Friday, May 8, 2009

Mark Levin: Obama's Destructive Vision

In an interview with Terry Jeffrey's CNSNews.com, Mark Levin discussed why he believes President Obama’s vision of “change” is destructive and contrary to America’s founding principles and why conservatives must reacquaint themselves with those principles and recommit themselves to the cause of individual liberty. The video is about 27 minutes long. I posted the transcript below which I couldn't abridge because it was just too compelling.





Here is the transcript (emphasis added):


Jeffrey: “For Edmund Burke, change as reform was intended to preserve and improve the basic institutions of the state. Change as innovation was destructive as a radical departure from the past and the substitution of existing institutions of the state with potentially dangerous experiments. … The Conservative believes, as Burke and the Founders did, that prudence must be exercised in assessing change. Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community.”

Now, President Obama was elected more or less on a platform of change, and it’s become one of the catch phrases of his administration. Do you see the major proposals of the Obama administration for change in the Burkean tradition of reform or in the radical tradition of innovation?

Levin: I see them in the Marxist tradition of innovation, quote unquote. And Burke would be disgusted, and Adam Smith would be disgusted, and the Founding Fathers would be disgusted because what Burke rejected was the French Revolution, which was an assault on the institutions of French society as opposed to a righteous revolution, he felt.

Jeffrey: Quite different from our own.

Levin: Quite different from our own. He supported the American Revolution, which was tough for him because he was also a royalist. But no, we conservatives don’t oppose change. I mean, after all there’s a lot in this society we’d like to change, given what the statists have been doing to it.

Jeffrey: But that kind of change would be moving us back closer to our original principles.

Levin: Exactly. The goal is to preserve and improve our society, not to destroy it, not to transform it into something that’s foreign, not to spread misery, not to address the grievance of every malcontent. No, the purpose is to improve our society. So we support change as reform as opposed to change as innovation or change as destruction.

Jeffrey: Right, and you believe Obama is actually trying to effect a little mini-French Revolution right here in the United States?

Levin: Well, they can’t have it both ways, the Obama administration. Aren’t they telling us that? They want to change the way the automobile industry works. They want to change the way the energy industry works. They want to change the way the health care system works. They want to decide who gets paid what. They want to decide who gets rewarded, who gets punished, who gets rights, who doesn’t get rights. I’m accepting them at face value and putting a label on it.

Jeffrey: All of this out of the centralized government here in Washington, D.C.

Levin: Of course.

Jeffrey: Now, you talk in this book about an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Mark. You say, “The Conservative is an originalist, for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from societal experimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the Constitution can be interpreted without abandoning its underlying principles altogether.”

Now, in “Men in Black,” you talked about how the Supreme Court has basically been destroying the Constitution by interpreting it in a way that is not at all connected to the original interpretation.

But isn’t it true that the legislative branches and the executive branch do the exact same thing, and it’s been done not just by Democrats but also by Republicans? For example, President Bush, when he was in office, he pushed for the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Can that in any way be justified in terms of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

Levin: No, it can’t. But, you know, at least we, the people, can do something about it by the next election cycle--changing our government, the representative part of our government. The problem with the judiciary is you have people that serve for life and act like politicians. And since it’s turned out that they have the final say, not that the Constitution gives them the final say, but they have seized the final say in our system, that’s the problem.

So if you have nine justices, really if you have five justices who decide that terrorists have due process rights for the first time in American history, reversing a decision they made in 1950 in another case, when these terrorists are held overseas, well, how do you change that? You can’t change that anymore under our system. So what’s happened is the judiciary seized authority that does not belong to it, the other branches have acquiesced to this authority.

But there’s no question, the federal government as a whole violates the Constitution on a regular basis. They conspire--and I don’t mean this in a devious way, I mean it out in the open, brazenly--against the individual, they conspire against the states, they conspire to skirt their constitutional limits.

And I also say in the book that the statist, or the leftist, likes it that way. He likes the court being as powerful as it is, or the bureaucracy being as powerful as it is, because it institutionalizes their philosophy and no election can reverse it.

Jeffrey: Right, and moves it away from the representative process.

Levin: From the people, yeah.

Jeffrey: It’s interesting, I interviewed Judge Bork a few months ago and I asked him: Did he believe Medicare and Social Security were constitutional? And he said, no, they’re not constitutional. But he argued that it’s politically impossible to go back and reverse that now, even though they were created by the legislature with the president. They’ve been in place so long that it’s just practically impossible to reverse them.

Levin: Well, they’re going to be reversed, because they’re going to collapse. We’re talking Medicare, Medicaid and Society Security, over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations that are growing by several trillion dollars every year. On top of that, it appears we’re going to get national health care. So they’re going to get reversed. It may not be done politically, but it will be done economically because the laws of economics speak to a higher authority.

Jeffrey: So you talk in “Liberty & Tyranny” about this $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities we have in these welfare-state dependency programs that President Bush added to with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. President Obama wants to add to it in form some sort of national health care plan.

Levin: Right.

Jeffrey: So you say we have an electorate, Mark, that doesn’t want to reform these things or get rid of them. I mean, don’t we face a very big crisis that’s political as well as fiscal?

