Each morning, as I watch the news, read the papers, and write my posts, I’m reminded constantly that this is the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

It remains to be seen if we’ll ever have another crisis on par with the collapse of capitalism in the 1930s (see Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, for example, “We’re Not Headed for a Depression“).

That said, I might as well admit that I’ve been in a bit of political funk over the news. The ongoing market turmoil is killing the GOP’s chances in November. There’s no other way to spin it … no matter how damaging are Barack Obama’s ties to each and every left-wing oppositional group under the sun.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal, with yet another banner headline, captured the political implications of economic crisis: “Market’s 7-Day Rout Leaves U.S. Reeling“:

Stocks fell for the seventh straight trading day on Thursday, continuing what amounts to a slow-motion crash that has pulled the market down more than 20% over that brief period.

On its way down, the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke through another milestone, closing below 9000 for the first time since 2003, wiping out the bulk of the gains from the last bull market. The decline leaves America in one of its worst bear markets in decades, a slump that is triggering comparisons to long-running declines of the 1930s and 1970s.

Thursday’s decline - the 11th largest in percentage terms in the Dow’s history - put the stock market either in, or nearly in, a crash. A common definition of a crash is a 20% decline in a single day or several days. The Dow’s crash in 1987 was 22.6% in one day. The 1929 crash was back-to-back declines of 12.8% and 11.7%.

On my way to work each day, or after I drop off my boy at elementary school, I look around, taking in all the people hustling to their jobs, all the moms strolling the babies and kissing their little ones goodbye, and all of the beautiful landscaping on all of the fabulous homes that line the drives of nearby neighborhoods in suburban Orange County.

And then I say to myself: “A depression does not look like this.”

Indeed, some economists argue that the banking crisis will not bring down the U.S. economy - that indeed, the fundamentals are sound (see, Professor Casey Mulligan, “An Economy You Can Bank On“).

It’s mass psychology that’s going to matter, however, and people are feeling the stress. A period of three and a half weeks remains a long time in politics. But if we keep getting daily doses of market declines, while consumers and homeowners stress over inflation and dwindling balances on 401k statements, not too much else is going to matter.

Graphic Credit: Wall Street Journal

cross-posted at American Power

Noble cause corruption is generally used to describe when a peace officer goes beyond what is correct and proper when executing his or her authority.

An example is when a policeman might plant incriminating evidence or give false testimony under oath to aid in the prosecution of a known and dangerous repeat felon “to get them off the street.”

In his mind, he has done nothing wrong – that what he did was for the greater good (e.g., making neighborhoods safer within a failed criminal justice system).  But while making us feel safer he, however, has also violated Constitutional rights.

Going further (and deeper psychologically): Being caught literally red-handed with your mitts in the till but not accepting personal liability for the crime comes under the heading psychopathic narcissist (not to be confused with Obama’s malignant narcissism).  Narcissists in all groups never admit to wrongdoing.

Take the liberal mainstream media: As far as they’re concerned, nothing they print, report or represent is distorted, damaging, or untrue.  In their twisted minds, what they do is for the greater good.  That is classic noble cause corruption.

It is well known that accepting a bribe is an act of corruption, because the receiver of cash or cash equivalents for favors is demonstrating abuse of power (private, public, civil, judicial) that is vested in him or her. It is a patent breach of trust.

On that basis, it would not be unreasonable to say that noble cause corruption has been a key factor in the melting down of the credit market: creating entities to assist those who normally could not afford to buy a home.

Those entities were represented to us as being established for the greater good.  No one, of course, mentioned the portly profits being raked in on the sidelines by members of both houses of Congress – did you, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, and Franklin Raines?  Did you?

I admit I’m startled by the injudicious actions and remarks by those we elected (such as Harry Reid’s ill-timed pronouncement on October 2, 2008 that a major U.S. insurance company is on the brink of collapse, sparking a sharp sell-off of insurer stocks).

Statements like his only served to add fuel to the confusion and complexities of this disaster, which is coming dangerously close to landing our financial industry permanently in the I.C.U.

But to be perfectly honest, I’m really not that startled anymore, because I’ve come to accept the fact that nearly everything that comes out of the mouth today of every Washington lawmaker, every politicaster, every MSM reporter, and every liberal in the entertainment industry bears the same consistency and smells as bad, if not worse, as what we buy in 50-lb. bags at our local nurseries and spread on our lawns.

In addition is the ludicrous blame game – its gun barrels smoking up a storm and choking the oxygen in and around Capitol Hill.  The majority of this noxious residue is coming from Speaker Pelosi’s office, who is obsessed with a macabre predilection of laying the fault of everything on Earth and in the heavens solely on President Bush – and on all Republicans, for that matter, whether living or dead.

