Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Will Obama's stimulus package and the Bush/ama (Bush-Obama) bailouts rescue and stimulate the American economy? Answer, no. (As I wrote earlier, the economy will naturally rebound on its own, in the short-term, but will then collapse in 18 to 24 months under the weight of Democrat policies.)
It is a fundamental error that government spending can stimulate the economy. And the error is this: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY TO SPEND. The economic theories that analyze government spending's contribution to economic growth fail to consider the fact that the government actually has no money.
If the government truly had a nest egg of billions of dollars socked away under a mattress at the Treasury Department, then obviously spending it would contribute to economic activity. There are sophisticated economic equations analyzing the national economy, and they measure the contribution of government spending.
However, the government must first suck money OUT of the economy through borrowing before the government can put it back in. The net effect is nil. Actually it is worse than zero, because we are then left with the national hangover of national debt we can never repay. Margaret Thatcher explained it like this: "The trouble with socialism is that it eventually runs out of other people's money [to spend]."
An anonymous email making the rounds on the internet does a magnificent job of explaining: An economics professor at a college is asked by a student to explain Obama's stimulus bill. The mythical economics professor replies that he will explain if the student comes to his house on Saturday. On arriving, the student is instructed to help the professor with his swimming pool. "Take this bucket, fill it up at the deep end of the pool, and pour the water back in at the shallow end of the pool." After doing so a few times, the puzzled student protests: "We're not accomplishing anything. We're just pouring the water back in to the same pool. Other than wasted energy, nothing is happening." The professor replies: "AH! NOW you understand Obama's stimulus bill!"
Almost all of the Democrat Party, and certainly Obama, are firm believers in the left-wing economics of John Maynard Keynes. Stating it briefly, and doing him a great (deliberate) disservice, Keynes argues that the hypothetical economics professor really could make the narrow end of the swimming pool higher by pouring water there carried from the deep end of the pool.
Everyone in Washington except a few die-hard conservatives believes in Keynes. Although Keynes was not even born during FDR's New Deal, his theories later emerged as a strong defense of FDR's approach. Keynes advocated interventionist government actions to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. His theories are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is basically big-government socialism dressed up in "drag" with capitalist lingo as camouflage.
Almost all of Washington strongly believes in big-government, anti-free market Keynesian economics. Indeed governments around the world adopted Keynes, leading to various economic disasters for decades. President Richard Nixon declared "We are all Keynesians now!" shortly before America started a decade-long slide into crippling recessions and soaring inflation ("stag-flation"). Milton Friedman led the charge exposing Keynes as wrong.
So how did this happen? Obama and liberal leaders in Congress have tried to learn (all the wrong) lessons from FDR and the Great Depression. Unwilling to admit that Roosevelt's monkeying with the economy made the Depression worse and longer, die-hard big-government liberals conclude that FDR made one mistake: He did not spend enough money fast enough. If only FDR had really hit the gas, the Great Depression would have ended sooner.
FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, admitted near the end of Roosevelt's Presidency that the New Deal was a failure. Morgenthau lamented in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee: "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!" And: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Morgenthau's testimony is officially published in the Congressional Record for its date May 9, 1939.
Historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. explores the record of the New Deal in his new book: "New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America." Budget and financial experts at The Heritage Foundation recently distributed a chart showing that FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent. Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.
FDR's massive government spending actually made the Great Depression longer and worse. One reason is that the temporary band-aid of government spending actually "freezes out" the private sector. Instead of private companies building up permanent, long-term businesses to fill society's needs, government has invaded those areas with "temporary" government programs. Furthermore, not knowing what the government is going to do next, private businesses are afraid to invest money in building up companies that might be rendered obsolete next month by the latest expansion of the New Deal. Therefore, government spending like the New Deal actually harms the private economy and retards economic recovery. Government spending appears to be working by employing workers. But this simultaneously destroys private sector jobs, driving more and more unemployed toward the government band-aid jobs.
Yet the liberal Congress, with Obama in tow, believe that FDR had the right idea... but FDR's mistake was waiting too long and spent too little government "investment." Instead of admitting that FDR's "New Deal" really did not work, liberals conclude that FDR simply failed to spend enough borrowed government money.
That is why Obama and his back-up singers in Congress are determined to spend staggering sums of our children's and our grandchildren's money. They believe that this is the magic formula to restarting the economy.
But there was a reason that FDR did not spend more recklessly than he did. Roosevelt understood what the modern Democrats do not. For all the hoped-for stimulus of government spending, there must inevitably follow the hangover of massive debt. The country can spend government funds today, but we must pay the tab tomorrow. FDR and his Treasury Secretary Morgenthau at least tried to balance the short term stimulus against the long-term harm of debt hanging over the economy. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid do not comprehend such fine points.
And yet, strangely, this week President Barack Obama, called current deficit spending “unsustainable.". Obama warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, near Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Obama's remarks are most peculiar because Obama plainly does not believe one word of what he said. Obama is trying to give gullible voters and Obamatons who are only half paying attention a false image of himself. The same week the Obama Administration announced that its this year's budget deficit will be a Guiness Book style world record of $1.84 trillion. Obama's Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will be even larger than this year's -- $3.59 trillion.
Furthermore, the stimulus money -- predictably -- cannot be infused into the economy fast enough to do any good. The New York Times reported this week that nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states. The Department of Transportation has spent only about $11 million on the promised highway projects. Recall that the $787 billion package (over $1 trillion with interests costs included) was sold to the Congress with the pledge that it would go immediately into "shovel ready" projects such as roads and bridges. As was obvious, government cannot possibly respond that fast. Much of the money will not even be spent until 2010. And the economy does not respond instantly to anything. The effects may not be felt for another 6 to 18 months after that. That is, in 2011 and 2012.
Moreover, there is the added problem that any government spending is inherently ineffective and often harmful. Why? Because government spending is directed by political interests and political choices, rather than economic efficiency. Every dollar spent by the private sector is someone's personal money at risk. Every dollar spent by the government is controlled by a bureaucrat or politician with no personal money at stake. It's not their money! Politically-spent money is diverted to ineffecient and ineffective purposes to serve political agendas.