Levin: Here’s the problem. You know, Ronald Reagan built a pretty darn good foundation with conservative principles. Was it perfect? No. But it was the most perfect in my lifetime. And you would expect the next Republican president and Republican presidents subsequent to them to build on that foundation.

They didn’t. They lurched back to FDR New Dealism and Great Society. And for some reason, Republicans seem to think they don’t have the ability to slowly explain things to the American people and reverse course. They do, but they won’t because it’s hard work
. It’s easier to go along.

Of course you can’t abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid even though they will be abolished one day by their own weight. There’s no question about it in my mind. But what you can do is introduce some real reforms that slowly unravel them in the sense that people who really don’t need them shouldn’t get them. There should be limits on them. There should be private aspects to them.

Look, the statist knows exactly what he’s doing. I explain in the book why Social Security was created the way it was created. As opposed to a welfare program for poor people, FDR wanted to imprison everybody in the system. Lyndon Johnson wanted to use that trust fund for general obligations. This is all intended to build a political base, so if anybody dares to question these entitlements, they’ll be defeated. What we have to do is explain to the next generation: Do you understand that these programs are broke? Do you understand that you owe all this money? And explain it in a way that’s understandable.

Jeffrey: Right, in Social Security they created a welfare-state program that goes to middle-class people.

Levin: And that’s the purpose of national health care, is to suck everybody in, to make them to believe they’re getting something for nothing, when in fact what they’re getting is rationing.

Jeffrey: You get national health care--you already have Social Security which makes retired people, elderly people, dependent on the government. You have national health care that gets everybody, not just people on Medicare/Medicaid, dependent on the government for health care. And, essentially, a government-run school system for the majority of people. The sectors of our life that are controlled and dominated by the government are growing.

Levin: This is intentional. And that’s why, at this point, if we’re not going to stand up to it as conservatives, we’re not going to be confident in our principles, if we’re not going to do the things we have to do, which includes speaking out about our principles--You know, I’m constantly told, “Well, we can’t win that way.” You know, the last president to win landslides was Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president in my lifetime. And they said he couldn’t win either, and he actually did take a chunk out of Social Security even though--

Jeffrey: The liberal media said he couldn’t win.

Levin: The liberal media said he couldn’t win. Even a lot of Republicans said he couldn’t win.

Jeffrey: One of the things I find unique about your book, and also about your radio program, is you’ re one of the few conservatives who will directly attack FDR and the New Deal, and describe exactly what it was that FDR--Why have so many Republicans basically made peace with FDR and the New Deal?

Levin: Well, even the books that criticize FDR are careful not to criticize him too hard. Because it’s harder to step back and discuss with your constituents, if you’re a politician, why certain programs they like and may think they benefit from but which will undermine our society in the long run, are not the greatest programs ever created.

There is no Social Security program. There is no trust fund. It is a hoax. Milton Friedman spoke about it and wrote about it at length. Many people have. There is no trust fund. As a matter of fact, as of February, even the fake trust fund that they say exists just went negative. So, even the illusion is an illusion. And that’s intentional. And Medicare is a hybrid of a phony insurance program and a welfare program. Medicaid now consumes over 20 percent of every state’s budget, so states have very little room to operate as well.

Jeffrey: So we’re looking at a situation 10, 15 years down the road, when the deficit driven by sustaining these programs, Medicare and Social Security not to mention a possible national health care plan that Obama may create, is so big it’s impossible for the government not to deal with it.

Levin: My fear is the way the government will deal with it is to claim more private property and liberty. And in some ways, when I say enslave, I don’t mean in terms of a Gulag, but enslave the next generation by limiting their freedom and limiting their opportunities.

Jeffrey: Well, this is something that I think conservatives have to think through strategically, that Americans have to start thinking about. There’s this $53 trillion already that the government has promised to pay people in benefits, that we don’t have the tax revenue under the current system to pay for.

Levin: And never will.

Jeffrey: It’s fiscally impossible to maintain an economy. But when this crisis hits, the government is going to want to go and get revenue to cover that as it progresses. Where are they going to get it?

Levin: They’re not going to have any revenue to get. And they can print all the money they want and create a Weimar Republic if they want. Every avenue they take is anti-liberty, anti-constitutional. They’re going to become more and more desperate. And what’s really going to happen is they’re going to seize much more authority and ration wealth, and the people who think Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are so great, there will be no Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

Jeffrey: Because the real-life situation is, you’ll have Baby Boom Generation on Social Security and Medicare, sucking in the government revenue, and the government will not be able to pay the benefits that it has promised to these folks unless they take 40, 50 percent of the income of middle-class, middle-aged people to cover those benefits.

Levin: What the government will do is break all of its promises. What the government will do is say, “We’re changing age limits, we’re changing benefits, we’re changing how this thing is funded.”

Jeffrey: We’re taking away your health-care benefits when you’re 70 years old.

Levin: We’re taking away whatever we have to take away. This is how authoritarianism works. If you look in Britain today--and I wish we would more often--or Canada for that matter, they have a complete rationing system in their health care. And the costly drugs and the costly procedures are delayed and delayed and delayed because they’re hoping a significant portion of the population will die before they have to pay for them, or go somewhere else.

