Economic Woes: Who’s to Blame?

January 28, 2010

American economist Thomas Sowell once said:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

While pointing the finger of blame is often shunned as a counter-productive or divisive practice, as Sowell pointed out, accountability for poor decisions is necessary for effective governance. How else are we to learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent their re-occurrence than to identify poor decisions and those who made them?

In that context, congress’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is currently interrogating bank executives to identify the cause of the economic melt-down. However, while most of the heated interrogation is being directed toward private financial institutions, lets put the politicians on the hot seat and review the government’s role in getting us into our current economic mess.

First, a basic understanding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their role in the housing and lending market is critical in order to comprehend the root causes of the financial meltdown. In the video below, Senator Jim DeMint offers an excellent summary.

As DeMint stated, it is Congress’ responsibility to provide regulation and oversight of government sponsored entities (GSE’s) such as Fannie & Freddie. Following is a brief time-line of events as it pertains to congress and the regulation of GSE’s.

*Hat tip to Mike Costello for being “the squeaky wheel” that guided me in my research.

  • April 2001 – President Bush raised red flags concerning the size of Fannie and Freddie in his 2002 budget request. He identified the “potential problem” that trouble in either institution could “cause strong repercussions in financial markets”.
  • mid 2003 – Reports and hearings showed Freddie Mac “manipulated its accounting to mislead investors” and that they failed to “adequately hedge against rising interest rates”.
  • July 31, 2003 – The Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 1508), co-sponsored by John McCain, was introduced. President Bush subsequently  recommended a massive regulatory overhaul. The bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, however with every single democrat on the committee opposing it, the bill was doomed.
  • Feb. 24, 2004 – Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, warns congress that “if we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis; we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States”.
  • Sept. 2004 – A report following an 8-month investigation by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO) showed Fannie executives intentionally manipulated their accounting and overstated their earnings by $10.6 billion in order to hit targets and pocket an additional $27 million in bonuses.
  • Late 2004 – As the video below shows, during hearings, republicans expressed concern and called for swift action and more regulation, while democrats expressed anger toward OFHEO for bringing corruption at Fannie to light, suggesting there was nothing wrong and no need for increased regulation.
  • Early 2005 – Regulatory legislation was re-introduced (S. 109) however with every democrat in the banking committee once again voting against it, the bill never made it to the Senate floor.
  • May 2006 – John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill and said that “if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole”.
  • July 2008 – After republicans re-introduced a regulation bill (S. 1100) for the third time, it finally passed. Of course by this time, “toxic assets” from years of risky and reckless leadership at Fannie and Freddie had spread through the financial system, and it was too late.

As republicans are the ones who are generally labeled as “big business sell-outs” constantly pushing for deregulation, one may reasonably ask why, in this case, the roles seemed to be reversed.

First of all, democrats were bought-off by campaign contributions from Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Long-time member and current chairman of the Senate Banking Committee democrat Chris Dodd made the top of the list with a purchase price of $165,400. The second top sell-out was non other than…you guessed it, then rookie senator, President Barack Obama. Other democrats making the top of the list include fellow committee member Tim Johnson, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

While they were apparently not as easy to buy off, Fannie and Freddie also contributed to the campaigns of many republicans, including two who also sat on the Senate Banking Committee. Therefore, another motive moved democrats to support the scandal-infested financial institutions. This motive was most commonly presented as “affordable housing”. While those two words have a tendency to create warm fuzzies within liberals, what it really means is putting poor minorities in homes they could in no way truly afford. I wonder how liberals now feel about “affordable housing”, seeing that their compassion-based pipe dream has cost millions of Americans to loose their jobs as well as their homes due to foreclosure.

Is it no surprise that Obama and the dems strive to demonize the executives of the private financial institutions in order to keep attention away from their grievous errors that helped create and/or worsen our current economic woes? How ironic it is that the same individuals who are largely responsible for the collapse of the housing market are now the very same “leaders” who claim to offer the solution to the problem they helped cause. I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry when I visited Chris Dodd’s website and saw that he actually has the nerve to say that he “leads the fight in the Senate for financial regulatory reform”.