Furthermore, it is clear that Obama and the liberal Congress will open the borders to not only the estimated 20 million illegal aliens currently stealing jobs from Americans but also to more who follow. As illegal trespassers are given rights to work freely in the USA, they will start to take all sorts of jobs from Americans, cutting deep into salaries and opportunities in many industries. The downward pressure on salaries that has been confined to only certain industries will now spread to the entire economy.
All of this has prompted some to wonder whether Obama is intentionally destroying the US economy. Austin Hill, a columnist for TownHall Magazine, is only one of many observers who believe Obama knows that his actions will destroy the United States. Many say that socialists believe that the existing system of government and our economy must collapse before a truly socialist or even communist 'utopia' can replace it. This is consistent with tactics espoused by Obama's Mentors such as Saul Alinsky and Rahm Emanuel's philosophy 'never let a crisis go to waste."
The U.S. now has a national debt we can never repay. Social security and medicare are going broke. Under current world conditions, we may be unable to borrow the money needed to fuel the nation's government spending. We will hit a wall if the Chinese and other simply say "We can't lend you any more money."
If by next year, the U.S. Treasury tries to borrow yet another trillion dollars, and investors answer “no,” the United States of America could literally be bankrupt in 2010. And not just officially (on paper) but in reality, as in no money. There is no one to bail out the U.S.A. If the U.S. budget is short by another $1 trillion in 2010, that is lacking real money to operate without borrowing $1 trillion, and no one steps up to loan the money, our country could literally collapse next year. We should not forget that all of the State governments are also borrowing massive sums simultaneously.
The total collapse of America's existing system may pave the way for a new, Marxist economy. (Unfortunately, talking about Marxism is problematic for people who do not konw what Marx actually taught. Rather than an insult, it is a precise term. When carefully examined, the class warfare and economic policies of today's Democrats fits neatly into the Marxist theory.)
Alternatively, some suggest that the collapse of the U.S. economy could be intended to open the door to submerge the U.S.A. into a "North American Union" -- a new country consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. Jerry Corsi reported this week on the U.S. government's first steps actually implementing the merging of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A. into a "North American Union." Highway signs showing an integrated North America have begun showing up on U.S. Interstate highways. This first small step implements NORPASS, a new electronic system that allows participating truckers in Canada and the U.S. to by-pass roadside weigh stations through the use of a transponder mounted on the windshield. Corsi has reported extensively on massive government planning for and promotion of creating a single North American country, with the "Amero" as its currency, hidden from public knowledge.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Having been previously stung by snowstorms and freezing cold snaps whenever Al Gore speaks, the Congressional hearings were scheduled in late April and avoided a dramatic rebuttal by Mother Nature. However, the Earth's cooling that began in 1998 continues to challenge the global warming theory.
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is working with 30,000 scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is caused by man's activities. Coleman plans to sue Al Gore for fraud to finally get some forum in which to debate the theory.
In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology." JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.
The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layerare affected."
Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)
The Academy also noted that global temperatures have been higher than today in Earth's past. And the Academy explained that temperature monitoring of the Earth is very spotty, starting only 200 years ago. Even today only 28% of the world is represented by temperature monitoring, and far less of the Earth was measured as we look back through older, historical records. Measurement of the vast oceans is only about 40 years old.The Academy pointed out that urban growth has encroached upon and surrounded the weather stations that were previously in the countryside. Today's measurements from those stations are hotter because of the heat effect of asphalt and concrete of the cities, while readings from those same stations thirty years ago were then in thecountryside. Therefore, we are measuring not increased global temperatures, but the "heat effect" of the concrete jungle expanding to surround the weather stations.
In one case, a U.S. investigator for the website "Watts Up with That" discovered that a weather station at an airport was catching the hot jet exhaust from jet airplanes onthe runway! (Meanwhile, note that Russians and East Europeans are often far-superior theoretical scientists to those in the West, sometimes holding multiple Ph.D's. Their economy manufactured junk due to political interference in the marketplace. But their scientists have traditionally been better-educated.)
Now, recent scientific analysis is coming out of hiding that precisely identifies the strongest driving factors in the Earth's climate: It is the sun. The sun goes through a number of powerful cycles. The sun's 11-year sunspot cycle is fairly well known. However, the sun also goes through much longer cycles as well, including oneof approximately 180 years, and one of approximately 1,000 years.
As a result of these cycles, the sun in 2004 was measured as being the hottest it has been in 1,000 years. However, measurements can be difficult because the sun emits energy across a broad spectrum, including in the charged particles known as the solar wind, not only in visible light. Energy can be transferred through the solar wind alone. There are conflicting opinions about the sun's energy output varying.
Cycles in the sun's energy output are apparently linked to the movements of the solar system. Russia's Pravda reports that "Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles."
We learn in school only a simple, approximation of the complexities of the sun and the solar system. Actually, the sun wobbles around a point representing the center of mass of the solar system. The sun does not stay still, but circles an invisible spot.
This is like two children holding hands and whirling around. They "orbit" an imaginary spot between them. In the same way, the planets do not technically orbit around the sun, but the sun and the planets orbit around each other like the two children holding hands. Because the sun is unimaginably massive compared to the planets, the gravitational center of the solar system is close to the sun's center. But not precisely there.
As a result, the sun circles and orbits the solar system's center of gravity. This causes the sun to move in a circle on a complex cycle of 178 years, with oscillations every 11 years and every 70 years. In fact, this is the technique which astronomers are using to detect planets around distant stars. They observe a star wobbling (or partly eclipsed when a planet crosses in front of it), and conclude that there is a large planet circling it.
However, the sun is not solid. It is gas compressed by gravity to the point of acting like a liquid (plasma). So just like taking a bowl of water and swirling it around, the sun's motion causes movement in the liquid substance of the sun. Because the sun is orbiting the solar system's center of gravity, this motion creates waves, oscillations, and disturbance in the sun's plasma. The sun's orbit creates torque (spinning forces) that are different throughout the cycles of the planets' motions around the sun.