I try to explain in this book in many ways that it’s conservatism that is compassionate, that it’s conservatism that nurtures liberty, that it’s conservatism that is the only anecdote to tyranny--whether it’s a soft tyranny or a hard tyranny--that what these other people are preaching is something that cannot work, has never worked in human history, and relies on a lie about some kind of a utopianism that can be created on Earth which simply can’t be.

Jeffrey: Is the question when we get to the tipping point? If the conservative vision of America is individuals and their families taking care of themselves. They earn their own money. They educate their own kids. They pay for their own housing. They pay for their own food. They pay for their own retirement. They’re self-sufficient. The liberal vision is the government takes care of many of those things, and, as you said, that’s fiscally unsustainable.

Levin: The liberal vision is, to be even more precise, that the individual needs to be controlled, that his aspirations need to be limited, that he has to learn to get along and go along. And that if that means dispiriting the individual, if that means economic or other forms or repression, then so be it for the good of the general society. And that a handful of individuals, self-appointed, who assume power one way or another, they will make the decisions for all the rest of us. In one form or another, that’s what the statist believes.

Now, they may unwittingly advance the case of tyranny in some cases, but at this point, given human history, given all we know about it, given all we know about statism, I have to question that.

Jeffrey: Well, Mark, if there’s theoretically a tipping point, where a number of people in the population are so dependent on the government that they are essentially a captive electorate for the left, for the liberals, how do conservatives reach out and persuade those folks on the margin to come back into the land of individual responsibility and self-reliance?

Levin: It’s the folks on the margins we need to go after.

Jeffrey: How do we do it?

Levin: The others are a hopeless case. The one-third, the 35 or 40 percent, we’re never going to get them. Well first of all, we, the conservative, need to be confident in who we are. We need to understand our philosophy beyond the superficial.

When I started this book, “Liberty & Tyranny,” I could have written one of these talking-point books, but I said, “You know, let me challenge myself. Why do I think the way I think? Why am I a conservative? What does it mean to be a conservative? And I went back, again, and I read the classics. I went into Plato and Aristotle and Cicero and Montesquieu and Locke, and more forward, Burke, and Adam Smith, and then the Founding Fathers. When you do that, which most people won’t do because they don’t have the time or the inclination to it, you come to an obvious conclusion that the only humane system that can possibly work is one that’s based on the conservative philosophy.

And what is the conservative philosophy? That’s the point of the book. The conservative philosophy, generally speaking, is the creation of a civil society with the focus on the individual, but not exclusively. Where the individual is responsible for his family and himself, where he has a duty to his community, where what he earns through his own labor--because remember, we’re only here so long on the face of the Earth, and that labor, whether it’s intellectual or physical or both, if somebody takes it from you, they’re enslaving you, it’s for an illegitimate purpose.

And there is a moral order.
You know, it’s interesting. Adam Smith, who’s the hero of libertarians and one of my heroes, believed in a moral order, was a religious man. He and Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism--Burke, the conservative today, Smith, the libertarian today--they were friends and they didn’t think they disagreed on anything, these two guys. You know, they had an overlapping philosophy.

We conservatives wake up every morning and we thank God we’re in America. We thank God for our system of government. We thank God for this society. It is a magnificent place where we are. History has never seen this before. It is a contribution to mankind. We Americans, when we do what we do. We need to instill this spirit, this view of America, in the population or the population that may be receptive to it, because the other side has as their goal to dispirit, to demoralize, to tear down, to trash.

Jeffrey: Now, you do an excellent job in “Liberty & Tyranny,” Mark, in explaining these basic founding principles of the United States and how they articulate themselves in various different issue areas that we talked about. And your book is doing tremendously well: Four weeks at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. I think you told me more than 900,000 copies--

Levin: Printed, half of a million sold, and we’re still pressing ahead, baby.

Jeffrey: But obviously these are adults who are buying your book.

Levin: We don’t know who is. They’re not children, we know that.

Jeffrey: We know they’re not kids. But is it--our schools are not teaching the founding principles of the United States to kids in kindergarten, first and second grade, let alone in high school or college. Do you think the liberals, the left in America, does not want young people coming up in America to learn these principles and to embrace them as they grow?

Levin: Here’s the thing. First of all, it’s my responsibility and your responsibility as fathers to make sure our children know why this is a great country. There’s no teacher, there’s no union member, there’s no administrator in any government school system who can do a better job of explaining it than you and me to our own kids at the breakfast table, the dinner table, when we put them to sleep, when we take them somewhere. This we must do, because if we do it there are tens of millions of us, and we are a bigger army than ACORN and the NEA.

Now, as to your question: The motives? We’ve litigated against the NEA now here in Landmark Legal Foundation for over a decade. They are a far-left, power-hungry organization. And that’s what comes first, second and third for them. Okay. If they cared about the children, they wouldn’t be promoting what they promote. For instance, you have teacher strikes in the states that allow them and cities that allow them. It’s absolutely outrageous. So, and I’m talking about the rule, not the exception, because of course we know that there are many good teachers. My wife was a teacher, my mother was a teacher. That’s quite beside the point.

Jeffrey: But they have a vision for what they want your child to grow up to be.

Levin: They want our children to be good soldiers of the bureaucracy.