1 Comment | Barack Obama, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Private vs. Socialized Healthcare

November 20, 2009

In a previous post (lie #4) I described how multiple ObamaCare leaders have admitted that a “Public Option” is merely a means to an end – the eventual government take-over of healthcare through a single-payer system. Naturally, one might ask, “Is that so bad? Is socialized healthcare a better system?”. The answer is absolutely, unequivocally, and without a doubt….NO! I will proceed to destroy the five most common arguments in favor of socialized, universal, single-payer healthcare.

False Argument # 1 – Medical treatment is better in countries with socialized healthcare.

The 2007 Lancet Oncology study showed U.S. cancer survival rates were higher in every category than in Europe, especially in Great Britain where their 50-year-old government-run universal healthcare fared worse than the European average.

Also, the 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study also showed U.S. Cancer survival rates where also higher than in Canada.

False Argument # 2 – Treatment is more accessible in countries with socialized healthcare.

After proving that the quality of treatment in the U.S. is better than it’s socialized healthcare counterparts, the ObamaCare proponent will predictably complain that the statistics you’ve used illustrate only pre-diagnostic data and do not take into account those who, due to financial burden, do not have access to the superior treatment available through private healthcare. Essentially they argue that sacrificing superior treatment is justified if everyone has access to crappy healthcare. While the merit of such a trade-off of quality for quantity is debatable, for the time being I will entertain this argument.

In order to assess the quality of healthcare for all, including those that for whatever reason don’t get treated, statistics illustrating total death counts by cause must be reviewed. Fortunately, we have a 2004 report from the World Health Organization that does just that. When death rates by cause is adjusted for population, the U.S. fares better than the celebrated government healthcare found in Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

I cranked the numbers for each of the six countries previously mentioned. Death rates for “communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional” (which encompasses TB, childhood diseases, and Hepatitis) where lower in the U.S. than France, Japan, and the UK and only slightly worse than Canada and Italy. Cancer (“malignant neoplasms”) death rates carry more weight in significance as between the six countries I reviewed, Cancer is more than 4 times more deadly than communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional illnesses combined. The U.S. had lower death-by-cancer rates than each of it’s socialized healthcare counterparts.

As these numbers represent death by cause totals, it can be concluded that the current private-run healthcare of the U.S. boasts lower death-rates (by illness) than government-run healthcare….even when access to healthcare, or lack thereof, is accounted for.

False Argument # 3 – Socialized healthcare is less expensive than private health-care.

This argument is humorous as lower healthcare spending is one of, if not the greatest reason for the inferior treatment found within socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare, as I discussed in a previous post (lie #2), is not a self-sufficient or “deficit-neutral” system. There is never enough tax money coming in to address everyone’s healthcare needs. Therefore, to avoid taxing everyone out of existence (which socialized healthcare gets as close as they can to doing) and spending the country out of existence, they must set GDP price controls which lead to the rationing of care. Thus, these countries are constantly struggling just to stay afloat and keeping the entire system from imploding on itself. Needless to say, they don’t have the billions necessary to invest toward the development of new and more efficient drugs and treatments. Instead, they wait for those advancements to come out of the US’ private-run healthcare and for the cost to come down enough for their broken system to be able to afford it.

False Argument # 4 – Life expectancy is higher in countries with socialized healthcare.

Warning, this argument is so irrelevant and easy to tear apart it may embarrass the person that spent the time and energy gathering data to prove an irrelevant point. Life expectancy rates do not focus on medical data, but is a broad topic that includes a plethora of non-medical variables such as suicide and alcohol and drug use. The person using this red herring argument is trying to distract you from the medical data that proves their point wrong and is straining to create an argument from irrelevant data.

False Argument # 5 – It’s the government’s purpose to provide critical things such as heatlhcare.

Many things that can be viewed as necessities and as critical were intentionally left unmet and unsubsidized by our founding fathers. Needs such as employment, housing, food, and health insurance where to be provided by, earned, and possessed by a self-sufficient and independent people – not by the government. Essentially, instead of just giving Americans a fish, the goal was to creat an environment in which all could have the ability to learn how to fish. To justify a government takeover of healthcare because of it’s important and critical nature, why not put the government in charge of all important and critical needs such as employment and houseing?

