Back in the Saddle

After a hiatus and proper period of mourning the election results, the Truthacher has returned. The ache remains.

The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has a great article exposing one of the great lie-tellers in America, that being the anti-gun rights lobby (reproduced in part here):

It is a simple matter of fact, beyond dispute, that for years prior to passage of the Brady Act, the organization now known as the Brady Campaign called for a waiting period on handgun sales and vigorously opposed the establishment of the National Instant Check System (NICS). The anti-gun group, when known as Handgun Control Inc., ranted and raved against instant check legislation ...

While NRA strongly opposed the Brady Act because of its five-day waiting period, when Congress passed the Brady Act in 1993, it contained a provision authorizing its waiting period on dealer handgun sales only until a NICS could be established. ... The final bill required that the NICS become operational within five years. As it turned out, Brady’s prized waiting period, which Brady claimed could reduce so-called “crimes of passion” (though by the group’s own admission no data existed to support such a theory) was abolished after only four years and nine months ... having been replaced by the NICS in November 1998.

President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Act in November 1993, however, so in November 2008 the Brady Campaign released a 15-year anniversary propaganda paper praising itself and – you guessed it – calling for a federal law prohibiting private sales of firearms, not just those at gun shows, but all private sales. ...

The title of Brady’s anniversary propaganda? Get this: “Brady Background Checks: 15 Years of Saving Lives.” Brady checks? These are the same instant checks that Brady has opposed for 20 years, and which have been conducted for the last 10 years, instead of the waiting period that was in place for less than five years before! ...

Adding to (the) lie, Brady claims “the National Rifle Association (NRA) fought long and hard to block Brady background checks.” While NRA opposes waiting periods, it supported NICS, and Brady worked hard to block it. ...

Adding further to the lie, is Brady’s pretense that the Brady Act is the reason that violent crime has declined in recent years. The Act “has been a resounding success by stopping more than 1.6 million potentially dangerous people from purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer,” the group claims.

The reality is something much different. First of all, as the FBI states in its annual national crime report , a variety of factors determine the type and volume of crime, and none of these factors is guns, gun ownership, or gun laws. And the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, National Academy of Sciences, National Institutes of Justice, and others have studied gun control and found no evidence that it reduces crime at home or abroad. (emphasis added)

Secondly, the nation’s violent crime rate began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act took effect. And violent crime committed with weapons other than guns has declined, as well as violent crime with guns – the only weapons requiring a background check. This is largely due to tougher criminal justice policies imposed in the states during the 1990s, such as mandatory sentencing and reduction of probation and parole of violent criminals – precisely what NRA has advocated for years.

Thirdly, Brady incorrectly assumes that denying gun sales must necessarily decrease crime. ... However, since 1991, the number of new guns sold to private citizens has increased by 70 million, and total violent crime has decreased 38 percent, including a 43 percent decrease in murder. Let’s not forget also the deterrent factor posed against criminals by the Right-to-Carry laws now in effect in 40 states. (emphasis added)

Brady also claims that before the Brady Act, “gun traffickers had it easy” with “new handguns bought easily over-the-counter in states with weak gun laws.” The fact is, however, that prior to the Brady Act, the 18 states and the District of Columbia that already had Brady-like laws delaying the acquisition of firearms – including waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, and license requirements – accounted for 63 percent of the nation’s violent crimes. Therefore, the Brady Act – particularly during the waiting period phase favored by the Brady Campaign –never had an effect on jurisdictions where most violent crimes occur.

Naturally, the media have reported Brady’s claims as gospel. But otherwise, the anniversary propaganda is little more than a pathetic attempt by a decreasingly significant group whose agenda has been rejected time and again.