Jeffrey: Right. It’s one thing for you and me to raise our kids to have our understanding of what the American founding principles are like. And if they are in one of those schools to fight some of their teachers, to fight the school bureaucracy, to fight the overall agenda of the school. Isn’t it quite another thing for immigrant kids, or kids coming out of families where their parents may not be as well-educated or not as focused on teaching those things, to ever in fact come in contact with these principles?

Levin: It’s a disaster. It’s a disaster, because first of all, if we are not insisting on immigrant kids learning English, they can’t possibly understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We have people who understand English who don’t understand them today and refuse to understand them because they talk about living and breathing documents. When we say originalism--look at the words and try and relate them back to our history--if you don’t understand English, where the words can be debated, and you’re speaking in Spanish or something, you’re never going to get it. And the other problem is, how do you enter into contracts, how do you make something of yourself? And, of course, the Balkanization issue is real and it is a huge problem.

Look, here’s the problem. You and I know that at every level we’re under attack. We know the next shoe to drop is to create citizenship for illegal aliens and to open the borders to more because they want to change the demography and they want to change the electorate. We know this.

We know what they want to do with national health care. It’s not about making sure people have health care. You know, just because you have a health care policy, doesn’t mean you actually get health care, timely and in quality. No, it’s to secure as many drone-like citizens as you possibly can.

We know what they’re up to, and at bottom, what I’m saying is, we have to reacquaint ourselves with why we are a great nation, with who we are, with our founding, with our history, and what it is that makes humanity prosper and flourish. Everything Obama does counteracts that. Everything that this Congress is doing counteracts that. And people will be motivated and they’ll have a desire to really change things if they can really connect with it, and that’s the point of the book.

Jeffrey: Mark, in your book you point to a uniting principle that has been an American principle since the beginning. You say, “If man is ‘endowed by [the] Creator with certain inalienable rights,’ he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights—rights that are not conferred on man by man and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man. It is the divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man’s right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

Doesn’t this principle, and that fact that it is in fact true, give us an opportunity to reach out and proselytize to the immigrant community that’s come into the United States, to some of the people that are on the margin of wondering whether they’re going to go into the dependent class or into the class of self-reliant people?

Levin: I think it is. The problem we have now, though, is assimilation rarely happens. We have a government that’s opposed to it, that promotes the opposite: multiculturalism, bilingualism, dual citizenship. We now have corporations that promote both English and Spanish and we have a government school system that does the same thing. So we’re basically a bilingual nation now.

Jeffrey: And this principle can’t be taught in our public schools.

Levin: This principle can be taught in our public schools not as it is meant to be, but as sort of an arcane thought that the founders may have had--and of course they were slave owners so why pay attention to them anyway?

Jeffrey: If, ultimately, the reason the state cannot deprive us of our rights is because the state didn’t give us those rights, God gave us those rights, and a public school cannot even teach a child that there is a God from whom he got those rights, then a public school cannot teach the basic founding principle of the United States.

Levin: No. You have to do it, and I have to do it, and every parent and grandparent have to do it. Look, we are not going to change these government schools overnight. This I know as a matter of personal experience in litigation. We have to take it upon ourselves. We’ve had a counterrevolution in this country--a very successful counterrevolution, the intellectual basis of which goes back to the early 1900s, the effectuating of it started with FDR and the New Deal. It’s a counterrevolution to the American Revolution. Now we need a counter-counterrevolution, and one of the things I say is that we conservatives have to increase our numbers. That’s the purpose of a book like this, and hopefully other books that follow, and parents and grandparents talking to their children, and getting serious about the country and the future for the next generation.

Politics has consequences. It’s not just a sport to observe. People need to realize that right now we have a runaway government--and I mean every branch of it, the elected and the unelected--and the only way we’re going to stop this is if the next generation understands and is informed. And you’re not going to get it from an NEA member in a school system. If you do, it’ll be the rare, tenured teacher who does it. It’s going to have to come from you, and we can do this.

I mean, there’s still tens of millions of us who understand how wonderful this country is and believe in free markets, private property, faith and these other things. We can do this. You know, everybody can’t home school their kids, but there is a form of home schooling everybody can do. Those kids do come home, and they belong to us, and let’s do it.

Jeffrey: And they can read “Liberty & Tyranny,” the No. 1 New York Times Best-seller by Mark Levin. Mark, thank you very much.

Levin: Thank you brother, pleasure.

38 comments:

DJ Black Adam said...

Oy Veh. Stop with the "doomsday" scenarios already. Good Lord, when will the RIGHT stop acting like whining children who lose their turn to serve in the 4 square game, and just play their role? You righties got voted out, get over it, and be a good minority party and create positive debate about policy as opposed to these fear mongering scare tactics.

Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~How about a reasonable deconstruction of the very logical construct put forth by Levin & Jeffrey's rather than a "broad brush" indictment of the Christian "Reich" as you like to call us. Please, and I say this sincerely tell me what I'm missing when I hear these arguments that should move me to reject these concerns as mere fear mongering.

uptownsteve said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a virtually unregulated free market for most of the last 8 years????

And it resulted in...............

JEOPARDY MUSIC.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

There is so much in this article; I just don't even know where to begin. Honestly, its exhausting trying to keep up with the conspiracy of the week from the right wing. It's like a nightmare mix of Tim Laheye's eschatology with Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric, sometimes it is really overwhelming.