The astronomical cycles involved match the cycles in the sun's activity. There is a 178 year cycle in sunspot activity which matches the sun's complex orbit around the system center of mass every 178 years. The effect changes because the various planets are circling at different times. Every now and then, when Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune -- the heaviest planets -- are on the same side of the solar system, they swing the sun differently than when they are scattered about the solar system.
The orbital torque of the sun changes during this 178 year cycle, which affects the pressures and conditions in the sun's core. Although the effect is tiny compared to the overall power of the sun, it is enough to cause slight increases and decreases in the energy output and activity of the sun.
The biggest planets line up on the same side of the solar system at various times. Jupiter orbits the sun every 11.8 years, very similar to the 11 year sunspot cycle. Saturn orbits every 29.5 years, Uranus circles every 84 years, and Neptune in 165 years.
Pioneering work was performed by Dr Theodor Landscheidt, in papers like "Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle and Climatic Change" and "Solar Rotation, Impulses of the Torque in the Sun's Motion, and Climactic Variation." Dr. Landscheidt's work -- overwhelmingly ignored -- predicted the current minimum in the sun's activity that is currently puzzling the world's scientists.
The BBC, like many news outlets, reported last week: "'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers: The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century." This very-recent downturn in solar activity may be the reason that the Earth stopped cooling in 1998. What is being called the "Landscheidt Minimum" might produce an unusually-quiet sun for as long as 70 years (not an absence of sunspots, but fewer than usual). If the sun-drives-climate theorists are right, this could produce a significant cooling of the Earth reminiscent of the "Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800, or perhaps only the slight cooling experienced from 1945 to 1970.
Cyclical changes affect the activity of the sun, including the magnetic field (which affects the temperature on Earth), sunspot activity (related to the magnetic field), and energy output. The most visible evidence of these cycles is the change in the number of sunspots.
The 11-year sunspot cycle is caused by dramatic changes in the sun's immensely powerful magnetic field. Just as the Earth's molten-iron core generates a weak magnetic field, that makes a compass work, the sun's boiling mass of electrically-charged particles generates a magnetic field of incomprehensible power. Not only is the strength of the sun's magnetic field staggering, but the sun is a liquid ball -- actually plasma made of compressed gases at high pressure. The boiling motion of this plasma creates an irregular, extremely complex, and constantly-changing magnetic field.
In fact, the sun's magnetic field actually reverses every 22 years! Magnetic North becomes South and vice versa. The sunspot minimums every 11 years occur at the point of reversal. Sunspots are created when irregularities in the magnetic field pull the sun's plasma downward. Heat moving to the surface is restrained, so the surfacebecomes cooler than the surrounding sun (though still very hot).
The presence of sunspots indicates a boiling, active sun -- primarily in a turbulent magnetic field. The same irregularities in the magnetic field can also push plasma upward, creating gigantic solar flares leaping toward space above the sun, and coronal mass ejections -- enormous "burps" of the sun's matter spit out into space.
The absence of sunspots indicates a less-energetic sun, particularly in terms of its magnetic field.
Changes in the sun's magnetic field can affect the Earth in many ways. Bombardment of the Earth by solar wind (high-energy charged particles spit out of the sun) is an additional mode of energy transfer from the sun to the Earth, and one which varies substantially during the sunspot cycle.
Similarly, a new theory pioneered by Dr.Svensmark has found that when the sun's magnetic field is strong, it shields the Earth from cosmic rays -- charged particles from outside the solar system. When the magnetic field is weaker (especially when it is reversing) more cosmic rays get through. These cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation in the Earth's atmosphere,changing the Earth's temperature.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Liberals are crowing that this is a humiliating blow to the Republican Party, already on the ropes after losing both the White House and the Congress in last year's election. This has encouraged President Obama's supporters in pursuing his statist agenda.
However, Specter's betrayal is actually a blessing in disguise... at least long-term. This development may enable Republicans to place an actual Republican in Specter's Senate seat for the first time in decades. Conservatives are determined to flush out of the GOP Party-crashers known as R.I.N.O.'s -- Republicans in Name Only.
Conservatives are extremely concerned that allowing liberal candidates to represent the GOP has destroyed and distorted conservatives' image in the country. It may take decades to re-establish what it means to be a true conservative in the minds of the voters. In 2006 and 2008, conservatives withheld their volunteer work from the Republican Party, arguing that failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter led to the election of conservative Ronald Reagan. Specter's departure has removed another liberal Party-crasher from the GOP.
Specter's votes in the Senate will not change. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats now have 60 votes as a filibuster-proof majority. So Democrats can now pass whatever legislation they wish. That assumes that the stubborn and egotistical Specter will change his votes. Observers assume Specter will now vote for legislation he would have voted against earlier. The truth is that left-leaning Specter would have voted for much of Obama's far-left agenda anyway. At least if the mainstream media approves, Sen. Specter will seek to please the liberal media consensus. Any legislation he might support under a "D" label he would have voted for anyway. His votes are unlikely to be any different.
Meanwhile, Specter is unlikely to win re-election. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrat Party came only 13 days after former Congressman Pat Toomey announced his bid to wrestle the baton away from Specter in the Republican primary. Toomey also challenged Specter in 2004, losing the GOP nomination by only 1.7% of the vote. Many mainstream news sources openly acknowledge that Specter is switching parties because he cannot win in the upcoming Republican primary.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, Specter is viewed unfavorably by 55% of Pennsylvania Republicans. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, Specter has a higher approval rating in Pennsylvania among Democrats than among Republicans, and 43% of voters believe Specter should not be re-elected. Sen. Specter trailed Pat Toomey 47% to 29% among Republicans. This and similar polls probably drove the Senator's defection. So, Specter's switch is a move of desperation.
Specter's long-shot "Hail Mary" pass will probably be a serious blunder. He apparently assumes that Pennsylvania voters will continue to 'pull the lever' for his familiar name. This is a gamble. Most of those who vote on habits are punching the "R" button reflexively out of loyalty to the Republican Party. Upon seeing an actual Republican on the ballot, they are likely to vote the "R" not the man. Unlike politicians who have gone independent, Specter will appear with an actual "D" next to his name.
Other voters who decide from more in-depth study of the news will feel angry betrayal. Specter is no longer "Our flawed, imperfect candidate" but 'Benedict Arlen' who has slapped Republican voters in the face.
