Obama: Forced To Lie?!?

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record.

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Post article, OBAMA'S EXTREMISM:

OBAMA'S EXTREMISM [/] By RICH LOWRY [/] August 19, 2008 --

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's line recalled Dole's plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, "Tell him to stop lying about my record." Dole's outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama's problem isn't his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34, respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - the occasion for his televised accusation of lying. In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. [/] Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" - effectively "no" - on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. [/] In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record. [My ellipses and emphasis]

McCain: Forced To Be Professional?!? --- Maverick No More?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Times David Brooks op-ed, The Education of McCain:

The Education of McCain [/] By DAVID BROOKS [/] Op-Ed Columnist [/] August 19, 2008

On Tuesdays, Senate Republicans hold a weekly policy lunch. The party leaders often hand out a Message of the Week that the senators are supposed to repeat at every opportunity. Sometimes there will be a pollster offering data that supposedly demonstrates the brilliance of the message and why it will lead to political nirvana.

John McCain generally spends the lunches at a table with a gang of fellow ne’er-do-wells. He cracks jokes, razzes the speaker and generally ridicules the whole proceeding. Then he takes the paper with the Message of the Week back to his office. He tosses it on the desk of some staffer with a sarcastic comment like: “Here’s your message. Learn it. Love it. Live it.”

This sort of behavior has been part of McCain’s long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around. He’s done it by breaking frequently from his own party to cut serious deals with people like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He’s done it with his own frantic and freewheeling style, which was unpredictable, untamed and, at some level, unprofessional.

When McCain and his team set out to win the presidency in 2008, they hoped to run a campaign with this sort of spirit. McCain would venture forth on the back of his bus, going places other Republicans don’t go, saying things politicians don’t say, offering the country the vision of a different kind of politics — free of circus antics — in which serious people sacrifice for serious things.

It hasn’t turned out that way. McCain hasn’t been able to run the campaign he had envisioned. Instead, he and his staff have been given an education by events.

McCain started out with the same sort of kibitzing campaign style that he used to woo the press back in 2000. It didn’t work. This time there were too many cameras around and too many 25-year-old reporters and producers seizing on every odd comment to set off little blog scandals. [/] McCain started out with the same sort of improvised campaign events he’d used his entire career, in which he’d begin by riffing off of whatever stories were in the paper that day. It didn’t work. The campaign lacked focus. No message was consistent enough to penetrate through the national clutter.

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

Some old McCain hands are dismayed. John Weaver, the former staff member who helped run the old McCain operation, argues that this campaign does not do justice to the man. The current advisers say they have no choice. They didn’t choose the circumstances of this race. Their job is to cope with them.

And the inescapable fact is: It is working. Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point. He’s nearly even. Everyone said he’d be vastly outspent. That hasn’t happened. A long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible.

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Georgia: US Reaction Shameful?!?

The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger.

Say it ain't so, President Bush!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article by John Bolton, After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West?:

After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West? [/]
At least for now, the smoke seems to be clearing from the Georgian battlefield. But the extent of the wreckage reaches far beyond that small country. [/] By John R Bolton [/] Last Updated: 2:32PM BST 15 Aug 2008

Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.

The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.

Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.

The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.

Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.

[...] Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama. First reactions, before the campaigns’ pollsters and consultants get involved, are always the best indicators of a candidate’s real views. McCain at once grasped the larger, geostrategic significance of Russia’s attack, and the need for a strong response, whereas Obama at first sounded as timorous and tentative as the Bush Administration. Ironically, Obama later moved closer to McCain’s more robust approach, followed only belatedly by Bush.

[...] * John R Bolton is the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, he is the author of the recently published “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Infanticide Advocate?!?

>>> "Thrice in the Illinois legislature, [...] Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."!!!

>>> "Opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act"!!!

>>> "Pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion."!!!

>>> Partial birth abortion: "When Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."!!!

"How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"???