Leftists of a Feather

This is the real deal, straight from the Obama-Biden Web site:

Now, does it mean Barack Obama is a Marxist? Of course not. But the fact that his campaign hosts this blog says much about the man and the campaign.Too many of Obama's associations have been blown off by the mainstream media and left-wing commentators as meaningless, or as attempts by Republicans to accuse Obama himself of being guilty of whatever these various characters (William Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc.)are. That's patently disingenuous and misses the point entirely. even Colin Powell tried to play this game in his lukewarm endorsement of Obama, essentially saying that the McCain campaign had called Obama a terrorist by bringing up the long Ayers-Obama friendship and working relationship. Then on "Softballs," former Tip O'Neill aide Chris Matthews sanctimoniously parroted Powell's comment.
Of course, the actual POINT is that Obama has terrible judgment, which is reflected in his choice of associates, and that he consistently lies when confronted about them ("he's a guy who lives in my neighborhood"; "I never heard anything like that while I was in the pews"; etc.).

Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!

So, the wise heads of Washington, the great and powerful wizards, have put 8 or 9 hundred billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money on the line, ostensibly to prevent a financial meltdown, not just in the United States but around the globe. We are, after all, as Barack Obama likes to say, citizens of the world. So why shouldn't our income be used to prop up the credit markets in France, Britain, China, etc. It's only "fair."

The original
Meddler-in-Chief

It was said in the halls of our glorious Capitol, as the unprecedented bailout measure finally passed (once enough handouts to various special interests had been tacked on), that the Dow Jones Industrial Average's precipitous plunge during the first attempt at passage of a slightly cleaner bill had helped change many solons' minds toward action. They had watched the Dow plummet during last Monday's (Sept. 29) House vote as it became clear that the first bill would fail, and its further drop after the bill did fail, and had the proper fear instilled in them. And so, the story goes, properly motivated -- by fear and the added goodies -- these paragons of the public trust "did the right thing" the second time around, on Friday. They passed the bill, it was said, not just to bail out Wall Street, but to bail out Main Street.

And how did Wall Street react? Hmmm ... well, the Dow on Friday closed at 10,325, after the great good deed was done. That was 40 points lower than it closed on Sept, 29, the day of the great "failure" in the House of Representatives. OK, it could be said that the stock market had stabilized. Then today, Oct. 6, it closed at 9,955, down 370 points from Friday's close. Furthermore, the London stock exchange's main index suffered its biggest one-day loss since 1987. And George W. Bush was kind enough to tell us that the "fix" was going to take time.

Here's the thing: Defenders of the bailout are arguing that things would be much worse if not for this action. Perhaps. But that argument puts opponents in the position of trying to prove a negative: since something has been done, we will never know. What we do know is that things, right now, are worse than they were before the bailout passed, and that taxpayers are on the hook for the money. Will things eventually get better? Probably, but the same could be said if nothing, or something substantially different, had been done. It was the politicians' need to "do something," not thoughtful deliberation, that drove the policy, and that seldom has worked out well in the past. The needs of politicians are always short-term, sadly, while the economy needs a long-term view. The precedent now set very likely involves costs far beyond the hundreds of billions of dollars now at stake.

The Audacity of Fiction

I was going to give you some facts about the truth behind the credit mess, which has now led to the second-worst federal government action of my lifetime, but this column by Thomas Sowell, left, on Townhall.com does the job quite well.

(Oh, the worst? Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls. People who believe in the power of government to reverse the laws of economics should read this 1994 article from the Independent Institute.)

Lemmingville

The Chicken Little clamor in relation to the credit crunch is beyond annoying. So many commentators, including many of those who proclaim themselves free-market supporters, have joined the Greek chorus of doomsayers. Where is their skepticism? The usual suspects have said that if the financial markets are not bailed out by federal taxpayers (which, btw, only comprise about 60% of the adult population), the nation's economy will come crashing down around our ears, 21st-century Hoovervilles will spring up across the landscape and there will be no end to our woes. But about 200 economists from universities all across the United States, and from various schools of thought, signed a letter opposing the bailout. I guess they know less than the talking heads on radio and television. One of the economists' reasons for opposing the so-called "rescue" is particularly insightful: "If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted."