This type of thinking is what I believe led communist Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev to prophecy that the U.S. will be led into communism through “small doses of socialism”. Such thinking leads many to believe that Obama’s magical utopian road of entitlements ultimately leads to the dark and freedomless destination of communism.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, healthcare, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

The Big 5: ObamaCare Deception

November 16, 2009

As the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) continues to face debate and scrutiny in the Senate, it seems appropriate to review the history of ObamaCare and what we’ve seen along the road of healthcare reform. Such a recap is disheartening as we review the 5 big lies Obama and the democrats have made in their effort for healthcare reform.

LIE # 1 – Obama wants transparent negotiations and an informed public.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly declared that throughout the healthcare reform process, he would ensure negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, that he’d “enlist the American people in this process”, and that “the public would be part of the conversation”. However, less than three weeks after taking office, Obama began multiple closed-door meetings with private health-industry executives which resulted in a secret deal with the same pharmaceutical lobbyist he criticized in one of his campaign commercials.

Obama proceeded to create a sense of urgency by pressuring congress to pass the 1,000 page bill in less than a month, before the August recess. When such a rush leads democratic congressman John Conyers to state that there was no point in even reading the bill, its apparent the American people are being left out of the process and conversation.

As the healthcare debate continued, information and opposition toward ObamaCare seemed to increase in tandem. In response, the white has led a fascist-like campaign to silence opposition through fear and intimidation. Obama’s threat to the first amendment was most clearly illustrated through the illegal establishment of flag@whitehouse.gov as a means for people to report “fishy” opposition toward health insurance reform. This was followed by the White House’s effort to attack what seems to be the only news organization who isn’t working for the Obama administration. The White House’s war on Fox News even led competing CNN to defend a news organization’s right to report political opposition without fear of attack by the government.

LIE # 2 – Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”

President Obama created quite a stir by issuing his own “read my lips” declaration by stating he would not support healthcare reform that isn’t financially sustainable. Obama’s acknowledgment that being deficit-neutral is a critical component of a successful government-run healthcare program assured Americans that our country will not follow in the footsteps of price-controlled rationing found in other socialized heathcare programs world-wide. If only it were true…

It was the number-crunching wizards of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that exposed the lie. Their review of the proposed bill determined that it would not only not be deficit-neutral, but that it would increase the deficit by $239 Billion in the next decade. CBO director and wizard master Douglas Elmendorf also stated that “the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” It’s no surprise then that Obama’s deception would be referred to as “deficit dishonesty“.

LIE # 3 – Healthcare for illegal aliens.

Many were surprised at Rep. Joe Wilson’s break of decorum when he shouted, “you lie” during President Obama’s heath care address to congress. While fellow members of congress were well aware of what fueled and arguably justified such an outburst, at the time, most Americans were not.

Obama and the democrats claimed that ObamaCare wouldn’t offer tax-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants, pointing to section 246 of H.R. 3200 that, on paper, limits “federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” However, this lie was later exposed by the Congressional Research Service which concluded that in practice, there would be no restrictions keeping illegal aliens from receiving government-offered healthcare.

No big deal though, with illegal immigrant loop-holes brought to light, the bill could simply be amended to ensure that the immigration status of ObamaCare participants is verified. This would be easy through the use of already existing and effective programs such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Two such amendments doing just that were authored by republican representatives Nathan Deal of Georgia and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democrats showed their true colors by voting down both amendments, implicitly allowing illegal immigrants to milk the would-be Obamacare.

Thus, with two small words, Wilson successfully brought the illegal immigrant deception to the attention of the American people. It was so successful, the resulting backlash of an informed public forced Obama to support a provision that would require proof of citizenship for enrollment in ObamaCare. ‘Atta boy Joe!

LIE # 4 – The real purpose of the Public Option.