So I guess I can't comment on all that I am hearing; only to point out what I AM NOT hearing. That is, credible intelligent debate on POLICY.

Honestly, you know I am neither a leftist or a right winger. I have problems with both ideologies, but, I am really disappointed at the right, and articles like this one on signify in my opinion what Is wrong with the GOP’s political ideology.

But of course your peanut gallery will trot out and act like anyone who opposes this rhetoric is Leon Trotsky or Josef Stalin, so there is really no point in trying to explain further, I’ll just get handed a hammer and sickle and a red flag simply because I disagree with the GOP and by mutual implication the “RIGHT” on how they are going about their opposition to the majority party and the President now.

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~Ok, I'll meet you where you are and for the sake of not arguing about Bush because it's a new day consider the foundation of this argument that Bush is as horrible, inept, stupid, destructive, evil, and ineffective as you believe he is. So now that we have obstensibly agree are you willing to offer a well reasoned deconstruction of the construct advanced by Levin & Jeffrey in this article?

DJBA~Since when have you backed down from the "peanut gallery"?

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

"DJBA~Since when have you backed down from the "peanut gallery"?

lolololol. Even those of us with the Power of SHAZAM have our limitations. Seriously, its hard enough going through the half truths and purposed misdirections in the article, but to do that AND ebate all of the acolytes of Hannity and Limbaugh here? Zehuti says: "leave this one alone". Maybe Uptown Steve will be up to this one.

Digital Publius said...

LOL Unreal!

MuscleDaddy said...

DJBA,.

Aw, c'mon - take a shot.

I'll sit here quietly and not interrupt.

- MD

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a virtually unregulated free market for most of the last 8 years????[/quote]

YES YOU ARE WRONG Steve.

It is ironic that you can't bring yourself to make analysis of that which brought forth the Internet boom (IPOs, Venture capital, a record rate of personal investments into the stock market because Web access made it easier for private citizens to do so) YET you can only seek to paint the picture that the "GOOD GUYS" were in office until 2000 and then the Evil "Non Regulators" came in.

WhiteBowieSteve - I have showed the article several times which details how the same investment banking companies who ran up the market in the 1990's were the main one's FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY last year.

You would rather cheerlead than be honest.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CF

UptownSteve said: “Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a virtually unregulated free market for most of the last 8 years????”

You replied: “YES YOU ARE WRONG Steve.”

Actually, he is right, just not complete in his statement. We have had a market that was being deregulated (by Republicans and Democrats like Clinton) since the Reagan administration. Especially in regard to financial services industries (including insurance companies).

The financial services industry and the deregulated (or unregulated) markets they played in are, in my observation, the primary agitator of the economic mess we have now.

This again was not just a Republican problem but enabled by the Democrats as well over the last 25 years.

Anonymous said...

Posted april 22nd
Black Farmers PISSED With Obama

http://sugarnspice.typepad.com/sugar_n_spicea_meeting_pl/2009/04/black-farmers-pissed-with-obama.html

Constructive Feedback said...

DJ Black Adam:

Your reply is frustrating because instead of being able to do what CBW asked you to do (ie: Produce an ORGANIC critique of Levin's arguments based on fully substantiated facts to the contrary) you instead make all of this a matter of "Conservative Sour Milk".

DJBA - I know how 'you all' think. (BQPFRCs). Thus I always attempt to stay one step ahead of you.

Where as the "racist tea partyers" from a few weeks ago had focused too much of their rants on the FEDERAL government and thus had their claims naturally dismissed as an attack upon Obama I have taken a different tract.

Just as my series "What is making Black people cry today" attempts to focus upon Black folks in their own words (and tears) in regards to establishing the TRUTH of WHO is terrorizing Black people today in the attempts to negate the "Racist Scare Crows" that people like Steve throw up my plan with regard to taxes and government finances has taken a similar track.

I am focused on the voices of the WORKING CLASS and the impact that LOCAL AND STATE taxes and fee increases are having upon them.

Go to NPR.org "The Forum" and listen to the state of affairs in California.

There are massive program cuts in CA and NY.

In Philly they might close the free library system or make drastic cuts. In Atlanta they closed a fire station and have laid off more than 400 workers.

DJBA - it is clear that our present system of government financing is broken and an increasing number of LOCAL and STATE systems are no longer financial viable.

The plan is to achieve some temporary illusional magic by transfering more of these fiscal responsibilities to the FED which can create "magic money" and make everything seem alright for a short time.

You and others are more inclined to "fight with the team" rather than make note of the evidence and defend your long term best interests.

Lisa Graas said...

Great blog! I featured you in a post on my blog. Check it out!

http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2009/05/black-conservative-blogs-offer.html

Love from Lisa

Jim Campbell said...

I was wondering if you would consider running this article on our group and post a link for your readers. Anybody interested in participating it take about 5 hrs to read the charges and understand them, then an hour to vote it's all done online and very legal.
“AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

(United States of America) – May 9th 2009 - At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1....

http://americangrandjury.org (on the front page right now!)
This is what is running on our front page now feel free if you like to post it. Thanks again, Jim
AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA
info_link.gif info_link.gif info_link.gif info_link.gif

Grand Jury news goes International. Mark S. McGrew from Sentinel Radio just published an article that can possibly reach over 100 International sites within a week. Article title: Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA

Posted by Editor in Grand Jury, Press Release on May 9th, 2009

“AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

(United States of America) – May 9th 2009 – At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

Said Article II, Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” for the following reasons:
# 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
# 2) Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’COUNT TWO:

The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;

An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;

Said original photocopy of the complete criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick was sworn under oath before the Grand Jury to testify as to the true nature and details regarding said criminal complaint filed against Obama;

Said criminal complaint by Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick and his “accusation of Treason” is quoted in the excerpts below:

Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy.

