Blogs For Victory

Perhaps, Barry, you can lay off a bit on the fundraising while we’re stuck in the worst financial crisis in 75 years?

President Obama has the star power to raise millions of dollars for the candidates and organizations he graces with his stump speech.

But when the president hit the road Tuesday for a two-day fundraising tour to pack the party coffers, he also was racking up a $265,000 partisan bill for just one leg of the trip, according to a watchdog group — part of which taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, will have to pay.

The White House is some pretty swell digs, ya know? Maybe you can stick around the place and attend to the nation’s business?

Just a thought…

That its wrong? Not good enough. I need the real argument – I need someone to tell me, with precision, why human sacrifice is wrong.

There once was a time when Western man would simply not tolerate such a thing as human sacrifice. Chesterton, trying to describe just why the Romans were so bitterly opposed to the Carthaginians, asked us to understand that what the Carthaginians did in their highest religious ceremony was to put on their Sunday best and go watch a baby being roasted alive. Hernan Cortes is usually cast as a villain in modern accounts of the conquest of Mexico, but there was once a time when most people would say that even if Cortes and his men were base and greedy, they did do the world a favor by destroying the Aztec Empire with its horrific record of human sacrifice. It took modern liberals to find redeeming qualities in people who cut out the hearts of their living victims, and then ate them. We only have to wait a while, I suppose, and liberals will find good things to say about Pol Pot’s activities in Cambodia.

While we wait for our liberals to find the thus far unheralded benefits of Potism, we can pause and ask about that re-write of Mexican history which has the Europeans who stopped human sacrifice be in the wrong. We must presume that the argument against human sacrifice was found insufficient to excuse Spain’s conquest of Mexico. It is really no surprise, when you get down to it. After all, the arguments against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia have all, in their turn, been found wanting when confronted with the benefits liberals believe are conferred on society by the once abominated practices. If one can contemplate ripping an unborn baby out of a womb merely because it is inconvenient, how much thought would one then spare for people 500 years ago who had their hearts ripped out of their chests? At least they were recycled, you understand?

So what to do when someone comes along and says he must sacrifice a human being to propitiate the gods of the rain forest? That he doesn’t have a willing victim? Perhaps, but given that Jim Jones convinced more than 900 people to commit suicide with him, how hard will it be for some crank to convince just one person that the rain forest is so important that we must sacrifice a human being in its name? The willing victim is tied to the altar, the Goobagumba of the Swamp Goddess has his knife poised to strike – what do you say? What argument do you marshal against the blade?

Now, some redneck on a hunting trip might come along at that point, size up the situation, shoot the Goobagumba and send the victim off to psychiatric counseling. But that is because rednecks are just like that – they don’t understand the subtle nuances. What do our highly nuanced liberals say?

Perhaps, in the end, our liberal will just have to fall back on the fact that it is wrong – and he might be able to do it without realizing that he’s referred to a universal standard outside of human control, and thus acknowledged that there is right and wrong. It would be a dicey proposition, of course, because it could lead, in the end, to belief in God and, worst of all things, to conservatism. Given the risks, it might be that some liberals will allow the blade to fall…

I couldn’t have described it better than this:

Mediocrity breeds corruption. The business world is crawling with affable, industrious, intelligent people with nothing to distinguish them from ten thousand other affable, industrious and intelligent people, but who very much would like to be rich. Except by winning the equivalent of a lottery or marrying up, their chances of becoming rich are quite poor. They join a fraternity at college to make contacts, and went to business school to network. They have no friends, only contacts, as their entire social life from freshman year onward has been a struggle to get to know people who might help them. They live in silent terror that they will fall off the corporate gravy train and never have the chance to clamber back on.