The idea that "something must be done" is the kind of thinking that "informed" FDR's administrations, and while the leftist educational theocracy makes FDR a saint, the simple fact is that his interventionist policies only lengthened the Great Depression.

Lonely voices of reason

The mainstream media has been much worse, even, than usual in this so-called economic crisis. Supposed journalists have mindlessly parroted their government sources as they repeat the mantra that "something had to be done," meaning the federal government had to intervene in a way not seen since the Great Depression. Of course, the Depression was only lengthened and deepened by government intervention, which every thinking person knows.
Some voices in the opinion pages, at least, have had more sense than the self-anointed "journalists." Among those has been, remarkably, the Chicago Tribune's editorial page.
My friends, simply ask yourself this: Do you really trust the federal government to successfully handle your life savings? And if, incredibly, you answer "yes," please tell me: based on its previous successful handling of what, exactly?

Cold, Dead Fingers

It is almost comical to hear Joe Biden talk to rural Virginians about his running mate not being able to take away his shotguns. Biden has been scored a consistent F by the NRA on pro-gun-rights policies during his 36 years in the Senate. As for Barack Obama: "I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04); "I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the 'assault weapons' ban." (Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04); "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby." ("The Audacity of Hope," by Barack Obama, 2006); "I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws." (BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08)
Again, words matter.

Economic ignorance

While John McCain is not exactly Friedrich Von Hayek, Barack Obama displays a kindergartner's grasp of economics. Which may explain his appeal to so many young people. He actually seems to believe that taxes on corporations and high earners are not simply passed along to the great majority of consumers in the form of higher prices and lower employment. His Carterian call for a so-called windfall profits tax on "Big Oil" is a prime example of such muddle-headed foolishness. Yes, Barack, that's right, the evil corporations will meekly hand over cash that would have been part of their after-tax net profits to Uncle Sam. They would never consider building the extra tax into their price structure, or cutting costs (read, jobs) to make up the difference if their industry should suffer from price inelasticity. And you claim that your administration would "create" good jobs in America for Americans. I can only imagine what classes you took at Occidental College or Columbia University, but I would bet none of them included "The Road to Serfdom" or "Capitalism and Freedom" as required reading. What, after all, could two dead white guys have to offer?

The Obama (One) Worldview

Barack Obama says, during the recent 9/11 forum put on by Time magazine at his alma mater, Columbia U.:
"But, you know, what has built this country is people sense through voluntary associations but also through public service and government that we have commitments that extend beyond our immediate self-interest, that aren’t always motivated by profit, that aren’t simply short-term, that we’re thinking long term to the next generation.
"And every bit of progress that we’ve made historically is because of that kind of active citizenship (emphasis added). And as president, what I want to do is restore that sense of common, mutual responsibility — and I think the American people are ready for it."

I may be naive, but I believe Obama when he says this. Not, of course, that what he says is correct or true, but that he believes it to be true. Think about that. Use your knowledge of American history and analyze it logically.

In reality, his negative view of the profit motive and supreme belief in communitarianism, which he expresses at every turn, is fundamentally at odds with what really built this nation and made it great.

When he talks about "building a better life for the next generation," that has not been something done primarily by the government or community organizations. It has been individuals, working under a capitalistic system and motivated by profit, that have made things better for succeeding generations. That is the story of our immigrants. They didn't, by and large, go to work for the government or some community organization, they went to work for money. They started a business, they bought or built a home, they paid for their children to go to college (back when that was considered an individual obligation, since the individual would gain the most from the education, as opposed to an entitlement).
It wasn't a federal program or church group or Sol Alinsky that built this nation's steel industry, oil industry, shipbuilding, automobile, aircraft, computer, biomedical, etc.
But perhaps Obama believes private industry does not represent progress. That is the implication of what he says, and he also says "words matter."

Not letting facts get in the way

CNN "analyst" Jeffrey Toobin, left, a fellow Harvard Law alum along with Barack Obama and a staff member in the prosecution of Ollie North, blithely pronounces on CNN Monday night that "the vast majority" of voters are pro-choice as he questions the alleged desire of the Republican ticket to "reignite the culture wars," which, he adds, revolve around just one issue: abortion rights.