What Ms. Pelosi could not foresee is this: Bill Clinton has come forth to lay a majority of the blame on fellow Democrats.  (Thank you, Bill, for your honesty.  I’m sure Senator McCain thanks you, too.)

As an aside to Ms. Pelosi: The beginning of the end kicked off before George W. Bush was sworn in as President of the United States.  The conception of today’s meltdown was in 1995 when then-President William Jefferson Clinton signed his name to a bill, which was nurtured and overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

That bill was the instrument that impelled banks to lend money to persons and entities whose credit-worthiness and personal reliability were more risky than that of my Rottweiler, Ziggy.

It didn’t take long before the banks got the shakes about having to hand over their money to less-than-equitable persons.  To ease their anxiety, the banks sold those mortgages to Fannie Mae.

Furthermore, it was President George W. Bush who, in 2004, fought to get a bill passed that would place a muzzle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Despite the president’s best efforts to contain the perceived disaster, the Democrats shot it down raucously stating that there was absolutely no risk involved.

Not even Alan Greenspan’s warnings were taken seriously.  On February 24, 2004, the Federal Reserve chairman testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, in which he predicted, at length and in detail, the present ruinous outcome.  (Go HERE for the full text of his testimony.)

I’m going to stop at this point.  Rather than proceed and write something I might later regret (because I’m mad as hell over this roiling mess), go HERE for a laudatory article dated September 30, 1999,entitled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending,” written by Steven A. Holmes of The New York Times.  It’s reasonably short and easy-to-understand – and also speaks volumes on noble cause corruption in politics and the media that support those types of politics: what was done for the greater good.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“I believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Need I say more?

Last Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich offered a compelling conservative critique to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s Wall Street rescue plan. According to Gingrich, “this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, [and] the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.”

Not all conservatives were silent nor confused, however. The day after Gingrich spoke out, Michelle Malkin asked, “Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up?”

In the comments here, at some of my posts on the bailout, I’ve seen considerable conservative skepticism and outrage at the enormity of Washington’s financial rescue activities over the last few weeks. As readers may recall, I’ve mostly just reported on the developments, without advocating one way or the other (the exception being my post on the left-wing protests against the administration in New York and Washington). I have, of course, been amazed with the concentration of power in the Treasury Department under Secretary Paulson, and I’ve entertained the idea that the $700 billion rescue may indeed work to stablilize markets and restore confidence in the economy, helping to shift the system back toward financial recovery.

(more…)

(more…)

Well, thanks to the “liberal corruptocrats” behind the Fannie/Freddie bailout, I can rest assured that housing will remain absurdly expensive.  (And no thanks to our current President either…)

Obama fully supports these sorts of ridiculous bailouts because he thinks, as do many Americans, that we need to prop up the illusion these companies are casting over the mortgage market–that somehow corporate welfare will strengthen the housing market.

Sometimes its best to just let the sickness kill off the weak and leave room for the strong.  Otherwise we’re left spending all our resources propping up the weak, creating the now crumbling facade of a stable housing market.

If we quit bailing out these irresponsible, criminal banks and mortgage giants, we would not only allow the market to fix itself, we would send a message that those who cheat, lie, and steal will not be saved by the Government, but will lose everything.

Will some common people be hurt?  Yes, sadly, but the question remains how the government’s intervention on behalf of Fannie et al will benefit them.

Instead, it will inflate the already over-inflated cost of buying a home–and when you do give in and buy a house, you will be buying it for a price that isn’t real by any measure.  You will be buying based on a non-market based price.  We’ve seen that before, and it only leads to ruin.

So vote Democrat if you’d like the illusion to perpetuate itself.  After all, for those of you in my income bracket, Obama will give you three times the tax break McCain will give you.  That should make up for the cost of housing, increased fuel and energy costs, increased costs of goods and services etc. etc. etc.

Maybe this is one reason, McCain is up so far in the polls….?

I’m sure many engaged in today’s huge controversy over John McCain’s houses believe they’ve found a winning ticket in portraying the Arizona Senator as “elitist” and “out of touch” with average Americans facing economic dislocation.

Barack Obama led the charge himself at a campaign rally today in Chester, Virginia, where he claimed:

I guess if you think that being rich means you gotta make five million dollars, and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong.

There’s no other way to look at Obama’s outburst (and the left’s piling on) than anything besides rank class warfare.

Maybe this tack will play well in stoking latent working class resentments at inflation, housing instability, and rising unemployment. Maybe this meme will stick if the American electorate is undergoing a fundamental shift in ideological orienation toward the abandonment of free market competition and opportunity-based upward mobility. Or, perhaps Obama’s income-envy will play with those who harbor genuine revolutionary inclinations, and see the Illinois Senator as the vanguard of the proletariat.