Earlier arguments that President Bush needed Republican votes in Congress will no longer wash. So, Specter's assumption that people will keep voting for him out of habit may prove questionable.
Meanwhile, most Democrat voters in the Keystone State are in the habit of voting against Specter and for their own Democrat candidates, over many election cycles. Liberals are accustomed to demonizing Specter as more conservative than he really is, to try to get a Democrat elected. They may not trust a recent convert. Also Specter will be 80 years old in 2010, and may not have the same appeal to youthful voters as Obama.
Most analysis of Specter's prospects in 2010 assume Democrats will vote to keep the seat in Democrat hands. That is, only election day itself matters. In fact, over the long process of a campaign, fund-raising and the labor of campaign workers are crucial. The foot soldiers of the far Left will face a situation similar to conservatives, who held their nose to vote for liberal John McCain. Liberals may have difficulty summoning the necessary enthusiasm for an ex-Republican.
Specter voted with the Republican Party 67.1% of the time in 2007 according to "On The Issues." Specter has been rated highly by a variety of pro-business and pro-free trade organizations.
However, the Senator voted for the controversial bill to give "amnesty" to illegal aliens and in favor of Federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who refuse to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with the Federal government.
In May 2006, Specter voted to allow illegal aliens to participate in social security. The organization U.S. Border Control, which opposes illegal-immigration rated Specter's voting record with only 16% approval, reflecting Specter's support for amnesty of illegal aliens. Specter has earned a 0% rating by the National Right to Life Committee, with a life-time record of 42% from the American Conservative Union, but a 60% rating by the ACLU. Specter has received a 61% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Predicting Republican primaries can be hazardous business, as the 2008 Presidential election demonstrated. Likely candidates to send Specter off to writing his memoirs are former Congressman Pat Toomey and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.
Three-term Congressman Toomey is the favorite of many conservatives who were angered by Santorum's party-loyalty campaigning for Specter. Toomey has a 97% favorable rating from the American Conservative Union. In 2004, Toomey had challenged Specter and lost in the primary by only 1.7% of the vote after President George Bush endorsed incumbent Specter and GOP leaders like Rick Santorum campaigned for Specter. Conservatives feel Toomey could have won the primary if not for misguided loyalty to the Party over principle. Unlike Santorum, however, Toomey has never won a State-wide race in Pennsylvania. Toomey points to his victories in a liberal Congressional district to argue that he could win State-wide.
Santorum, charismatic, handsome, and well-spoken, has kept in the public eye with frequent appearances on cable television news networks like Fox. Santorum has a life-time rating by the American Conservative Union of 88 compared to Specter's 42. Having already been elected to the U.S. Senate by the entire State of Pennsylvania, Santorum could instantly steal the previous voter-loyalty voters from Specter. Voters who reflexively vote the Party slate will support a recognized former GOP Senator.
Santorum served in the House of Representatives after defeating a Democrat in a Democrat-leaning district in 1990. In 1994 and again in 2000, he won election to the U.S. Senate. He served as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In 2006, Santorum lost re-election to the son of popular governor Robert Casey, Sr., a strong conservative Democrat, State Treasurer Bob Casey. Unlike Specter, Casey shared Santorum's opposition to abortion, thus removing Santorum's Pro-Life record as a factor. In a match-up with liberal, pro-abortion Specter, Santorum would not suffer that difficulty. Ironically, Santorum also suffered considerable anger from conservatives for his misguided Party loyalty (with many others) of supporting none other than Arlen Specter in 2004.
So far, only Toomey has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Santorum has been discussed as a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Toomey may end up as the unchallenged Republican nominee for the Senate.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
"Will the economy get better soon?" every household and businessman is urgently wondering. People's fears and hopes are emotionally invested, and people need to plan for whatever lays ahead.
Short-term, the U.S. economy will continue its natural cycle of recovery over the next 18 months. Had Bush and Obama left things alone, the inevitable business cycle would have rebounded on its own. It would have been painful, but the economy inevitably ebbs and flows like the tides. Nothing can hold back the moon-driven tides and nothing can prevent the ripples of unavoidable ups and downs in the economy.
As Frederick Hayek and other scholars have shown us, there is only one thing that the government can do about this repeating "business cycle": Make things worse. Attempts to prevent the economy from rising and falling are always doomed to fail for fundamental reasons. (Fully explored in Hayek's books.)
However, soon America will plunge into the worst recession since the stag-flation of Jimmy Carter, after about 18 months. Indeed, there is a real possibility of a Great Depression or even the complete destruction of the American nation.
This prediction may seem overly bold. Sadly, though, it is based on iron laws of economics that cannot be escaped. This is no more prophetic than predicting that a cannonball dropped out a window will fall to the ground.
Since last September, the Federal Reserve has expanded the money supply more in six months than all of the growth of the U.S. money supply from the founding of the nation in 1789 until 2008. Yet that does not even begin to tell the full story.
The nation has been flooded with so much newly-created money in just six months that it defies description. A dramatic graph released by the US Treasury is shown by Glenn Beck in this Fox News video (click here). The staggering explosion in the money supply by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve requires seeing the graph.
Every American should understand: This has never happened in the 220 year history of the United States. Not on such a gigantic scale, with the astonishing amount of money flooding the system.
However, we have seen real-world, historical experience on a much smaller scale. The crippling stag-flation of the late 1970's and early 1980's was caused by a much smaller expansion of the money supply. Double-digit inflation ravaged the economy. The interest rate (which responds to inflation) soared to 21%. Persistent unemployment resulted.
And we have seen such examples in other countries, such as Argentina, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Zimbawbe. In 2009, Zimbawbe has issued a $100 trillion dollar bill (Zimbawbe dollars) due to its hyperinflation. Inflation there reached 624% in 2004, and 1,730% in 2006. By 2008, Zimbawbe's inflation rate was the inflation rate was 516,000,000,000,000,000,000%.
In 1993, Yugoslavia printed a 500 BILLION dinar bill because of hyperinflation. Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj was 'honored' (disgraced?) on the banknote. After WW II, Japan printed a 75 billion Yen bill, because of hyperinflation.
