Libertarian Leanings

And this is the guy Obama backs

Via Slashdot:  The results were in before the referendum was held.

'A Spanish Catalan newspaper is reporting that Honduran authorities have seized computers found in the Presidential Palace belonging to deposed president Mel Zelaya. Taking a page right out of the leftist dictator's handbook, these computers, according to the news report, contained the official and certified results of the illegal constitutional referendum Zelaya wanted to conduct that never took place. The results of this fraudulent vote was tilted heavily in Zelaya's favor, ensuring he could go ahead and illegally change the constitution so he could remain in power for as long as he wanted to. ACORN, I'm sure, is taking notes.

This is the man that the OAS, the UN, and the Obama State Department want the Honduran people to reinstall as their leader.'

No doubt Obama is impressed by Zelaya's "efficiency."

Supreme Liberal Wisdom

The American Story, a college level U.S. history textbook, devotes two of its chapters to the early progressive movement which gained force in the first decades of the twentieth century.  Based on its description of the "spirit of progressivism" you would be hard pressed to detect a difference between the early progressives and today's variety.

'Third, more than many earlier reformers, the progressives were willing to intervene in people's lives, confident that it was their right to do so.  They knew best, some of them thought, and as a result, there was an element of coercion in a number of their ideas.  Fourth, while progressives preferred if possible to use voluntary means to achieve reform, they tended to turn more and more to the authority of the state and government at all levels in order to put into effect the reforms they wanted.'  (Divine et al. 595).

The progressives movement arose in the wake of the Gilded Age which was notable for its corruption, but which was also the period when America became an industrial power.  You might say that improved standards of living brought about by industrialization enabled the progressive movement, which waged its most important battles was against conditions also brought about by industrialization. 

With mass production came a huge demand for labor.  Immigration increased dramatically.  The demand drew laborers into the cities -- to the factories for work and to the slums to live.  Life was not easy in the crowded tenements.  As people packed themselves into the cities, crime, alcoholism, prostitution, gambling and a variety of other other social ills took off.  Enter the progressives, who took it upon themselves to fix things, and they were often successful.

The progressives got a lot of good things done, like the enactment of child labor laws that put an end to the employment of children in factories.  But they were also successful getting prohibition passed, and what a disaster that turned out to be.  The common element in progressives' approach to reform was an unshakable faith in their own innate superiority. 

But there was a darker side to this, one that is unlikely to be explored in college level text books, and is hardly mentioned in The American Story. Early progressives were proponents of eugenics.  This meant that early progressives believed lesser people ought to be discouraged from having children.  Even further, they believed defective, or dysgenic people should not be permitted to have children.  This meant forced sterilization.

Among the early progressives who believed this was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and recently included by Time Magazineamong its 100 most important people of the 20th century.  Although Sanger's mission was to give women more control over their own lives, her efforts went somewhat beyond that.  According to Wikipedia:

In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.^[22]

And, following:

Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.^[23]

But that was 1932 and this is 2009 and the progressive movement has come such a long way since the bad old days.  Or not.  Consider a recent column by Michael Gerson which examines statements made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a recent New York Times interview.  (My emphasis below.)

'Q: "Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women?"

Justice Ginsburg: "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

Gerson cautions that Justice Ginsburg's statements must be taken in context, although he seems to be aghast that whatever the context, the media in general and the Times in particular considered it perfectly acceptable for Ginsburg to cavalierly refer to "populations that we don't want too many of." 

'Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?

It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables. Neither judge nor journalist apparently found this attitude exceptional; there was no follow-up question.'

It's amazing to me that in this day and age we could have one Supreme Court Justice who would say something like this, but now we have another one coming along, certain to be confirmed.  Sonia Sotomayor:

'And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach.

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.'

From the Democratic side of the aisle and the left side of the political spectrum come the explanations and excuses.  Senator Pat Leahy went so far as to offer a revisionto what Sotomayor actually said.

'Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), at the opening of questioning, misquoted the nominee’s “wise Latina” statement as a means to assert that she didn’t say what she said.

“You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions,”’Leahy said.  Not quite, Sen. Leahy.'

In reality, it was acknowledgment by the Leahy that Sotomayor's sentiment was truly unacceptable.  Otherwise, why bother to misquote it?  I guess progressives haven't come all that far since the early days of the 20th century.  They still have an undying faith in their own superiority, convinced that a liberal philosophy is proof of a towering intellect.  Liberalism has become the English Chaplain in George Bernard Shaw's St. Joan.