My sworn duty Mr. Obama is to stand against what you stand for. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

After reviewing the evidence and voting, the 25 member American Grand Jury handed down the presentment(s) recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.

Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendent 5 of the Bill of Rights.

The American Grand Jury was served by people from different States within the Union, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.

The above excerpts from the formal presentments of the May 9th American Grand Jury hearing are hereby released to the public as a PRESS RELEASE. All other details of the Grand Jury hearing, specifically, the jury membership, sworn affidavits of service, testimony, evidence, hearing minutes and records have been sealed as required by law.

This Grand Jury hearing of May 9th is in addition to the formal presentments, (charges of Fraud and Treason) which were handed down against Barack Obama last week, known as the American Grand Jury hearing of April 29th, 2009. The April 29th presentments are already making their way into the court systems across the United States.

Please contact American Grand Jury through this website or contact our National Spokesperson below for further information or requests:

Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam

jcscuba said...

I was wondering if you would consider running this article on our group and post a link for your readers. Thanks, Jim Campbell zzzzzzzzzzzzzp.S. Anybody wanting to participate it takes about 5 hours to study the charges, and one hour to vote it's all done online.
“AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

(United States of America) – May 9th 2009 - At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1....

http://americangrandjury.org (on the front page right now!)
This is what is running on our front page now feel free if you like to post it. Thanks again, Jim
AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA
info_link.gif info_link.gif info_link.gif info_link.gif

Grand Jury news goes International. Mark S. McGrew from Sentinel Radio just published an article that can possibly reach over 100 International sites within a week. Article title: Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama

AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA

Posted by Editor in Grand Jury, Press Release on May 9th, 2009

“AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

(United States of America) – May 9th 2009 – At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

Said Article II, Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” for the following reasons:
# 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
# 2) Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’COUNT TWO:

The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;

An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;

Said original photocopy of the complete criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick was sworn under oath before the Grand Jury to testify as to the true nature and details regarding said criminal complaint filed against Obama;

Said criminal complaint by Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick and his “accusation of Treason” is quoted in the excerpts below:

Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy.

My sworn duty Mr. Obama is to stand against what you stand for. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

After reviewing the evidence and voting, the 25 member American Grand Jury handed down the presentment(s) recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.

Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendent 5 of the Bill of Rights.

The American Grand Jury was served by people from different States within the Union, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.

The above excerpts from the formal presentments of the May 9th American Grand Jury hearing are hereby released to the public as a PRESS RELEASE. All other details of the Grand Jury hearing, specifically, the jury membership, sworn affidavits of service, testimony, evidence, hearing minutes and records have been sealed as required by law.

This Grand Jury hearing of May 9th is in addition to the formal presentments, (charges of Fraud and Treason) which were handed down against Barack Obama last week, known as the American Grand Jury hearing of April 29th, 2009. The April 29th presentments are already making their way into the court systems across the United States.

Please contact American Grand Jury through this website or contact our National Spokesperson below for further information or requests:

Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam

Conservative Black Woman said...

Jim~"That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1."

Well, while you and I may believe this and I actually tried to put this information out before the election but no one is hearing. I'm just afraid that dog isn't going to hunt. It became crystal clear to me last fall when the Supreme Court threw this out that it's a lost cause. I will personally participate but this type of action is only going to further the accusation and belief in the minds of Obama supporters that this is just a racially motivated attack. If there is one thing I learned over the past 6 months it's that FACTS DON'T MATTER when it comes to Barack Obama. It's useless to try and inform those who don't care to be informed or just don't trust that any sentiment other blind faith is motivated by anything other than hatred (of self if you are black or blacks in general if you are white)

jcscuba said...

I was wondering if you would consider running this article on our group and post a link for your readers. If you wish to participate, make contact below. It requires about 5 hrs of your time to study the charges, an hour to vote. It's all done on line and has the same legal standing as if you were being asked to participate on a Grand Jury Thanks, Jim Campbell


“AMERICAN GRAND JURY HANDS DOWN INDICTMENT OF FRAUD AND TREASON AGAINST OBAMA”

(United States of America) – May 9th 2009 – At 2 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened a final hearing to vote on criminal charges against Barack Obama.

The following criminal allegations and complaints were voted upon:

COUNT ONE:

That Obama is NOT eligible under the laws of the Constitution of the United States as provided for in Article II, Section 1.

Said Article II, Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Wherefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” for the following reasons:
# 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens.
# 2) Obama was a British citizen ‘at birth.’COUNT TWO:

The charge of “Treason” against Obama is before the people of the United States of America. That such complaint is CRIMINAL, of high crimes, and extremely damaging against the people.