These are the people most inclined to cheat, for they know that they have nothing unique to offer the world, and their ascent depends either on luck or unfair advantage. They cheat in every way possible, whenever they have a chance. One way they cheat is to steal from the stockholders by front-loading profits and back-loading risks. That is what destroyed the banking system. At the top of the market in 2006-2007 when risk compensation was stupidly low, bank managers made their return-on-equity numbers by adding leverage on top of leverage. Every one of them knew that it was a dumb and dishonest thing to do, but they all hoped that they would be promoted by the time the problem blew up in someone else’s lap…

That is the diagnoses of the disease – here is the cure:

…There is only one truly effective way to control corporate corruption, and that is through creative destruction. Let the wild men, the warped geniuses, the chip-on-the-shoulder mad entrepreneurs loose on the established corporate world. Let big corporations go bankrupt right and left. Drive out mediocrity with the scourge of innovation. Let new companies emerge, and then go bankrupt when something better comes along. Real genius, as Heinrich Heine once rhymed, pays cash at the bar. The oddball entrepreneurial types don’t cheat. They see life as a game and want to play it by their own rules. They are out to prove that they are smarter than their peers, and to cheat would be to miss the point of the game.

For the average business school graduate, an entrepreneurial economy is a hell, presided over by a devil like Goethe’s Mephistopheles, whose job is to subvert complacency. This sort of economy has its own bubbles and crises, like the dot-com catastrophe of 2000. But that was a minor blip compared to the present mess, because it wasn’t done with leverage.

Large government bureaucracies, large unions and large corporations all have one thing in common – a determination that no one come along and dislodge them from their position of power and privilege. The people who man these entities want to climb to the top, and thus don’t want to make waves; the people at the top don’t want to have to work to stay there. The reason the tax and regulatory structure of the American economy is so byzantine is because its written precisely by these groups and for these groups…they like overly complex, hard to understand and difficult to avoid systems which only work as long as no one makes waves.

Unless we change things – unless, that is, we force through an economy based on farming, manufacturing and mining, and curb the power of government bureaucracies, as well as corrupt unions – this will all just happen again…because they don’t know, and don’t care. They want their fancy toys and their exclusive clubs and their ability to think of themselves as superior to the poor, little rednecks and hicks who are doing the work of America…they view us as suckers; fools who actually work for a living when we could manage for a much better living. Force them out, put ourselves in – that is what we must do.

By not allowing the Powers That Be to force an uncongenial candidate upon his party:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

“He intends to get in the race,” says Meg Infantino, the Congressman’s sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. “In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision.”

The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution.

The Democrats had no business accepting Specter – its fine if Specter wants to switch parties, but there should have been no attempt by Democrat leaders to say that the PA Senate race was settled on the Democrat side. No Democrat picked Specter and until Specter passed muster with the Democrat electorate, he shouldn’t be the Democrat candidate. And just who in heck wants a turn coat, anyways? I mean, suppose the GOP gains a majority or even a very strong minority in 2010 – do Democrats think that Specter would remain loyal to them? Don’t bet on it – his party switch, alone, shows that he’s an unprincipled opportunist.

I, for one, am sick of these power players – in both parties – trying to tell the rank and file whom shall be the nominee. Right now, there are moves on the GOP side to find someone other than GOP front-runner Toomey to be the GOP candidate next year. Nonsense – anyone who is a GOPer is free to enter the contest, but there should be no pressure of any sort by the national party to try and force things one way or the other. There is no such thing as a sure loser in politics, no more than there is a sure winner – for any GOPer (Hatch, we’re looking at you) to decide that this or that GOPer can’t win is to absurdly pre-judge a case and presume to absolutely impossible knowledge. And even if it could be demonstrated by irrefutable argument that a certain candidate could not possibly win, it is still for the people to decide whom they’ll pour out there sweat and treasure for.

I hope that this proves true, that Sestak will run – he’ll get a small donation from me; not because I want to cause trouble for Democrats, but because the principle here is too important. We, the people, are supposed to rule this nation, not a bunch of self-selected leaders and “experts” who presume to know better than we do.

In light of recent events, some truth must be told, again and again:

We must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people. – Benedict XVI

All in the name of saving us from ourselves, of course:

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey…

…The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

They, naturally, feel they have to overcome religious opposition to, you know, forcing abortions and birth control on unwilling, poor, brown-skinned people. Poor people are such children, you see? Can’t be trusted to work out their own lives by the light of their own values and talents…they need rich, white (with an exception) people to figure it all out for them. The arrogance here is astounding – and it also demonstrates, with finality, that the super-rich are liberals to the core and like all liberals their fundamental desire is to control others.

