NY Times: Is Obama Socialist?

The NY Times recently did the unthinkable: it asked Barack Obama if he was a "socialist." Obama bridled at the question. Is he a socialist? Of course he is. The man has surrounded himself with Marxists, including his childhood mentor "Frank" (Frank Moore) and self-described "communist" (small "c') Bill Ayers. Obama's political hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was surrounded by socialists and a few Stalin-adoring Communists.

Roosevelt believed that the government was better able to create jobs -- and "redistribute wealth" -- than private industry. That belief dovetailed with FDR's desire to win perpetual re-election -- a desire Obama obviously shares. FDR, like Obama, had a marvelous gift-of-gab. Unfortunately, in both cases, rhetorical skills have functioned as a substitute for real accomplishments. [Note: If you visit this blog with any frequency, please join the followers group, which you can go by clicking on the sidebar -- top-right. Thanks.]

What went wrong during both the Great Depression and the first decade of the 21st century?

Consider Chicago-based electric power magnate Samuel Insull, who became fabulously wealthy -- on paper -- during the boom times of the 1920s. A few years after the Depression commenced, Insull had lost his fortune, largely because of (1) deflation; (2) FDR's hatred of private power companies. Insull had believed in the future of electric power, that demand for it would keep on growing – and over the long term he was right.

However, Insull's philosophy of growth was based on leverage -- on borrowing money. He once said, “Take on debt as fast as you can.” Unfortunately, when a businessperson – or a homeowner – does that, he or she had better hope that the market never takes an extended dive. Of course, such a sustained downturn is exactly what happened in the 1930s – and what we’re experiencing now. As long as markets keep going up and up, every investor looks like a genius.

In our time, the big commercial banks and the big investment houses took on massive amounts of debts, assuming that sustained growth would allow them to pay it back. They never contemplated a period of deflation.

Consider Lehman Brothers, a once seemingly invincible merchant bank, which was one of the first Wall Street dominoes to fall. Previously, it had been extremely profitable – on paper. However, it took on an almost unimaginable load of debt. In fact, its ratio of debt to capital was 30 to 1. When all of a sudden, its debts came due – in a time of deflation – it was unable to pay them. And its days as an independent business were over.

Although its actions apparently weren't criminal – just stupid and selfish -- Lehman's approach was somewhat similar to Bernard Madoff’s. Unlike Lehman, Madoff had an all-out Ponzi scheme, where he paid off yesterday's investors with new investors’ money – taking out enough cash to get rich himself. As new investors became scarcer, Madoff was no long taking in enough in to pay off the older investors. At that point, he may have had nightmares of wearing not $6,000 business attire, but rather an orange jump suit.

In both the 1920s and our own recent times, the approach was to borrow, borrow, and then borrow some more. The assumption was that markets – as well as housing prices – would continue to go up almost forever. When they ceased going up, the mighty fell – fast and hard.

As regular readers have seen, MotleyFool.com had a piece called “Who Should Go to Jail?”

That's a harder question than it seems. Should the people formerly known as “The Smartest Guys on Wall Street” end up in the hoosegow? That depends on whether being extremely stupid qualifies as a crime. Should the man down the street go to jail, the one who fibbed about his income so he could buy a million dollar house because he “knew” it would go to a million-five and he would then sell it at a big profit? (Note: That house is now worth, say, about $700,000 and change . . . and the foreclosure notices have started arriving.)

I used to have people look at me with straight faces and say, “Look, they’re not making any more land, right? So, housing prices are never going to go down, right? Or at least they won't go down for a long period of time, right?" Well, no, wrong!

Remember, before “toxic assets” were known as, well, toxic assets, a lot of them were seen as “good investments.” Who knew what they were really worth was -- theoretically -- a good question, but in practice, nobody cared.

Everybody was buying, right? Not anymore. “Those were the days my friend; we thought they’d never end.” Another saying has prevailed: "All good things come to an end."

[More to follow tomorrow on what FDR did that hurt the economy -- and how Obama is doing the same things in our time.]

Barack Obama's "Nameless, Unreasoning Fear"

The motto of the woman pictured below is "Serve the people." To find out what Obama's motto could be, scroll down

Most Americans remember a part of Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era remarks about fear. Yes, he did say in his 1st Inaugural, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself," but that's not the whole statement. It went this way, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." The final three words, starting with "nameless," are extremely important.

Granted, there are situations in which fear is appropriate -- for example, if you wake up and see a hungry grizzly bear climbing through your bedroom window. In a case like that, there's nothing unreasonable about fear. (After the initial surge of terror, of course, the most important thing you can do is to calm down and decide -- reason -- quickly about how you're going to get out of the situation. In other words, act like Captain "Sully," not like Nervous Nellie.