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Human Events .com article, A Catholic Case Against Barack:

A Catholic Case Against Barack [/] by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author) [/] Posted 08/12/2008 ET

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." [/] As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama", the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: [/] "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong." [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!?

What has happened to the above-partisanship unifier?!?

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Washington Post article, That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For:

That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For [/] By Michael Tomasky [/] Sunday, August 10, 2008; [Page in print edition] B01

As the Democratic convention approaches, it's a safe bet that the cable networks will transport us back in time to late July 2004 by showing clips of Barack Obama's electrifying keynote address to that year's gathering. That was the speech that made him a star (and unlike John McCain's ad team, I mean this as a compliment). But I've sometimes wondered in recent months: Whatever happened to that Obama, to that enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?

You will recall the money sentences: "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." These phrases were followed by several deftly chosen images designed to skewer the stereotypes that red and blue Americans entertain about each other. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Obama thundered. "And yes," he added, "we've got some gay friends in the red states."

These now-famous lines constituted just a small sliver of the speech; the rest was more standard stuff -- his biography, his concern for workers at a Maytag plant in Galesburg, Ill., (he was running for Senate, after all) and, of course, all the marvelous things that John F. Kerry would do as president. But those lines stood out for a reason: They articulated a deep yearning, held by many Americans of varying beliefs, for less polarization and division. This theme was precisely what cata pulted Obama to the front rank of Democratic poli ticians.

Now ask yourself: Have you heard Obama talk like that lately? [/] Chances are you haven't. The grand 2004 theme of post-partisanship seems to have all but disappeared from the candidate's rhetoric. [/] [...] but I also think that Obama will miss an important opportunity if he doesn't use this month's convention to restate this theme -- and remind voters that a purpler America is still a pretty good idea.

Here are four theories about why Obama has moved post-partisanship to the rhetorical back burner.

Theory No. 1: There's only room in a campaign for one big theme at a time, and the Obama team has settled on "change." [...]

Theory No. 2: Post-partisanship is too abstract. Obama has taken lots of fire from pundits and GOP operatives for supposedly being too highfalutin', a propensity he now feels he must guard against. [...]

Theory No. 3: The Obama team may feel that they've already established the purple theme sufficiently. [...]

Theory No. 4: It could be that the post-partisanship theme is simply less resonant now than it was in 2004. [...]

So perhaps the Obama campaign has good reasons to move away from the theme that made its candidate famous. The Obama people may know exactly what they're doing. After all, they haven't done too badly so far. [...] [/] Even so, I would like to see Obama return to the post-partisan, one-America idea himself. It's an electoral winner and a governing essential, should he be elected. [/] mtomasky@gmail.com [/] Michael Tomasky is the editor of Guardian America, the U.S.-based Web site of the Guardian.

[Links to] Ads by Google: [/] Free Obama Button [...] [/] [...] Full Story on Jesse Jackson's Crude Remark [...] [/] [...] "Barack Obama Exposed" - Free! [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Hypocrisy now obvious. / 2. Yes. Circumstances have changed. / 3. Yes. Times have changed. / 4. Yes. Slamming conservatives now more important. / 5. Yes. It was all a dream. / 6. Yes. It was all media hype. / 7. Yes. Reality has set in. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. / 10. Possibly. Post-partianship too abstract. / 11. Possibly. One theme at a time. / 12. Possibly. Post-partisanship less resonant. / 13. No. . / 14. No. Purple theme established. / 15. No. Hope implies unity. / 16. No. Change implies unity. / 17. No. All will like Obama's changes. / 18. No. Statism brings unity. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Government Caused the Global Economic Crisis!?!

But Capitalism Gets the Blame!?!