Most in favor of ObamaCare claim that the purpose of a “public option” is to complete against private healthcare in an effort to drive down costs. For the time being, I’ll put aside the fact that you can’t possibly consider tax-funded government programs as real “competition” in the private market, or that subsidizing the price of heatlhcare in no ways changes the cost of healthcare. Instead I’ll simply point out the fact that many of the liberal leaders of healthcare reform have outright admitted that the public option is simply a “sneaky strategy” to eventually usher in a complete government takeover of the private healthcare industry though a single-payer system. Such ObamaCare proponents include Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health), Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s Chief of Staff), Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Russ Feingold, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman (NY Times), and Ezra Klein (Washington Post).

In a later post, I’ll further debate the merits of socialized healthcare and single-payer systems. For now, lets stop pretending that ObamaCare is anything other than what it has been repeatedly admitted to be…a means to eventually replace the private health industry, not to compete with it.

LIE # 5 – The “doctor fix” accounting trick.

Obama set a $900 Billion price tag maximum for healthcare reform. The problem is that dealing with healthcare includes trying to fix the mess found in Medicare which includes the failed “sustainable growth rate” (SGR) payment formula which limits reimbursements for participating physicians. Repealing the SGR, a critical concession to gain ObamaCare support from doctors and the American Medical Association, costs $247 Billion.

Solution? Both House and Senate democrats proposed simply moving the $247 Billion “doc fix” into a separate piece of legislation and presto! More money to spend while still being able to claim it’s under Obama’s $900 Billion price tag.

Hopefully, the American people will see past the lies and deception used by Obama and the democrats and urge and pressure their representatives to reject ObamaCare.

6 Comments | Barack Obama, healthcare, illegal immigration, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Fighting Against Same-Sex Legal Rights will Harm “Traditional Marriage”

November 4, 2009

Recently, I was made aware of Washington state’s Referendum 71 which upholds offering domestic partnerships the same legal rights as marriage. Protect Marriage Washington launched a campaign in opposition to Referendum 71. Some may be surprised to learn that I strongly oppose Protect Marriage Washington and any effort to withhold legal rights to domestic partnerships. As a California resident and someone who was intimately and passionately involved in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, I feel California best illustrates why I feel this way.

California domestic partners enjoy the same legal rights and obligations as do married spouses through CA Family Code 297.5. This fact was a powerful tool in exposing the lies spread by the gays about “civil rights” and was cited in Yes on 8 commercials.

Following Prop 8′s passage, it was challenged before the same CA Supreme Court that had recently established same-sex marriage. Fortunately, because gay’s had the same legal rights, the arguments made in court had to do with nomenclature and the people’s right to amend their constitution, and not about civil rights for gays…and thus, Prop 8 was upheld by the court. Surely, had the opposition been able to argue that real legal rights were being withheld based on sexual orientation, Prop 8 would’ve lost, and gay “marriage” would’ve been forced upon California. In other words, offering domestic partners the same legal rights ended up saving traditional “marriage”. Should other states face a similar battle over “same-sex marriage” without offering the same legal rights to gay couples, the courts will likely force gay “marriage” as a means to secure those legal rights…so that in the end, gays will successfully redefine “marriage” on top of securing the legal rights.

Due to the fundamental differences between men and women, the balanced environment created by a man and woman committed in marriage, all things being equal, provide the ideal situation in which a child can be raised. However, the reality is that gays do and will always be able to adopt and raise children. Many of the legal rights given in “marriage” are for the benefit and protection of children. Withholding those rights puts children at risk and punishes them for the sexual orientation of their legal guardians.

It must be understood that fighting against giving gays the same legal rights will be viewed by the majority of the public as hateful discrimination. The technique the gays will use will be to give countless examples of the complications and horrors that gays AND THE CHILDREN INVOLVED can and will face without the same legal rights.

Ultimately, judges will have to decide if legal rights can constitutionally (state & federal) be withheld from someone due to their sexual orientation. It doesn’t take a genius or a prophet to foresee that such denial of legal rights will be determined to be discrimination against sexual orientation.

As an American, I’m proud of the fact that we do not tolerate discrimination in extending legal rights and protections. As a defender of traditional marriage and democracy, I am also proud that we are able to decide as a society what values and ideals we recognize and promote, including the definition of “marriage”.