Barack Obama has told us that, without his (potentially catastrophic) Stimulus Bill, we will face a financial "catastrophe." How he knows that -- the reasoning part -- remains unclear. So, why did he appeal to one of our primal instincts? Because he knows -- or at least his speech guru Aexlrod knows -- that fear sells. Scare people half to death and many of them will do your bidding.

The last thing Obama wants his audiences to do is have reasoned responses to his rhetoric. When he tells us, for example, that "95% of the American people are going to get a tax cut," he is lying to us. He knows that nearly 50% of American wage earners (and their immediate dependents) don't pay federal income taxes.

When they get their $500 or $1000 "tax cut" from the Treasury -- and yes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who didn't pay their taxes, will get one -- it will not be a tax refund. Instead, it will be a welfare check. In other words, Obama will be putting half the population on what our grandparents used to call the "dole," welfare. As Obama told Joe the Plumber, it's not about stimulus, but rather about "redistribution of wealth."

Why do such a damaging thing? Because Axelrod/Obama know that dependent people are reliable providers of votes in future elections. When the government basically "owns" someone, he or she expresses gratitude by voting for bigger and bigger government. Sadly, though, he or she is no longer a free, independent citizen.

Thus, we have FDR, along with all other great American leaders, arguing against reliance on "nameless, unreasoning fear." In contrast, we have Obama and his minions relying completely on fear because reason isn't on their side. As every tyrant knows, fear is his most powerful ally.

Gov. Sarah Palin's motto is "Serve the people." In contrast, Obama's seems to be: "Scare the people."

In today's difficult times, we will still sing "God bless America." Yet the more appropriate phrase might be "God help America." In fact, God generally blesses our land most abundantly when the vast majority of Americans do everything in their power to help themselves, their families, and their communities.

Sarah Palin Versus Hillary Clinton

I do have comments on the breaking story about Gov. Eliot Spitzer, but for now I'd just like to say that it was shameful for him to haul his wife out there -- apparently seeking some kind of public sympathy. I have always regarded Eliot Spitzer as a self-righteous phony. His wife and three daughters have my total emotional and spiritual support. We need to get people like him out of office and people like Gov. Palin in. The Republican Governors Association has called on him to resign. Sarah is a member of that Association.


Sarah Palin, dressed for speaking outside in Alaska weather. I'm delighted by the many visitors I'm getting from Alaska, including several visits from Wasilla, Sarah's hometown. I'll be writing tomorrow about why Sarah, who's under serious consideration as John McCain's running mate would herself make an excellent President of the United States. In my other site dedicated to Pennsylvania, I will talk about why Sarah would have special appeal to those in the Keystone State. She reminds me a lot of my friend Diana Lynn Irey, who ran in 2006 against the odious John Murtha. We need people in national office who are curious, ambitious, smart, and pillars of integrity. Sarah fits that definition. We're talking Mt. Rushmore material here. Come back tomorrow to find out more about Sarah.

If you're interesting now in learning more about Sarah and her career, read the Wikipedia article about her. Wikipedia has a great picture of Sarah as a point guard on her high school's state campionship basketball team.

Picture of Sarah Palin and her husband Todd. Children are, from left, Piper, now 6, Willow, now 13, and Bristol, now 17. Missing from the picture is son Track, now 18 and an infantryman in the U.S. Army. Sarah is now 7 months pregnant with her fifth child. "Or working in the home or out of the home. The world is our oyster also, whether carrying a baby

"I'm very confident that a pregnant woman should not and doesn't have to be prohibited from doing anything, including running for vice president. Or working in the home or out of the home. The world is our oyster also, whether carrying a baby. "-Sarah Palin

(Sarah, I agree completely with your statement. When John McCain shows the wisdom to name you (Sarah) as his running mate, you will have to deal with some creepy thugs such as the man below (KSM), and you have the courage, integrity, and life experience to do so. In the fullness of time, you will be a great President of our country. On the campaign trail, you can and will outperform Senators Clinton and Obama at every turn. Go for it, lady!)) -- Steve Maloney

The following is a note I sent to fellow McCain supporters regarding Hillary Clinton. My comments were inspired by Andrew Sullivan's fine column on Bill and Hillary.

That is a totally remarkable -- and accurate -- column by Andrew Sullivan on the Clintons as an American Horror Story. Later today, I'll be writing a column (adding to one actually) about Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the anti-Hillary. Sarah has four children and is pregnant with a fifth. She recently noted (correctly) that fact shouldn't disqualify her from running for vice-president on a ticket with John McCain.