At root, this crisis was caused by state error. Governments and economic ideologies rigged the system in favour of debt. City and Wall Street banks were pushed into behaving with reckless abandon. They took part shamelessly, of course. But their antics were merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

Needless to say, this is not the perception in North America or Europe. It already looks as if the political response will be a massive assault on the workings of the free market. Socialism is coming back. One wants to weep.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Governments caused the credit crisis:

Governments caused the credit crisis, but capitalism gets the blame [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Last Updated: 8:31am BST 08/08/2008

State error led banks to ignore the lessons of history and overdose on too-cheap money, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Three years ago, the world's top watchdog warned that the global economy was veering out of control. Defending orthodoxy against the easy debt policies of the Greenspan era, the Bank for International Settlements said interest rates were being held too low for safety in most of the mature economies.

America had embarked on an unprecedented experiment. The US savings rate had fallen to near zero for the first time since the Slump. The current account deficit had reached levels that were incompatible with the dollar's role as the anchor of the global system. [/] The rising powers of Asia were preventing adjustment by holding down their currencies, and flooding the world with cheap credit in the process. Incipient bubbles were ubiquitous. "Most industrial countries are showing symptoms of over-heating in the housing market," it said. [/] New-fangled securities were allowing banks to take "highly leveraged positions". It was unclear how these untested inventions would "handle a string of credit blow-ups".

"One simply cannot ignore the number of indicators that are now simultaneously exhibiting marked deviations," concluded the BIS. That was in June 2005. [/] Regrettably, governments did exactly that. They ignored manifest risks. Real interest rates were held near or below zero in the US and a large arc of Europe until well into 2006.

By then, the damage was done. US housing had succumbed to full-fledged mania. Variants were emerging - later in the cycle - across the Anglo-Saxon world, the Baltic, Club Med, and Eastern Europe.

What occurred was a fatal cocktail, a mix of too much and too little government intervention at the same time. Bureaucrats (central banks) held down the price of credit: other bureaucrats (regulators) turned a blind eye to the excesses that cheap money caused in mortgages and the "shadow banking system" - that $3 trillion nexus of structured credit. Northern Rock continued to offer 125pc mortgages. Honey-trap "teaser" loans continued to ensnare Americans.

Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan now says the world faces a "once or twice in a century event". Faith in the financial system has been called into question. Taxpayers will have to rescue more banks. Missing is any hint of apology for his role in incubating this crisis as monetary overlord for 20 years.

[...] The Fed could have done a great deal to offset the tsunami of Asian money by squeezing liquidity at home. It chose not to do so. Mr Greenspan and his protégé, Ben Bernanke, saw no need to act because inflation was tamed. [/] Cheap Asian goods flooded the world, keeping a lid on inflation in the West. It lulled the central banking fraternity into a false sense of security. As they slept, the excess money found its way into asset booms. This was the "Great Error".

[...] Critics say the rescues have failed. One can only ask what would have happened if nothing had been done. There is no "solution" to this crisis. The task now is to keep the ship afloat as debt defaults run their awful course. [/] It will be a long work-out. Japan has suffered its Lost Decade, with the worst pain in the second half. Don't assume the Anglo-Saxons and Club Med will get off more lightly. Japan started its descent as top creditor, brimming with reserves and savings. Westerners go down empty.

Henceforth, we must design out asset bubbles. The BIS suggests a credit speed limit of sorts. Old-fashioned monetarists say the debacle could have been avoided if we had paid more heed to the M3 and M4 money supply. These aggregates blew the whistle three years ago.

At root, this crisis was caused by state error. Governments and economic ideologies rigged the system in favour of debt. City and Wall Street banks were pushed into behaving with reckless abandon. They took part shamelessly, of course. But their antics were merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

Needless to say, this is not the perception in North America or Europe. It already looks as if the political response will be a massive assault on the workings of the free market. Socialism is coming back. One wants to weep. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Anti-Revolutionary Wisdom

From onetime political philosophy professor at a Christian university, and longtime Washington columnist: George Will.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things. After eight years, if such there are, of an Obama presidency, if such there is, the world will look much as it does today — if we are lucky.