1 Comment | Gay Marriage / Rights, Local & State Politics, Love, Marriage, & Family, National Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Integrity in Politics

April 8, 2009
Integrity is one of, if not the most important and valuable characteristics one can develop. Those entrusted to represent the voice and welfare of the citizens of local, state, and federal governments have the responsibility and duty to do so with integrity. Politicians who are misleading and demonstrate blatant inconsistency between what they say, and what they do, should be exposed and “called-out”. I am optimistic and grateful that many others educate themselves on relevant and current political issues and take action to hold their elected representatives responsible for their promises and rhetoric.

Those who neglect to fulfill their duty with integrity can and should expect serious consequences. Such is the case of California Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams, who is facing a powerful recall campaign. A campaign I have donated to and hope is successful.

To me this issue is much larger than my frustration of wasteful government spending and high taxes. I have more respect for a politician who says they are in favor of “tax-and-spend” policies (like Obama) and acts in accordance to those principles (however wrong I feel they may be), than a politician that says one thing and does another.

Click here to see my open letter to Assemblyman Cameron Smyth which was published this morning in The Signal newspaper. In it I criticize his failure to have his actions reflect his rhetoric in regards to being strongly opposed to tax increases. It should be noted that I gave Smyth the opportunity to respond and explain his actions (as I’ve observed them) in case I had misjudged him. I could have retracted my letter before it was published, but received no response from him.

10 Comments | National Politics | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

The Race Card & White Guilt

December 31, 2008

Political controversy and scandal has once again been recently exposed through the impeachment trial of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. The situation was made even more sticky and colorful when Blogojevich appointed Roland Burris to fill Obama’s void. This introduced a debate in the Senate over weather or not the appointment of a Governor arrested on federal corruption charges over that very appointment should be honored. It is important to note that Burris was not one of the 7 individuals who were apparently bidding for the seat and appears to be reputable and worthy candidate for such an appointment. In light of Burris’ innocence and qualifications and since Blogojevich is still the acting Governor until he is formally impeached, questioning the appointment appears to be nothing more than “politics as usual”, especially when the issue involves one of the most corrupt political arenas in the nation… and thus (to me), by itself, is an uninteresting story.However, since Burris would be the only current black U.S. senator, the race card has been played, most blatantly by House Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.). In a press conference held yesterday, Rush seemed to focus his objection to refusing to sit Burris (which, remember, I agree with and also feel the appointment should stand), on the fact that Burris is black, stating that that gives this issue “tremendous national importance”. He even went so far as to challenge the media from investigating Burris or opposing his appointment because doing so would be “hanging or lynching” him. (Click here to see the video.)

If Burris was white and a scientologist (Church of Scientology), would the appointment of the only Scientologist U.S. Senator also be of “tremendous national importance”? Would the ACLU or Jesse Jackson get involved to fight apparent bigotry? I am so fed up with seeing the race card get played again and again. I was taught to look past skin color… but apparently that is a one way street that only whites must adhere to. If equality is what we should be pushing for, shouldn’t we seek to remove race as an issue as opposed to highlighting and dwelling on it? Shouldn’t BET and other organizations devoted to blacks be encouraged and pressured to seek diversity just as much as any other organization? Do you think a White Entertainment Television network or a white fraternity persist without being burned to the ground or sued out of existence by the ACLU? I feel the establishment of such white groups would be harmful to the racial unity we should be striving to achieve, and only make such an observation to point out an obvious double standard.

That said, and in the light of the Burris debacle, below I have posted an article I’ve been sitting on for a while. With permission by it’s author, Tom Adkins, I’ve posted the article in it’s entirety.

Disclaimer: the article is edgy and can be easily viewed as offensive. Had I written it, I probably would’ve been more careful or tactful. However, I have never been a fan of political correctness, and agree with Adkins’ general point… not to mention the extra “edge” Adkins uses, I feel, makes it much more entertaining than anything I could’ve written.

WHITE GUILT IS DEAD
Free at last, free at last!

By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me.. I’m virtually euphoric.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not thrilled with America’s flirtation with neo-socialism. But there’s a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barack Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America: The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn’t give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barack Obama their leader. Therefore, as of November 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barack Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I’m feeling a little “uppity,” if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it’s time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright’s “God Damn America,” Al Sharpton’s Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson’s rainbow racism. Cornell West? You’re a fraud. Go home. All those “black studies” programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I’m waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America. Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please, no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.