Said complaint was formally brought by a Military Officer (retired) of the United States of America. All United States Military Officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and such complaint is valid, explicit and proper; when an Officer is aware of such malfeasance of Treason by an offender it is that Officer’s SWORN duty to come forward and present such accusation and complaint;

The Military Officer who filed the complaint is Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick, III, retired, United States Navy and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick on March 17, 2009 did hereby make such criminal accusation and complaint against Obama and presented said complaint before the U.S Attorney Russell Dedrick, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Schmutzer, Eastern District, Tennessee;

An original photocopy of said complaint was submitted to the Grand Jury as evidence for immediate investigation;

Said original photocopy of the complete criminal complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and made a part hereof;

Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick was sworn under oath before the Grand Jury to testify as to the true nature and details regarding said criminal complaint filed against Obama;

Said criminal complaint by Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick and his “accusation of Treason” is quoted in the excerpts below:

Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America’s constitutional government.

We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works.

Confident holding your silent agreement and admission, I identify you as a foreign born domestic enemy.

My sworn duty Mr. Obama is to stand against what you stand for. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

After reviewing the evidence and voting, the 25 member American Grand Jury handed down the presentment(s) recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro; aka: Barry Obama; aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.

Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendent 5 of the Bill of Rights.

The American Grand Jury was served by people from different States within the Union, said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.

The above excerpts from the formal presentments of the May 9th American Grand Jury hearing are hereby released to the public as a PRESS RELEASE. All other details of the Grand Jury hearing, specifically, the jury membership, sworn affidavits of service, testimony, evidence, hearing minutes and records have been sealed as required by law.

This Grand Jury hearing of May 9th is in addition to the formal presentments, (charges of Fraud and Treason) which were handed down against Barack Obama last week, known as the American Grand Jury hearing of April 29th, 2009. The April 29th presentments are already making their way into the court systems across the United States.

Please contact American Grand Jury through this website or contact our National Spokesperson below for further information or requests:

Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam
Tags: against Barack Obama, American Grand Jury, fraud and treason, Indictment

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@CF:

"DJ Black Adam: Your reply is frustrating because instead of being able to do what CBW asked you to do (ie: Produce an ORGANIC critique of Levin's arguments based on fully substantiated facts to the contrary) you instead make all of this a matter of "Conservative Sour Milk".

CF, So back up, re-group, get a grip, come equipped.
You're the next contestant, Clap your hands. You won a trip!

Slow your roll man. I gave blame to the RIGHT and the LEFT to clarify a criticism you gave to Uptown. The current crisis that we have today is a combined effort of ineptitude or villainy from the administrations from Reagan to BushII, which includes some democratic influence. Hate it or love it, it is what it is.

Second, I am not critiquing that Mark Levin’s lunacy , because of people like you, who have selective reading skills. YOU want to believe that B/S, feel free, I have learned not to impose on anyone's willful ignorance while they bask in such foolishness as Levin’s article. I will not debate people who cannot or will not see outside of their ridicules and limted political ideology.

You wrote: "DJBA - I know how 'you all' think. (BQPFRCs). Thus I always attempt to stay one step ahead of you."

Excuse me? ""Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser"? That’s what’s wrong with people like you, you have to label everything to be able to fit one of your cookie cutter agruments because you can't form anything outside of your simple mentality.

I reject your deposit CF, I tried to give you benefit of the doubt, but it is painfully apparent you can't see the ocean for the water.

“I dwell amongst the mortals, my time is in the verse, positive nature, mortals call it curse…”

Harbinjer said...

Statism - The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy

Excerpt from Liberty and Tyranny:

“It is observed that the Statist is dissatisfied with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings, and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he believes he deserves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment and rejects the honest assessment by others of himself, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The Statist searches for significance and even glory in a utopian fiction of his mind’s own making, the earthly attainment of which, he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore, he must destroy the civil society, piece by piece.”
Levin mentions malcontents and the grievance mongering among the left, which is vast and destructive.

Levin lets us know he wakes up every morning and thanks God for a truly blessed nation. The liberal (black) wakes up and to new theories on how to deconstruct the founders vision based on perceived inequality, which only exist for our ancestors who are no longer with us. The indoctrinated generation such as uptown and DJ is nothing more than grievance politics based on someone’s else social and political outlook, mostly black liberation theology. The interview was incredible and the Book is explains much out Mr. Obama and his clownish goals for this country, which we aren’t going to le(f)t happen. I find truly disturbing when the left feels an honest analysis of this man’s Marxist policy is an nothing more than attack job, but we all know, Man would rather believe a Lie than the Truth.

ziggy said...

@Harbinjer I agree with you and Levin. I've long thought that the stance of the left is an emotional one rather than an intellectual position. The left is made up of people with some emotional wound that they are incapable of dealing with and that makes them very angry. They project that internal hurt on society by latching on to the grievance based ideology of their choice. That's why facts contradicting them don't work, it is too important for their emotional survival to believe the lie of the grievance based ideology. It is easier, and feels more empowering to be angry than sad.

It is a very disturbing situation indeed and I think we know where it's headed. Those on the left will be the ones persecuting and rejoicing in the killing of christians and other conservatives because they naturally see them as enemies, as those who stand in the way of their utopia.