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities — often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters — polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines — hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily article, Obama Cannot Keep Running On Narcissism:

Obama Cannot Keep Running On Narcissism [/] By GEORGE F. WILL | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:30 PM PT

As the presidential candidates enter the three-month sprint to November, Barack Obama must be wondering: If that did not do it, what will? [/] The antecedent of the pronoun "that" is his Berlin speech. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is assuage anxieties about his understanding of the need to supplement soft power (diplomacy) with hard power (military force).

He spoke in Berlin at the bullet-scarred base — it was in the crossfire 63 years ago as Russian troops neared Hitler's bunker about a mile away — of an 1873 monument to German militarism. To be precise, the monument celebrates the Franco-Prussian War and lesser triumphs of the militarism that would help ruin the next century. [/] Anyway, at that monument Obama exhorted Germans — does the candidate of "change" appreciate how much beneficent change made this exhortation necessary? — to be more willing to wage war, in Afghanistan. He was right to do so.

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. [/] Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin resume regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Wilkie's in 1940.

But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory. [/] Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity."

[...] Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs — someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship." If they meant anything in Berlin, they meant that Obama wanted Berliners to know that he is proudly cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is not, however, a political asset for American presidential candidates.

Least of all is it an asset for Obama, one of whose urgent needs is to seem comfortable with America's vibrant and very un-European patriotism, which is grounded in a sense of virtuous exceptionalism.

Otherwise, "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship" are, strictly speaking, nonsense. Citizenship is defined by legal and loyalty attachments to a particular political entity with a distinctive regime and culture. Neither the world nor the globe is such an entity.

In Berlin, Obama neared self-parody with a rhetoric of Leave No Metaphor Behind. "Walls"? Down with them. "Bridges"? Build new ones between this and that. "A new dawn"? The Middle East deserves one.

And Berlin was the wrong place to vow to "remake the world once again." Modern Berlin rose from rubble that was the result of the last attempt at remaking "the world."

Of course, from Obama, such tropes, although silly, are not menacing, any more than they were from Ronald Reagan, who was incorrigibly fond of perhaps the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher, Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."
'No. We. Don't.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things. After eight years, if such there are, of an Obama presidency, if such there is, the world will look much as it does today — if we are lucky.

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities — often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters — polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines — hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery. [My ellipses and emphasis]

US Episcopal Bishops Not Trusted?!?

Lied to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Other Authorities?!?

US Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori lied?!?

Head of Anglican Communion lacks courage to confront them?!?

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org exclusive article, LAMBETH: David's Diary:

LAMBETH: David's Diary - From My Ear to Yours (3) [/] By David W. Virtue [/] 7/30/2008 [/] [NOTE: TEC stands for THE Episcopal Church aka The Episcopal Church USA (Just kidding about the all-caps THE)]

[...] [...] Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker had some choice words to say about the 3rd Windsor Continuation Group Report. In an interview, he said that a number of TEC bishops who spoke at the hearing were quite distraught over the recommendations of the report. California Bishop Marc Andrus stood and said something like "I'm not going to lie to you; we have numerous same-sex blessings occurring in my diocese all the time, and have for years." Bishop Chane stood and commented that he had about 30 same-sex-partnered clergy in his diocese.

"While one can give both bishops points for honesty, they look less stellar when one considers their admissions (and much other evidence) alongside the pledge that TEC bishops made last September. Will [Archbishop of Canterbury] Dr. Williams finally acknowledge that the word of TEC bishops cannot be trusted - even if the WCG recommendations were to go forward?" A friend wrote: "This is hardly the first evidence of lying on the part of TEC bishops to Rowan and to the Windsor people and to anyone else involved with potentially disciplining them. I wonder if [Archbishop of Canterbury] Rowan [Williams] will now have to acknowledge the obvious. TEC bishops lied. [US Presiding Bishop] Katharine Jefferts Schori lied. They can't be trusted. I doubt he can muster the courage to do that. The reputation of Lambeth [worldwide Anglican conference] has sunk even lower, if that's possible." [My ellipses and emphasis]