The most famous example was in the Weimar Republic of Germany. The collapse of German society led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. The German Deutschmark became so worthless that people needed a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The Germans became so desperate that they were willing to turn to anyone who offered them basic survival.
Such "monetary" changes always take roughly 18 months to work their way through the economy, from one sector to another. The result is a short-term boost, like a bad energy drink, followed by a crash. The economy is stimulated at first. But because the effect is artificial, like a ponzi scheme, it cannot be sustained. As it works its way through the system, inflation begins to erase the short-term gains. (It is true that with weak demand, prices will remain low until the economy rebounds. Prices will then soar.)
Consider this: Suppose there is $100 billion worth of U.S. currency in circulation. Now, the Fed doubles the amount of currency in circulation to $200 billion. Nothing else has changed. The value of a dollar must then fall by 1/2. If the same economy suddenly has twice as much currency in circulation, the currency must become worth 1/2 as much. So, $1.00 suddenly becomes worth 50 cents. Or more precisely, prices must double to cause the currency to come back into balance.
Of course, the creation of new money by the Federal Reserve is mostly electronic, not primarily paper money. Such new electronic money is not "printed" strictly speaking. However, when the government "prints" money, the value of all U.S. currency most fall.
George Bush is greatly to blame for (a) spreading panic and fear last Fall, and (b) kicking off this disaster with a $700 billion bailout of his own. Presidents know that anything they say about the economy can scare the markets to death. The stock markets used to rise or fall depending on whether Alan Greenspan looked happy or grim heading into Federal Reserve Board meetings. And yet Bush went on national television and announced the end of the world, the Apocalypse, total and complete disaster, that we were staring into the abyss. Bush scared the living daylights out of the markets and the business world. And amazingly, all the leaders of the world -- each of whom knows better -- followed suit, shrieking that it was Armageddon, the Earth was falling into an economic black hole. (Most Americans still opposed the bailouts. Conservatives burned up the Congressional phone lines screaming no.)
When businesses and investors believe the economy is in trouble, they stop spending money and pull back their investments. Thus declaring a catastrophe in the economy can actually create one.. Bush and then Obama have spent most of the time since September giving the business world massive heart attacks, day after day. One of the main reasons that such titanic sums of government money had to be poured into the economy is that the world's leaders have been busy frightening the markets half to death.
There was a chance to avoid this, however slim. If the Treasury and Federal Reserve loans had been paid back relatively quickly, the inflation of the money supply might have been reversed. However, Obama is headed in the wrong direction, away from the only exit. We have stepped off the cliff. And all feels fine for the moment. It's not the falling that hurts. It's when you reach the bottom of the canyon that the trouble starts.
Yet inflation is only part of the damage the economy will suffer. The Democrats' wild spending spree will result in the largest annual budget deficit in American history: $1.8 TRILLION. That is 13.1% of the entire national economy. The government is currently borrowing 46 cents for every dollar it spends. Obama's budget projects will increase the national debt by $7.1 trillion from 2010 through 2019.
This massive debt overhang will require enormous increases in taxes and will suck capital out of the private economy. Even more alarming, the recession is world-wide. Very soon, there may simply be no one left to borrow from. Who is willing to put their own $1.8 trillion at risk to loan to Obama this year? And then again next year?
What will happen when the Treasury floats a bond auction, and no one shows up to buy? Even if the Treasury can find enough suckers to borrow $1.8 trillion from this year, what happens when next year the government needs to borrow another $1 trillion or so -- and can't? We could literally be facing national bankruptcy in 2010 or 2011. And of course most State governments are running equally bad debt loads at the same time, competing with the borrowing of the U.S. Treasury.
But the private sector is also under attack by increased regulation and government interference. The President of the United States is "firing" the CEO's of private companies. The Congress plans on regulating how much private workers and executives can get paid by private employers. This creates massive uncertainty, risk, and fear among businesses and investors.
Then there is the myth of global warming. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency recnetly ruled that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that must be regulated. Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe. All life on Earth depends upon CO2 as the building block of life. Almost all forms of energy produce CO2 into the atmosphere (which is then breathed by plants, and the plants convert it back into oxygen and growing plants).
However, this new regulation triggers staggering consequences. Many types of businesses such as your local dry cleaner and any office building of any size now come under drastic regulatory burdens. Simply the construction of an office building or other large structure would require an environmental impact statement and burdensome compliance. These emit CO2 simply to heat the building. Worse, environmentalists could sue to stop construction of new factories, businesses, and buildings. Lawsuits could expand the regulatory burden even further, often with the award of large attorneys' fees.
Who wants to invest in an industry or a business if the rules of the game might change next month? This is the same reason that FDR's New Deal prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. When government meddles and interferes with the private economy, especially in such an aggressive manner, no one knows what will happen next. Uncertainty is one of investors' greatest fears. Fear of the unknown is the "kryptonite" of the business world. Businesses and investors freeze and pull back, not only because of what government is actually doing but out of fear of whatever the government might do next month.
Therefore, even while the U.S. economy struggles to regain altitude over the next 18 months or so, it will be pulled back down again by massive weights. The economy will be unable to sustain the short-term growth, and will fall apart again over the next 2-3 years. I wish it were not so. But prudent families should be planning for rough waters ahead.
Monday, December 20, 2010
DELAWARE 2010 ELECTION RESULTS EXPLAINED DEMOCRATS MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE SWAMPS REPUBLICAN PARTY FAILURES
Mike Castle would likely have lost the 2010 election if chosen as the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, Republican candidates for all offices in Delaware faced a fundamentally more hostile electorate in 2010 than ever existed in past years. Without a restructuring of the Delaware Republican Party and major party-building efforts, GOP success seems unlikely.
Democrats added 29,650 voters — a staggering 11.2 % increase — from 2008 to 2010 in a highly-aggressive voter registration drive by the Democrat Party of Delaware.
Known as “the First State” for ratifying the US Constitution first, Delaware is nevertheless a lightly-populated, mostly agricultural oasis. Only 305,716 votes were cast for US Senate in Delaware. Therefore, the 29,650 increase in Democrat voter registration represents almost 10% of all votes cast for US Senate. It may be assumed that newly-registered voters are highly-motivated to vote shortly after registering for the first time.
