these GSEs [Government-Sponsored Entities] and the role that they play in the housing market.... [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] need to be reformed without delay."

Once again, the incompetent Marxist social engineering of Democrats has backfired. The housing market crisis that precipitated the wider financial meltdown was wholly the product of the Maoist thinking of Bill Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus, and was roundly defended by such liberal blunt objects as Barney Frank and Charles Schumer.

Who saw clearly what was happening? Why, of course, those whom the Democrats ignored at the time of their warnings but find the cojones to blame now! George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Greenspan.... Note, however, that almost as an afterthought, the reporter announces that, on what could have been the most significant legislation on the issue, Obama "did not weigh in."

What are the odds that Obama and his bunkies are going to solve the problem that they were not wise enough to see in the first place, in spite of all the warnings and signs to the contrary?

Not likely.

Substance Over Style (Finally)

In a world in which such talentless morons as Oprah Winfrey and Britney Spears can be considered "stars" in any sense of the word, I look back with great longing on the days when people became famous because they actually had done something worthwhile. I remember when people could actually play the guitar, and that was the key to being a rock star (Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhodes). I remember when men built companies (Ross Perot) rather than inherited money (Donald Trump). I remember when women became famous because they were beautiful and talented actresses (Lynda Carter) rather than simply cheesy, young, rich, train wrecks (Paris Hilton). I remember when politicians built careers and showed leadership for decades (Ronald Reagan) rather than simply being a worthless empty suit, a political flavor-of-the-month (Barack Obama).

The one person that sort of functions in my own mind as the watershed for when fame was disjoined from substance, and style began to predominate, is a singer named Christopher Cross. An ugly guy, overweight, and not particularly socially adept - he wasn't the kind of musician that would likely be found on a typical teenage girl's bedroom wall. But boy could Christopher Cross sing. He had talent. Nothing to look at, mind you, but he oozed talent.

That was the 1970s. Jump ahead nearly 40 years to a time when A Messiah is anointed based on his ability to move men with his great swelling words. A Messiah is promised who has spiritual depth and a wisdom beyond his years. And of course these false hopes are only maintained during the campaign by controlling his appearances more than a person stricken with OCD controls their bathroom's tap.

And of course the style falls away and reveals the stunning lack of substance when the election is over: a bungling idiot incapable of forming an English sentence without a teleprompter, a fool incapable of forming a cabinet, a liar incapable of telling the truth, and a socialist incapable of masking his naked thirst for power.

How refreshing to find, in a world corrupted by style, that substance still lives. There may be hope for society yet....

Susan Boyle for president.

How wonderful to learn that there is still something within man - some men - that is full, genuine, and real. I'll gladly place my HOPE for CHANGE in the 48-year old virgin....

So Now We Know What Hope and Change Means!

What happens when you take a committed socialist with no experience in governance, who has never so much as held a legitimate adult job (and yes, I know he taught law, and having graduated from law school, I utterly deny that being a law professor is an adult job), who is full of style and resentment but utterly lacks substance and wisdom, and make him president?

In March, nearly 750,000 jobs were lost and the government "rescue" of the economy is almost equivalent to the yearly Gross Domestic Product at $12.8 trillion (see http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5303F820090401 and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide ).




















Welcome to the nightmare.

Barack Obama is dishonest and incompetent at best. At worst, those folks who maintain that he actually has a strategy to run the nation into the ground in order to do away with Constitutional government may actually be on to something.

During the campaign, it was a cute (though legitimate) recurring theme for those of us who knew Obama wasn't quite up to the job to ask his brain-dead cultlike following, "What does Hope and/or Change mean exactly?" One may look back in my own blogs here on thoughts and note that numerous times I referenced this question. Of course, no genuine answer ever came. Variations on this theme included asking the zombie left, between the gutteral moans accompanying their Obamagasms, "Exactly which position of Obama's do you agree with?" Well, of course, since Obama never actually took a position (other than the fifth-grade essay variety: "War bad, Peace good!"), no answers were ever forthcoming on that question either.