Do keep this in mind – and remember that every time a liberal says he wants to “tax the rich”, he’s never talking about taxing the piled up wealth of people like this group of nitwit billionaires. Oh, no – our non-billionaire liberals know who their masters are and they’d never dream of taxing the surplus wealth of someone like Gates…after all, Gates can write a million dollar check to your 501.3c and keep you from having to get a job. Please note the complete drop off of liberal demands for anti-trust actions against Microsoft…Gates paid the protection money, and now he’s finding that if you pay a liberal, you’ve bought a slave…and if you’ve got some slaves, why not get some more?

People vs Powerful, my friends, that is what it is all about. We can have Obama, Gates and Soros running our lives, or we can run them, ourselves. How we behave over the next election cycle or two will determine, for many generations to come, whether we’ll be slaves or free men.

Because in order to pay for Obama’s spending bonanza, he’ll have to borrow from China…and he who pays the piper, calls the tune:

Timothy F. Geithner, who before his confirmation as Treasury secretary unintentionally charged that China was “manipulating” its currency, will make his first trip to that country since taking office and meet with its leaders next week amid rising concern about China’s willingness to continue buying United States debt.

The Treasury announced on Wednesday that Mr. Geithner had meetings scheduled with President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao and Vice Premier Wang Quishan. He will also promote American business interests and press the case for both countries, which are the world’s biggest emitters of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to climate change, to work to limit the pollution.

During his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Mr. Geithner vexed Chinese officials when, in written answers to questions from senators, Mr. Geithner wrote that “President Obama — backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists — believes that China is manipulating its currency.”

Under a 1988 law, if the administration formally reports to Congress that China is intentionally holding down the value of its currency, the renminbi, and in turn the price of its exports, such a finding could lead to the imposition of trade barriers.

Treasury officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, later said that Mr. Geithner’s written comment about China’s currency had been mistakenly included in his responses to senators, and that the administration was not signaling a more confrontational stance than the Bush administration had taken toward trade with China.

Indeed – now that Hillary has thrown China’s political and religious dissidents under the bus, Geithner will finish the job by doing everything he can to keep China’s balance of trade with the US in the black for China, because that will provide the money for China to buy all those bonds Geithner needs to sell to finance Obama’s massive, new debt. We’ve been down this road for quite long enough – but we can get out from under China just as quickly as we balance our budget…but, even without a balanced budget, as long as we’re not contemplating a massive increase in spending, we can thumb our nose at China and demand they straighten up and fly right…Geithner is selling us in the name of Obama.

UPDATE: Ironic that its all happening around the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, huh?

He wrote a book on astrology. I was in the Navy at the time. Dad said he was a published author, I thought he meant only about technical works.

The news story:

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. “It illustrates how severe the recession has been.”

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

“These are staggering numbers,” Lynch says.

Now, we’ve got an America getting poorer by the day and the liberal solution is to spend more and take more money from the increasingly impoverished American people. Does this make sense to any non-liberal out there?

This will become a long series, I’m certain:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

— U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

Fed up with Washington’s involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government’s growing intrusion on their rights.

At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

“This has been boiling for years, and it’s finally come to a head,” said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. “With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head.”

The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:

The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state’s gun manufacturers to produce “Made in Montana” firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.

Are we slaves? Are we the mere milch cows for a socialist super-State? No: we are Americans – and just as our ancestors pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend American liberty, so will we. It is, perhaps, providential that such as Barack Obama was elected President – a man so far to the left and with such a hodge-podge of kook leftists surrounding him, has crystalized what had been a disparate sense of frustration. We now know what we are fighting against and what we are fighting for.

We are fighting against all of those powerful people and groups who presume to know better than we do how to run our lives. They tell us we can’t keep filth away from our children; they tell us we can’t enforce decency on our streets; they tell us we can’t pray in the public square we pay for; they tell us, in one way or another, that they know better and we’d better be good, little serfs.

We are fighting for our right to govern ourselves – our national government is here to protect the nation from foreign aggression and protect the individual from domestic oppression…it isn’t here to nurse maid us through life. We’ll take care of our own, and far better than government can, thanks very much.

A new spirit of liberty is running hot and strong through American life, and I’m mighty pleased to see it.