More likely, Obama’s attack on McCain’s residential non-recollection reveals the candidate’s subterranean push to resurrect Great Society liberalism in America.

Note that Obama’s quoted in the Wall Street Journal today, regarding his recent statements on health care reform:

‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Barack Obama told an audience in Albuquerque on Monday. He was lauding the idea of a health-care market — or nonmarket — entirely run by the government.

Most liberals support single payer, aka “Medicare for All,” because it would eliminate the profit motive, which by their lights is the reason Americans are uninsured….

With good reason, critics often call this a back-door route to a centrally planned health-care bureaucracy. For all his lawyerly qualifications, Mr. Obama has essentially admitted that his proposal is really the front door.

Thus, Obama’s smears this afternoon are of a piece with his larger shift toward leftist ideological transparency.

Indeed, it’s all coming together: Obama has been under fire this week for advocating an abortion position tantamount to infanticide, which has placed him to the left of NARAL. Obama’s also been revealed as nothing more than a two-bit machine politician (rather that some ethereal agent of post-partisan transformation) by reports that he won his first election to the Illinois legislature in 1996 by disqualifying all of his electoral opponents from the ballot. It turns out, moreover, that the Obama camp may be involved in a massive cover up of his failed leadership as board chairman overseeing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In any case, do the Obama people really think this is smart politics? Obama generated big political trouble previously with his bitter comments on working class resentments (remarks that were widely perceived to be based in Marxist sensibilities). The candidate himself resides in a million-dollar mansion, in Chicago’s tony Hyde Park neighborhood (where few people of color reside, not to mention the lumpen proletariat). He purchased his seven-figure abode through the good offices of convicted felon Tony Rezko. And for good measure, the Obamas provide their children with elite private education, at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where the tuition costs from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school!

The truth is that Obama’s had difficulties connecting with average Americans all year, and his appeal to class warfare goes against traditional American support for free markets; current polling indicates that citizens overwhelmingly “prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.”

To top it all off, the left’s attack on McCain is essentially dishonest: “McCain himself doesn’t own any property and isn’t “rich”, and Cindy and her family earned their money honestly.”

After weeks of collapsing numbers in presidential preference surveys, Obama and his left-wing partisans are naturally pumped at the prospect of a potent smear against John McCain. Unfortunately, class warfare has never been a winner in American politics, and even now, in an ostensibly Democratic year, the left’s going to need something bit more powerful than a couple of misplaced condominiums if they hope to retake the White House.

~cross-posted at American Power

Obama has announced his vision for a new payroll tax on those top 3% of Americans making $250,000 or more.  Currently, social security payroll tax applies only to those making below $102,000. (more…)

Dear Sirs and Madam … or … whatever,

(more…)

The Borowitz Report has revealed a startling new tactic the Obama campaign is taking, reinvigorating itself by shifting the “bitterness” from the voters to the candidate:

“You want to talk bitter?” Obama said to his audience. “How about losing the Pennsylvania primary after you were supposed to have this nomination locked up – that’ll make you bitter, for damn sure.”

Sen. Obama said that after Rev. Wright controversy, the ABC News debate, the flag lapel criticism, and the “red phone” ads, “You can bet your ass I know a thing or two about who’s bitter.”

Ankle Biting Pundits reveal the tab Sen. Larry Craig has been left with over the bathroom fiasco.  The lawyer’s bill is probably even more of a fiasco.

GOP Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig has to pay a huge chunk of his $407,000 legal bill resulting from his guilty plea to “Disorderly Conduct” (i.e. trying to get busy with another guy in an airport toilet) out of his own pocket, and not use campaign funds like he tried to do previously.

And this funny image comes direct from Laugh@Liberals:

So lighten up.  Things aren’t always dark and somber and serious.  Just most of the time….

The images of Israelis depicted as Nazis in mainstream Arab media are horrifying and despicable at best. This is the truth about antisemitism in the Middle-East. Arabs see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in terms of black and white: that the Arabs are innocent victims and the Jews are Nazis. Not only is this bigoted, it is wrong. It is propaganda of the worst kind.

All of these cartoons are taken from Mainstream Arab newspapers. Arab citizens, including children, are indoctrinated with this nonsense all their lives.

It doesn’t matter how many concessions Israel makes; how many lives they are willing to sacrifice in order to avoid stooping to the level of the terrorists–they will always be blamed, and not just by the Arab media. Newspapers in Europe are more tactful, but differ little in opinion.

It’s obvious that Israel must forsake PR for security. It’s time to respond to terror with force. No more half-measures. If Gaza remains in the hands of Hamas, towns like Sderot will remain under a rain of rocket attacks.