Democrats added a whopping 17.7 % increase in Democrat voter registration from September 2007 (no published data for 2006), increasing by 44,101 in a small State. The Republican nominee for US Senate in 2006 was moderate Republican Jan Ting, a Mike Castle appointee to State government, backed by the liberal wing of the Delaware Republican Party. In 2006, Jan Ting lost 29% to 70% to Tom Carper. In 2008, Jan Ting campaigned for Democrat candidate Barack Obama for President and was kicked out of the Republican Party.
Therefore, 2010 election results for all Delaware offices may be largely explained by the failures of the Delaware and national Republican party to engage in party-building and voter registration, compared to an aggressive and effective party-building operation by Democrats.
It should be noted that Mike Castle was widely expected to win the Republican nomination on September 15, 2010, but voter registration closed on October 9, 2010. Therefore, during nearly all of this voter registration, Mike Castle was expected to be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. By the time Christine O'Donnell won a surprise upset victory, there was not enough time for her candidacy to have any significant impact on voter registration.
Total registered Democrat voters in July 2008 were only 264,167 voters for the entire State of Delaware. Democrats managed to increase total Democrat registered voters by 29,650 — an astonishing 11% increase — to 293,817 Democrat voters registered for the 2010 elections.
Increases in Democrat voter registrations did NOT come (on net) from Republicans switching parties. The Democrat Party aggressively registered new, first-time voters.
During the same period from 2008 to 2010, Republican registered voters increased by 4,153, and “Others” increased by 10,516. Therefore, the Democrats 29,650 voter increase does not represent (on net) Republicans switching to Democrats, but representsentirely new voters who had not previously voted in Delaware elections.
By comparison, Democrats showed a similar successful drive in prior years. Democrats increased registration from 2007 to 2008 by 14,451, while Republican increased registration from 2007 to 2008 by only 1,389, and “Others” increased by 1,286 voters.
Meanwhile, weaknesses in the Republican party’s core operations at the national level were just exposed by a controversial resignation letter by the Political Director of the Republican National Committee. Gentry Collins described an inadequate effort of party-building and fund-raising at the Republican National Committee.
Voter registration totals from 2010 are published online at:http://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/regtotals.shtml
For 2008 at:http://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/more_regtotals.shtml
Friday, December 17, 2010
Telling lies fraudulently attacking Christine O’Donnell established a new low in American politics in 2010. Each lie grew more preposterous than the last.
But part of that low in American politics was dredged by KRISTIN MURRAY – the former Executive Director of the Delaware Republican State Committee.
In 2008, Christine O’Donnell was asked by leaders of the Republican Party of Delaware to run for the United States Senate against long-term Senate veteran Joe Biden.
O’Donnell was the official nominee of the Republican Party in Delaware. Republicans thought Christine O’Donnell was great in 2008.
Christine O’Donnell was on the November ballot alongside Republican Presidential nominee John McCain and candidate for Delaware Governor Judge Lee.
Christine O”Donnell was perfectly acceptable to run alongside the Presidential and Gubernatorial nominees of the Republican Party. It was not until a small circle around Mike Castle and Tom Ross decided “our way or the highway” all hell broke loose.
For about 1 1/2 weeks, Kristin Murray became the campaign manager for Christine O’Donnell in the Summer of 2008. (Christine O’Donnell’s successful, earlier 2008 nomination contest at the May 2008 convention had been run by Jon Moseley.)
Kristin Murray worked for about 1 week, then had personal issues taking her away from work, and then came back to about 1 more meeting. (Apparently Kristin Murray had some personal relationship crises that seemed more important at the time and distracted her from being consistent about work.)
After 1 1/2 weeks ( 1 week + 2 days spread over a 3 week period), Kristin Murray was FIRED for not showing up to work.
Christine O’Donnell had to FIRE Kristin Murray as campaign manager after only 1 1/2 to 2 weeks on the job because Kristin Murray was not doing the job, and was completely distracted, unfocused, and inattentive to the work.
Obviously bitter, Kristin Murray has maintained a vendetta against Christine O’Donnell.
However, Kristin Murray fraudulently portrays herself as the person who “ran” Christine O’Donnell’s 2008 campaign for US Senate.
Although Christine O’Donnell has been fighting for conservative causes since 1993, often as a volunteer, Kristin Murray claimed that Christine O’Donnell was not a conservative… and similarly absurd claims.
MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, Kristin Murray’s 1 1/2 weeks means she COULD NOT KNOW what she claims in her attacks on Christine O’Donnell.
Kristin Murray now attacks Christine O’Donnell about matters that Murray could not possibly have any knowledge about during her 1 1/2 weeks of inattentive presence — distracted by other, outside personal concerns and personal relationships then consuming her attention.
Kristin Murray is not only lying about being the one who “RAN” Christine O”Donnell’s 2008 US Senate campaign, but is lying about every other criticism of Christine O’Donnell. Most of all, Kristin Murray is lying about actually knowing anything about Christine O’Donnell — other than repeating the lies of others.
KRISTIN MURRAY was the former Executive Director of the Delaware Republican State Committee .
And Tom Ross, the current Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party paid for an automated recorded telephone call to all Republican voters of Kristin Murray lying and claiming to have “RUN” Christine O’Donnell’s 2008 Senate campaign and spreading other lies.
Tom Ross fraudulently misrepresented Kristin Murray as having “RUN” Christine Murray’s 2008 US Senate campaign….
Thursday, December 16, 2010
WHY DID DELAWARE REPUBLICANS LOSE IN NOVEMBER 2010?
How can any Republican win future elections in Delaware?
After Obama’s 2008 landslide, people asked whether the GOP would go the way of the Whigs. What a difference two years makes. But time alone did not transform an Obama 2008 landslide into a 2010 Republican wave.
You have to be ready to catch a wave. Those who have surfed or “body surfed” know that unless you are carefully positioned to catch a wave, you will simply be plowed under the water. Since 2008, the Delaware Republican Party wasted opportunities on destructive impulses while Republicans in other States prepared to win.