'WARWICK. I am a soldier, not a churchman. As a pilgrim I saw something of the Mahometans. They were not so ill-bred as I had been led to believe. In some respects their conduct compared favorably with ours.

CAUCHON [displeased] I have noticed this before. Men go to the East to convert the infidels. And the infidels pervert them. The Crusader comes back more than half a Saracen. Not to mention that all Englishmen are born heretics.

THE CHAPLAIN. Englishmen heretics!!! [Appealing to Warwick] My lord: must we endure this? His lordship is beside himself. How can what an Englishman believes be heresy? It is a contradiction in terms.

CAUCHON. I absolve you, Messire de Stogumber, on the ground of invincible ignorance. The thick air of your country does not breed theologians.'

It is simply not possible for a progressive to be guilty of bigotry.  It is a contradiction in terms.  Lucky us!  Now we get to have two just beauties on the Supreme Court of the United States.  I'm sure they're nice people, and I have no doubt that they will do their very best to do the right thing in every case that comes before them.  But I'm not at all optimistic that their best will be particularly good.

Can anyone who is caught uttering such nonsense in candid moments really be all that bright?  Not to worry.  With the Times on the case, whatever should spew forth from the mouths of Ginsburg and Sotomayor is already brilliant.  In the world of the New York Times, progressive idiocies are transformed into Supreme Wisdom.

Work Cited

Robert A. Divine, et al, The American Story, Third Edition, New York: Longman Publishers, 2007

Record Lows Hit the Northeast

Record low temperatures were experienced in the northeast yesterday.

'As politicians in Washington, DC debate what to do about global warming, the Northeast has been hit with record low temperatures this morning.

According to ABC News, the cities of Binghamton and Rochester in New York and Hartford, CT experienced record lows for July today.

Meanwhile, here in the Granite State, temperatures in Concord fell to 47-degress this morning, the lowest since 1940. Temperatures in Portsmouth came within one degree of the lowest ever in July.'

How fortunate for Dems that recent global warming legislation was able to squeak through the House just as global cooling seems to be getting under way. 

Via Instapundit.

Tax Hikes vs. Tax Revenues

You got to wonder why people don't get this, but apparently they don't.

'Mr. Rangel and House Democrats are also banking on the idea that raising tax rates by 20% will raise 20% more tax revenue, but that's like telling Wal-Mart it can raise prices by 20% and get 20% more profit.'

Too many people are willing to ignore what they know to be true in favor of the leftist pipe dream, that taxing the rich is going to pay for all the things that Democrats have convinced them they're entitled to get from their government.

Predictably Evolving Stance

In a "surprise" move the Obama administration has taken a bold step to shore up the presidents plummeting poll numbers. Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index has settled at -7 for the last three days, but the percentage of respondents who strongly approve of Barack Obama's performance has dropped to an all time low of 28%.  And so, signaling yet again that Obama pronouncements all come with an expiration date, Attorney General Holder announced his renewed interest in Bush administration interrogation policies, saying that he might just order a criminal investigation after all.

'WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder may order a criminal probe into whether treatment of terrorism detainees exceeded guidelines set by the Justice Department, administration officials said.

[...]

Messrs. Obama and Holder have said they don't favor prosecuting lawyers who wrote the legal justifications for interrogation methods that the president and his attorney general have declared to be torture. They also have sought to protect CIA officers who followed the legal guidelines.

"The Department of Justice will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," Matthew Miller, Justice spokesman, said. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry." CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the CIA's terrorist detention and interrogation program was shaped and driven by legal guidance from the Department of Justice. The president, attorney general, and CIA Director Leon Panetta "have all said consistently that those who followed that guidance should not be punished," he said. "The Department of Justice knows, and has known for years, the details of CIA's past interrogation practices. Based on the knowledge, Justice decided when to prosecute and when not to prosecute."

The Obama administration's stance on the issue of "looking back" has evolved since the November election as the president has begun adapting some controversial anti-terrorism strategies developed in the previous administration. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's decision in May to release the Bush-era Justice memos on interrogations set off bitter political sniping that temporarily overshadowed the president's own domestic agenda.

Mr. Holder's view on a potential inquiry has developed over time and he remains reluctant to order a criminal probe, said the person familiar with his thinking. However, in recent months Mr. Holder "saw disturbing things" as he reviewed some of the practices detailed in documents, including a CIA internal report that the Obama administration is still debating whether to release in full, according to this person.