Black Fraternities? Seek diversity. Race Card? It’s now the joker. Miss Black America? Get in line with all the other lovely ladies. Reparations? Paid.

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America? I’m still waiting for the first black French President.

And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I’ve always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You’re poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin’ butt on the couch and complain “Da Man is keepin’ me down!!!” allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone’s great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It’s time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful, don’t trip on streaking. There ya go, don’t be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It’s filthy.

In fact, Obama’s ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O’Henry tale, Obama’s spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it’s own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama’s election has validated American conservatism!

So, listen carefully … “Wham!!!”

That’s the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there’s apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barack Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn’t that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it’s time to start spreading that guilt around.

Tom Adkins is the founder of CommonConservative.com.
He can be contacted at TomAdkinsCC@Yahoo.com

With permission, an edited version of this article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer Sun Nov 9, 2008.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, Local & State Politics, National Politics, Racism & Political Correctness | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Political Games

September 18, 2008

Sometimes, while observing the political games played out in the media, particularly during this election year, I can’t help but feel disappointed. I’m not disappointed in the biases attempted to be passed off by news outlets portraying themselves as completely objective. I’m not even disappointed in the politicians themselves who use lame irrelevant tactics and arguments to sway the voters. No…while I try to stay idealistic and positive, it’s the American people I’m disappointed in. For I know that if public option pollsters, news outlets, and politicians were called out and held responsible for such manipulative behavior, they would certainly do an about face….because they wouldn’t get away with it, let alone help their agenda.
Below is an example of the type of political games I’m referring to, taken from Glenn Beck’s An Inconvenient Book, which I recently finished.

…Democrat Michael Arcuri and Republican Ray Meier, running for New York’s 24th Congressional District, upped the ante even more. An anti-Arcuri campaign ad featured the silhouette of a stripper next to video of Arcuri. The narrator ominously said, “The phone number to an adult fantasy hotline appeared on Michael Arcuri’s New York City hotel room bill…while he was there on official business…Who calls a fantasy hotline and then bills taxpayers? Michael Arcuri.” “Bad call!” the stripper adds in a sultry voice.

There’s only one problem: Arcuri had already proven that the phone-sex allegation wasn’t true. His coworker had used his hotel room phone and inadvertently dialed a 1-800 prefix instead of a 212 prefix when trying to reach the state’s Department of Criminal Justice Services. It was just a coincidence that the rest of the digits were exactly the same. According to phone records that Arcuri produced, the first call lasted just moments and was immediately followed by the second call. Does the truth even matter anymore?

Referring to such behavior by politicians Beck states, “Our politicians wield the power to change, the power to lead, the power to solve, and the power to bridge our divisions. Unfortunately, they spend the most time using their power to accumulate even more power”.
Beck, as I mentioned above, also puts the responsibility on us, the American people:

We have to realize that politicians are only a reflection of us…If we really want to fix politics, we need to fix ourselves first.

I think the first step to turning the whole thing around is to end the atmosphere of partisan shout fests and get back to having real conversations. We have to reject the candidates who use gutter politics to get elected, and we have to favor the ones who put principles over party and political games.

We the People still have the ultimate voice in this country, and we can change our course by empowering those who not only stand for the truth but will fight for it. When we start to reconnect with our values, politicians will be forced to reconnect with us.

More than two centuries ago, the founding fathers designed our system of government. But they didn’t give the most important responsibilities to the executive, legislative, or judicial branches. They gave them to us. We the People. We have the power to change everything; we just have to decide to use it.

So lets stop regurgitating the “Obama is too inexperienced” or “McCain is too old” nonsense. Let us acknowledge the irrelevance of McCain’s “celebrity” ad, or the emptiness of the emotionally appealing dribble produced by the Let California Ring campaign. I am optimistic that most of us, on both sides of the political isle, have the mental capacity and the wherewithal to do a little homework, develop valid and relevant arguments, and drown out the nonsense by voicing and articulating your view-point. When this becomes how we approach politics, politicians, of necessity, will follow suite.

6 Comments | National Politics | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.