First, from a tip from Paul Protic, I documented how Democrat voter registration leaped by 11.2% since 2008 and 17.6% since 2007. Everyone thought Mike Castle would win the September 14 primary. So successful Democrat party-building occurred while Mike Castle was expected to be the Republican nominee. Democrats simply out-hustled Tom Ross and GOP insiders.
Second, Republican “Get out the vote” efforts dramatically encouraged Democrats to vote. There needs to be a careful study and review of the 2010 GOTV activity. What I saw was inconsistent and incompatible GOTV plans. The result is to churn up the ocean generally. Since Democrats have 110,000 more registered voters than Republicans do, unfocused general noise drives more Democrats to the polls than Republicans.
I sat in the Brandywine GOP headquarters making phone calls for the Party. The RNC and DEGOP had us calling “soft Democrat” and “independent” and “soft Republican” on unscreened phone lists the day of the election and the week before. I got large numbers of wrong phone numbers and hostile reactions from Democrats. I twice confirmed with the Brandywine team that we were calling unscreened lists of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. (The computerized system should keep clear records.)
GOTV means identifying your supporters – months in advance. Then you contact only people you know will vote for your candidates. The other side gets their side out. Democrats had SEIU and other unions getting out their vote. The City of Wilmington shut down on election day to allow City employees to go out and campaign for Chris Coons on a government salary.
Voter ID has to be completed months before. If you call people or knock on their door within 4 weeks of election day, you are reminding everyone to vote. You ask “Can we count on your support for X?” If the voter’s answer is “NO!” (a) he will not tell you and (b) you just reminded him to go vote against you. He will go put “Remember to vote for the Democrat” on his calendar. The only voters who should be contacted in the last month of the election are those previously identified as supporting your candidate. Identifying voters within 4 weeks of election day is simply reminding Democrats to vote.
I believe a review of GOTV in 2010 will show organizations clashing with each other’s strategies and driving Democrats to the polls. From Brandywine in NCC, we were calling over the heads of the Kent County GOP and calling into Kent. I confirmed that we were following a strategy inconsistent with Kent’s GOP.
Third, exit polls show that 57% of Delaware voters support Barack Obama’s policies. Magically, the same 57% voted for Chris Coons over Christine O’Donnell. The 2010 election was seen as a referendum on Barack Obama. Bottom line: Obama remains popular in Delaware, despite losing support nationwide. The wave passed both West Virginia and Delaware by because Delaware still stands with Obama.
Many insult the intelligence of Delaware voters. Voters were told for a year that control of the US Senate and Obama’s agenda were at stake. Christine promised to block Obama’s agenda in the lame duck session. Yet we are asked to believe that people voted because Christine was a witch – not to support Obama and keep Democrats in control of the U.S. Senate. This shows contempt for Delawareans’ intelligence.
Fourth, Republicans can never win until they discover that liberals always attack any Republican. Republicans must learn to close ranks and defend their candidate the way Democrats do. Kentucky Republicans stood arm and arm around Rand Paul when he was attacked. But Delaware Republicans enlist in the Democrat army and fight for the Democrat.
In March of 2010, Tom Ross and his former assistant Kristin Murray began a campaign savagely attacking Christine O’Donnell. Kristin Murray spent only 1 1/2 weeks in O’Donnell’s 2008 campaign, but was fired for never showing up (distracted by a personal relationship concern).
Tom Ross knew that Murray spent only a few days in O’Donnell’s 2008 campaign, yet presented her as having “run” O’Donnell’s 2008 campaign to journalists and national Republicans and in a paid robo-call. Tom Ross lied. Ross and his former assistant Murray planted slanderous attacks in the News Journal in March, and knowingly spread falsehoods throughout the year. Murray is engaged to Alan Moore of Townhall and stirred up inside-the-beltway conservatives against O’Donnell.
The Republican GOP must learn to function as a team. Democrats do not tolerate attacks on Obama or other leaders. Democrats defend their candidates and leaders. Republicans in Delaware join in the attacks on their own candidates, and do the Democrats’ dirty work for them.
We propose to take power from Democrats. Delaware Republicans dream of a candidate who won’t be attacked. That fantasy is foolish. Any candidate will be attacked unless he poses no threat.
Jon Moseley, a long time friend of Christine O’Donnell, was her campaign manager for her 2008 primary (convention contest) for the US Senate.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
One of the scams run by the liberal news media and the Left was the claim that Christine O'Donnell was using campaign money to pay her rent. (Never mind that FEC laws and regulations allow a campaign to pay the candidate a salary. Otherwise only rich people could afford to run for office.)
All true conservatives know that the news media lies. A person who reads or listen to the mainstream media and believes what they say about a conservative leader or candidate does not have any genuine experience in conservative politics.
How many times have I attended a rally or press conference in person, then returned home to flip on the news -- and what is reported bears no resemblance to what I personally witnessed a few hours before?
So the news media attacked Christine O'Donnell. When experienced conservatives heard those stories, they immediately understood the hogwash. Conservatives know that this is the same old song the Left and their fellow travelers in the media have been singing for decades, since portraying Barry Goldwater was a war-mongering lunatic.
Christine O'Donnell's campaign reported that her U.S. Senate campaign paid "half the rent" on the condominium townhouse that Christine lived in in Wilmington, Delaware.
So imagine my surprise, when I visited my friend Christine after the election at the famous townhouse condo. Er, condos -- there are two of them!
We should have expected the Delaware news media and national news media to be completely incompetent in mis-reporting this information.
The reason the O'Donnell campaign paid "half" the rent is because 1 of 2 townhouses is 100% dedicated to office space and the other townhouse is living space. There were and are TWO (2) completely different townhouses.
But both condos were contracted through the same realtor in one single contract. So "half" the rent means ONE (1) of the TWO (2) completely different townhouses.
Christine O'Donnell's campaign paid for the townhouse used 100% completely and separately for NOTHING but office space. For convenience, the two townhouses are next door to each other. But they do not connect.
The townhouse (condo) used for living space was the half NOT paid for by the campaign.
The liberal news media, Left-wing activists, and "sore loser" moderate Republicans tried to suggest that Christine O'Donnell was living in one part of a single apartment and the other part of the same apartment was used for office space.