"At the end of the day, his hand may be simply forced by what he's now seen," this person said.'

Right.  And what he's really now seen are Obama approval numbers heading through the floor.  It's time for a distraction from Obama's ongoing economic policy failures.  Time to focus attention somewhere else.  Once again the Obama administration is trying to shift some kind of blame to the Bush administration.

Like a Rock

Sinking like a rock, that is.  Rasmussen Reports has Barack Obama at his lowest approval rating ever: -8. 

'Thursday, July 09, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week.'

Among those polled 39% told Rasmussen that Obama is doing a good or excellent job on the economy.  One must wonder where their heads are.  Overall, Obama is down to only 51% of voters who say they approve at least somewhat of his performance, while 48% now disapprove.

Administration acceptance of Iranian nukes?

A Jerusalem Post report hints that there is a sense of acceptance within the Obama administration of nuclear armed Iran. 

'The United States will call for "even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a TV interview broadcast late Tuesday.

Washington remained concerned about what Clinton called Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons," which could "be very destabilizing in the Middle East and beyond," Clinton told the private Venezuelan television network Globovision.

Earlier Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Iran was "very focused on developing [nuclear weapons] capability, and I think when they get it, or should they get it, it will be very destabilizing."'

Oops.  I guess that just slipped out. 

US President Barack Obama told CNN US has "absolutely not" given Israel a green light for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, saying diplomacy is his preferred course of action.'

No worries.  Israel can rely on Obama's massive charisma to shield it from destruction.

Nancy and the CIA

There was a time when both the media and the Democrats were determined to get to the truth about the CIA interrogations of a Qaeda detainees.  But when the truth began to emerge, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about the interrogations and offered no objections to the methods used, the California Democrat accused the CIA of lying to Congress about it.

'This week, the Speaker's fellow Democrats are set to block public disclosure of what Ms. Pelosi was really told and when.

Democrats recently marked up the 2010 intelligence bill, and Republican Pete Hoekstra offered an amendment in committee to require the CIA to make public an unclassified version of its records on Congressional briefings. It also would have required the CIA to disclose the information gleaned from those interrogations.

Democrats have spent years demanding a "truth commission" into interrogations, so you'd think such public disclosure would be welcome. Ah, that was when a different guy was in the White House and before Mrs. Pelosi had made her own veracity an issue. Suddenly, she's all for secrecy. And sure enough, Intelligence Committee Democrats lined up to protect their leader and defeated the Hoekstra amendment on a party line vote. This follows Democratic rejection of a resolution by Utah Republican Rob Bishop to initiate a bipartisan investigation of Mrs. Pelosi's accusation.'

National security takes on a new meaning.  Wartime decisions of CIA agents are fair game for second-guessing, in favor of protecting Democratic Congressional seats.

Sarah

Mark Steyn on Sarah Palin's resignation:

'Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?'

Foreclosure Stats

According to liberal wisdom, unbridled capitalism is largely to blame for the current foreclosure mess.  It was those subprime lenders.  First, they made so many "liar loans," loans where lenders never bothered to do any income verification.  On top of that, those unscrupulous subprime lenders supposedly misled borrowers into taking out adjustable rate mortgages that they would never be able to afford when monthly payments inevitably went up.  

Not so, says Stan Liebowitz, professor of economics at the University of Texas.

'But the focus on subprimes ignores the widely available industry facts (reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association) that 51% of all foreclosed homes had prime loans, not subprime, and that the foreclosure rate for prime loans grew by 488% compared to a growth rate of 200% for subprime foreclosures. (These percentages are based on the period since the steep ascent in foreclosures began -  the third quarter of 2006 -- during which more than 4.3 million homes went into foreclosure.)

[...[

What about upward resets in mortgage interest rates? I found that interest rate resets did not measurably increase foreclosures until the reset was greater than four percentage points. Only 8% of foreclosures had an interest rate increase of that much. Thus the overall impact of upward interest rate resets is much smaller than the impact from equity.'

The most important factor was the amount of homeowner equity in the house.  In other words, if forced to sell would the homeowner get enough from the sale of the house to pay off the existing mortgage.  When the answer is no, foreclosure is a likely result. 

How many homeowners have been forced to sell because they lost their jobs?  The solution to the foreclosure crisis is strong economic growth and job creation.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration has chosen to pursue policies aimed at income redistribution rather than economic growth.