Well, now we know.

The Change promised by Obama includes the surrender of all fiscal responsiblity. Obama has increased the public debt of the United States by more in his first less-than-hundred-days than any other president in the history of the United States - and more than all of them combined. The cumulative federal deficit for the United States, as accumulated over more than 200 years of history, was $4.4 trillion when Obama took office. In less than 100 days in office, Obama has already proposed $4.8 trillion in deficit spending. Yet he continues to promise that the federal budget deficit will be halved by the end of his first term. Yeah, right. And Gitmo is closing and the soldiers in Iraq are coming home, right?

The Hope promised by Obama, then, certainly involves the ethereal hope that somebody, someday, may be able to pay all this fiat money back.

The Change promised by Obama includes the end of American leadership in the world economy. Again, before Obama's first 100 days had ended, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reduced to panhandling on the streets of Beijing - showing up at an economic meeting in China and, with hat in hand and trained monkey dancing, begging the Chinese not to stop investing in American government paper. "After all," she crooned, "we really need your money, and if we go down, you guys will lose everything you have already invested!" A stunning argument, sure to go down in the annals of rhetoric as one of the great appeals in all of human history.

The Chinese responded by proposing a new worldwide currency administered by the International Monetary Fund that would relieve them of the need of the American greenback entirely.

So the Hope promised by Obama likely involves the ephemeral wish that perhaps somebody other than the Chinese will start lending us money so that we can fund Obama's federal shopping spree.

The Change promised by Obama includes the end of the private sector's freedom from governmental intervention. Yes, the federal government, the same people who brought you such marvels of efficiency and service as the Post Office, is now going to make the rules for private businesses.

Remember that the very mortgage schemes that firms such as Countrywide mastered to their own detriment were originally dreamed up by Democrats and the Clinton administration in an attempt to get people into houses who could not afford the mortgages for those houses. Who saw a mortgage problem coming when you lent mortgage money to people who could not repay it? (Hint: Democrats) Now, dressed in his Super Socialist red cape, Obama rushes in and says, "The pound of flesh that I exact from the firms who did exactly what we Democrats demanded that they do, and now need governmental rescuing because of it, is that I, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama, the Super Socialist, will now be making decisions on how to run these private companies. I will be making decisions on wage issues (so you guys over there give back those contractual bonuses!) and I will be making hiring decisions (so the head of GM is now summarily fired without Due Process of law).

So apparently the Hope promised by Obama involves the wispy notion that the federal government, who cannot adequately deliver mail or make laws without melting down the mortgage industry, is going to be able to directly run multinational organizations like AIG and GM better than people who actually have money to make or lose based on performance.

And this is killer: because Obama has so royally screwed matters up in less than 100 days in office, now the government has a hyperfemme help-me-emote website that will, I suppose, offer governmental subsidies for facial tissues since I can't stop crying as I look at the whole world collapsing under Obama's gentle and incompetent tutelage. The essence of Obamazombie hope is crystallized in the new Nanny State website, "Getting Through Tough Economic Times" at http://www.samhsa.gov/economy/. Note to self: there is a better way to get through tough economic times, and it is a proven success - ELECT REAGAN.

Finally, the Change promised by Obama includes such a headlong, trainwreck, rush into socialism that even Eurosocialists are frightened by America's descent into Marxism. Who ever thought we would see the day when the Swedes and the French would helpfully offer advice to America: "Perhaps you need to slow down on your socialist scheming?" Who ever thought that the economy of the United States could be so poorly managed - in a mere 100 days or less at that! - that the Chinese Communists would begin to lecture us on fiscal responsibility?

The real Hope? I hope the next two years goes quickly.... Vote Republican in 2010.

And I hope that a law will soon be passed taking the privilege of voting away from the brain-dead buffoons who voted for Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama. They've done enough damage already.