So I was surprised to visit the office-use townhouse as completely separate from the other townhouse used for living space. Why was I surprised?
Of course, what is different about these lies is that the Delaware Republican Party helped spread these lies. Kristin Murray worked for the Delaware Republican Party under Tom Ross, then spent 1 1/2 weeks as Christine O'Donnell's campaign manager in 2008. Christine fired Kristin Murray for not showing up to do any work. (Apparently Kristin Murray had some personal relationship crises that seemed more important at the time and distracted her from being consistent about work.)
Christine then talked to Tom Ross about the problem. So Tom Ross actually knew that Kristin Murray was not actually Christine O'Donnell's campaign manager for more than 1 1/2 weeks. Tom Ross actually knew that Kristin Murray was not a reliable source of any information about Christine O"Donnell or O'Donnell's 2008 campaign.
Yet in March 2010, Tom Ross and Kristin Murray knowingly lied to the Delaware News Journal, to national Republicans, and to Delaware and national media. Knowing it to be a lie, Delaware Republican Chair Tom Ross actively spread the slanderous lie that Christine O'Donnell was paying her personal (living space) rent with campaign funds. Tom Ross knew that to be false at the time, and knows now that he lied about Christine O'Donnell.
This is why a Delaware activist has created a website:
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Christine O'Donnell calls TEA PARTY "Second American Revolution" at Northern Virginia Tea Party December 7
However, the Founder of the Northern Virginia Tea Party -- whose territory covers American Majority's headquarters -- says he has never heard of them. The American Majority website lists Purcellville, Virginia, as their headquarters. Purcellville is in Loudoun County, one of the four main Counties covered by the Northern Virginia Tea party.
A search of the Federal Election Commission website shows a total of $0.00 raised and $0.00 spent by the Virginia-based American Majority Action, Inc. in the 2009-2010 election cycle.
Similarly, their website at www.AmericanMajority.com has been inactive until recently. The internet archiving website "Way Back Machine" shows that the Ryuns' American Majority project website had some activity from 2001 to early 2005, but had no content after February 2005, until just recently. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.americanmajority.org. So their website was inactive until late in 2010.
So, the Ryuns were not significant players in the tea party movement or the 2010 elections. They want to tell us what happened in 2010 although they were not there. They are trying to run in front of the parade to tell the tea party movement what the tea party should do, including unfairly attacking Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. They claim to have engaged in some training in Kansas, but never offered their training to tea parties near their official headquarters in Purcellville, Virginia.
Ned Ryun’s comments to The Politico are offensive to most tea party members: Ryun said: “I don't blame them, since most of these people are so new to the process, and they don't know anything beyond the protests.” http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/09/tea-party-running-out-of-money/
The tea parties do not need these groups coming along and telling us what we believe in or what candidates we should support. Those in the tea party already know what we believe. That is the very reason why we have gotten out of our living rooms and into the public square. We are tired of elites telling us what to think. The tea party movement believes we remember American values that the elites have cynically forgotten.
The Ryuns’ claim that they will create a ‘more sophisticated’ tea party movement. Yet the Ryuns’ own blunder of attacking leading tea party heroes like Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle showed a lack of sophistication, political skill, and even common manners. Similarly, the Ryuns talking down to tea party members like ignorant children is offensive and lacks the "sophistication" that the Ryuns claim to be offering. While the tea party is diverse, many members know more about politics and elections than the Ryuns do.
Before taking cheap shots at Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, the Ryuns should understand that unfair attacks in politics are no indication of a person's quality or competence. In fact, the greatest 'threats' in politics attract the sharpest and strongest attacks.
The Ryuns themselves come under such attacks, yet don't appreciate that this is a normal part of politics. For example, the website "Left Brain Kansas" posted: "Ned Ryun...crazier than his dad?" http://leftbrainkansas.blogspot.com/2008/05/ned-ryuncrazier-than-his-dad.html
The Ryuns were (unfairly) featured in a website "Crooks and Liars": "What do you do when you live in Kansas, are the twin sons of disgraced Kansas Congressman Jim Ryun and you have access to a whole lot of money? What else? Start a non-profit organization to raise up a 'grassroots army'." http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/4803,13060
The Ryuns have themselves attracted the same kind of attacks from the Left as Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. Yet, the Ryuns' hypocrisy in judging others for the same kind of issues proves the Ryuns are simply cashing in on the tea party. They are not sincere.
Are we to call the Ryuns' "defective tea party leaders" because of their weaknesses -- because they have been attacked by the Left?
Will the Ryuns teach their candidates and activists that the personal attacks against O'Donnell and Angle have been a staple of the Left for decades? Will they teach the party to join forces behind their candidate the way Democrats do? Will the Ryuns teach candidates and campaign leaders that a party cannot be succeed by forming a circular firing squad?
For example, Barack Obama has said an amazing number of crazy things: He visited 57 States. The US Constitution is 20 centuries old. He wants to put more inefficiencies in the health care system. Obama said "The time has changed to come." On and on.
SEE: http://www.ObamaGaffes.org (NOT .com)
And yet the Democrats and the mainstream media close ranks and defend their man. The Democrats know how to defend their candidates against attacks. Moderate Republicans join in the attacks to sink Republican candidates.
We obviously agree that training future candidates is a great idea. But what kind of training will it be?
The Ryuns will need to train candidates that the same old attacks and themes used against Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle have been used against almost every conservative since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Goldwater, of course, was not a social conservative, and yet the personal attacks were the same.
To train a future crop of candidates, the Ryuns must learn what the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, taught us:
A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND.
Teaching candidates to attack each other within their own party is not going to be a recipe for success. We expect that the Ryuns would be toast if they ran for political office against both their own party and the Democrat party like Christine O'Donnell did.. I am not sure what the Ryuns actually know about running a campaign worth teaching to a future crop of tea party candidates.
The Ryuns start their enterprise by selling their souls to the liberal news media for a little favorable news coverage. Will they really stand up to the political insiders and elites with the same courage as Christine O"Donnell and Sharon Angle? Having begun by selling themselves for favorable news coverage, where will they end up?