But according to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, updated May 8-11 of this year, Americans as a whole are only slightly more likely to call themselves "pro-choice" on abortion than "pro-life," 50% to 44% (3-point margin of sampling error). This is nearly identical to where Americans stood on the issue a year ago, and is similar to the close division seen since 1998. That's a "vast majority"?

That same poll, btw, shows 55-year-old-plus voters (the age cohort in which turnout is always highest) describing themselves as 48% "pro-life" vs. 44% "pro-choice." That's OK, Jeff, I realize you're a busy guy and hardly have the time to keep up with news that's not on CNN. What's more bothersome is that you get to say such silly things without being challenged by the so-called newsman, Anderson Cooper, who's running the show.

Beyond that, the real politics of the situation almost certainly don't align with the Toobin view.

MSNBC (MeeklyServingNeophyteBarackChannel)

In questioning the Palin pick, Sen. Whatshername from Minnesota tells Nora O'Donnell that traditionally, presidential candidates have had close relationships with their running mates. Either she's completely ignorant of history (entirely possible) or she's purposely dissembling (more likely). Carter was no great friend of Mondale, Reagan hardly knew or liked G.H.W. Bush, Nixon had no relationship with Agnew and, in fact, completely disdained him. Does she think J.F.K. was pals with Lyndon Johnson? Please. Vice-presidential candidates are chosen purely for political expediency, and always have been. Furthermore, they often come from a wing of the party with which the presidential candidate has poor relations, if not open distaste. (In an effort to "balance the ticket.") See Stevenson-Sparkman in 1952. Sparkman came from that great Democrat tradition of siccing dogs on black folks, while The Egghead was best friends with communist Alger Hiss and probably wiped his hand every time after he shook Sparkman's.
Why do so-called journalists sit there and listen to such nonsense when it just does not match the facts? Because they are not journalists at all.

When You Care Enough to Write a Bill ... (but, apparently, not a check)

While Barack Obama has been praised by many Republicans for his stance, it really is small wonder that in relation to the brouhaha over the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teen daughter, Obama proclaims that family members should be "off-limits" in the campaign.
After all, one of Obama's rare efforts at legislating since he began his long campaign to lead the Free World is called the Global Poverty Act. Here's a summary:
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.(emphasis added)
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/7/2007)
--Library of Congress
The bill, much like its author's standing in the polls, has since gone nowhere. Now, leaving aside the idea that it might have been better to call it the Global Anti-Poverty Act, there is the matter of one of Barack's many siblings. As most of the information-consuming class knows:
The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation.
--Telegraph.co.uk
"Penury," for the non-Brits among us, means poverty. That would be just the kind that Sen. Obama, in his bill, professes a desire for American taxpayers to combat, globally. George Hussein Oyango Obama, who apparently lives with a couple of relatives now and studies at a Nairobi-area college, was reported by Vanity Fair as saying that that he lives on FAR less than $1 per day.
Barack Obama has made much of his Christianity of late, but perhaps he missed the part about being your brother's keeper.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Families are off-limits.

Bringing Home the Bacon

Sen. Barack Obama ... won $40.6 million in earmarked funds for his constituents (in 2007). Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who is also running for president and first won election to the Senate in 1972, garnered $67 million worth of projects.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the lone Republican presidential candidate in the Senate, did not win a single earmark in the spending bills. He has chosen instead to position himself on the hustings as a leading critic of excessive government spending. “He has never requested an earmark,” said McCain spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield.
--The Hill, 11-09-07

The Egghead's Revenge

Let us play "Who Am I"

Although (his) eloquent oratory and thoughtful, stylish demeanor thrilled many intellectuals
and members of the nation's academic community, the Republicans and some working-class Democrats
ridiculed what they perceived as his indecisive, aristocratic air.
source: Wikipedia