Hillary Clinton talks about her great compassion for working men and women. Sarah's husband has been a commercial fisherman and an oil field production worker. Hillary talks about working mothers. Sarah is one. Hillary talks about the need for a "village" (i.e., government involvement) in raising children. Sarah and her husband have done just fine with raising their own four (soon to be five) children.

Hillary talks about how we are supposed to revere "our troops" (unless that troop happens to be General Petraeus. Sarah is the mother of an 18 year old infantry solider who enlisted with his best friend in the Army on 9/11/2007. Frankly, the chances of a Chelsea Clinton or the Obama daughters ever serving in the military are about the same as their choosing careers as pole dancers.

Sarah is someone who's resigned positions in protest over ethics violations by members of her own party. Hillary (and Obama for that matter) have done nothing of the kind. Sarah has the lowest "negatives" of any elected official in the country. Hillary has the highest -- and Obama is working hard to elevate his.Hillary regularly denounces the "oil companies." Sarah has stood up to them and rasied their state taxes in Alaska, as well as rejected their low-ball bids to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower-48.

Granted, some people ask me how I can favor a relatively "inexperienced" (they mean "young") candidate who will be a heartbeat away from the presidency. In fact, Sarah has more executive experience than Obama and Clinton combined.

She's an American Success Story and, God willing, she will be President of the U.S. someday . . . relatively soon one hopes.

Here's the link to Andrew Sullivan's superb column on the Clintons: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece

Note: The column below regards the ugly gentleman below and the lame responses of Obama and Senator Clinton to the threats posed by al Qaeda.

Khalid Sheik Muhammed, architect of 9/11 and many other murderous acts -- and, in his own weird way, an "agent of change. As I explain below, candidate Obama apparently believes people like Khalid are illusions spread by the Bush Administration.

Why Obama Inspires Fear

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1932 Inaugural Address)

"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience. I will bring a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002 [against the proposed legislation authorizing the use of force in Iraq]." (Recent statement by Senator Hillary Clinton)

As you may have noticed, Barack Obama likes to criticize his rivals -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- for supposedly using the "fear card." In fact, Obama makes me fearful because of his unwillingness to comprehend the world in which we live -- one where a certain amount of fear is justified. As FDR suggested long ago, the kind of fear we can do without is the "nameless, unreasoning" kind -- not the type that has names and a clear rationale.

The names of the fear factors that concern most Americans are: al Qaeda, bin Laden, Zawihiri, and Islamic terrorism. Americans are afraid, justifiably, that there will be another 9/11 type event, one that will result in the deaths of thousands of Americans -- and perhaps tens of thousands.

On the rationale: such fears are justified by what has occurred in recent years. Al Qaeda has not gone out of business. The organization is continuing to train terrorists whose main function is to kill Americans and other Westerners, especially civilians not able to kill or capture mass murderers.

In the simplest terms, the (justifiable) fear is al Qaeda, and the reason for the fear is that they've done it before -- and are sworn to do it again. The fear is neither namelss nor unreasoning. If you smell gas in your house, it's perfectly okay to be afraid -- and to act on that fear.

Of course, Senator Obama derides campaigns -- Mrs. Clinton's and Senator McCain's -- that he claims are based on unreasonable fear. Of course, if 9/11 (and many other attacks throughout the world) had not occurred, Obama might have a point.

Why does he take the approach that his opponents are fear-mongers? Mainly because he has no national security experience and no real grasp of what motivates the bin Ladens of the world. Perhaps he believes al Qaeda's hatred of the Western world is based on some misunderstanding that he, as President, would be able to rectify. He's dead wrong.

In the weeks ahead, I expect Hillary Clinton and her associates will do great political harm to Obama. The one chance Clinton has to win will be to establish Obama as someone unfit to be President -- and essentially unelectable in a race against an American hero like John McCain.

Some voters like Obama for various reasons, including, according to polls, his race. But does anyone seriously argue that he should be the one answering that momentous 3 a.m. phone call? If so, why? It's becoming clear that he's little more than a silver-tongued lightweight. He think the invasion of Saddam's Iraq was a colossal mistake, but he think invading our ally Pakistan makes a lot of sense.

The coming months should be an enjoyable period for McCain and other Republicans. Pass the popcorn and soda as we watch Hillary eviscerate Barack.

Why Obama Makes Us Fearful

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

As you may have noticed, Barack Obama likes to criticize his rivals -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- for supposedly using the "fear card." In fact, Obama makes me fearful because of his unwillingness to comprehend the world in which we live -- one where a certain amount of fear is justified. As FDR suggested long ago, the kind of fear we can do without is the "nameless, unreasoning" kind -- not the type that has a name and a clear rationale.

More to come later today . . .