Interesting thing, I once had a teacher whose life mirrors Pres. Obama's to a large degree and he is an angry, stone-cold socialist. Narcissistic, and insecure to a fault, compulsive liar. Those who are attracted to a socialist agenda are dangerous and emotionally unhealthy people and no one will convince me otherwise. We'll just have to watch and wait to see what else comes down the pike. Doesn't look good though.

Constructive Feedback said...

Conservative Black Woman:

You are legit!
You are now a kindred spirit in the cause.

I started recording Mark Levin's radio show a few months ago because i find him one of the most intelligent hosts on the radio, despite his seemingly caustic style.

The best concept put forth in the video is the notion that ECONOMIC REALITY will act as the FINAL VOTE against the attempts by the Progressives for a centralized economic power in Washington DC.

I have a video queued up in which the local public hospital system is planning to close several underutilized health care clinics due to the systems financial constrains.

I sat back and wondered why anyone would be fooled into believing that this same thing which is happening on the COUNTY level will magically stop happening once the federal government takes over our health care.

The truth is that which is fiscally non-viable when paid at the county level is going to be the same when the feds take over.

Thus the present sales job is only on the glories of tax payer paid health care in order to make health care as a RIGHT and thus ensnaring everyone within this system.

This speaks nothing about the ECONOMIC VIABILITY of this same system.

uptownsteve said...

CF sez,

"I know how 'you all' think. (BQPFRCs). Thus I always attempt to stay one step ahead of you."

ROTFLMBAO!!!!!!

It's more like you're faced with reality and facts and then embark on the rightwing SPIN and/or the black conservative buckdance.

uptownsteve said...

CF sez,

"I know how 'you all' think. (BQPFRCs). Thus I always attempt to stay one step ahead of you."

ROTFLMBAO!!!!!!

It's more like you're faced with reality and facts and then embark on the rightwing SPIN and/or the black conservative buckdance.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]It's more like you're faced with reality and facts and then embark on the rightwing SPIN and/or the black conservative buckdance.[/quote]

WhiteBowieSteve:

Indeed I was one step ahead of you when I pointed out that instead of you and other BQPFRCs buying into Jenean Gorafal's claim that the Tea Parties were RACISTS we should bear this out by noting the number of Black folks that were assaulted at the mass gathering of White Racists.

THERE WERE NONE.

Instead, WhiteBowieSteve I suggested that a Black person is at more risk for assault by a group of Domestic Pirates who always seem to show up when there are large gatherings of young Black people, most of whom are law abiding.

Then WHAT TOOK PLACE around the corner from you Steve right after the Tea Party?

A gang of Domestic Pirates stabbed 2 Black people at the Baltimore Inner Harbor. The 100% Democrat city of Baltimore has now positioned more police in order to stem the fears that innocent people won't be terrorized and thus stop coming to the harbor.

You are one unsavory individual as you are unable to deal with the facts but instead continue to construct Racist Scare Crows.

uptownsteve said...

"were RACISTS we should bear this out by noting the number of Black folks that were assaulted at the mass gathering of White Racists."

That's because there weren't any black folks at the Tea Parties idiot.

You won't many blacks assaulted at Klan rallies either.

Any guesses why?

uptownsteve said...

CF

You're a really sad person because you incessantly seek to equate criminallity with blackness to rationalize your incredible self-hatred and hatred of other blacks.

I feel sorry for you.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]
You're a really sad person because you incessantly seek to equate criminallity with blackness to rationalize your incredible self-hatred and hatred of other blacks.[/quote]

Steve - your "Racist Scare Crow" construction is as transparent as the negligee word by a porn star.

Let me detail your perversion Steve.

You would prefer to attack ME for notating how YOU FRAUDULENTLY seek to lump RACISM as the motivation for Conservatives who oppose your leftist policies.

HOWEVER, when I point out WHO IS ASSAULTING BLACK PEOPLE in the greatest portion in 2009 YOU provide cover for the Domestic Pirates, lumping them as a PROTECTED BLACK - as you cast Black Conservatives out of this protection DESPITE THE FACT that the Pirates have caused more terror among Blacks than those who you wish for us to fear because it helps your goal of "BLACK UNITY WITHOUT QUESTIONS".

Steve - I have no expectation that you will be honest in this domain. The very ESSENCE of your diatribe is to marginalize all who disagree with you as racists or uncle toms.

How do you think White liberal Jenean Gorafalo got her green light on how BLACK PEOPLE THINK and who is open for attack using ignorant, racially assumptive generalizations without retribution from Blacks.

uptownsteve said...

I thought Garafalo was talking about the tea party rednecks and their aversion to a black President.

Is that air you're breathing?

stopsocialism said...

Ive read Mark's book, he is so on the nails while Obama is so out to lunch.

JMK said...

"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a virtually unregulated free market for most of the last 8 years????" (UTS)
<
<
Hey! No surprise you ARE wrong!

G W Bush was a Keynesian President, he INCREASED government revenues by stagering amounts and used those increased revenues for MORE spending (Bush spent more on reckless and useless social spending, even adjusted for inflation, than LBJ did) and he INCREASED government's regulatory powers, first by pushing banks and brokers to "expand homeownership opportunities to more people by lowering down payment requirements (Bush signed onto the 0% Down on FHA mortgages in 2002) and directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee/BUY more of the new "subprime mortgages" - in 2000 Fannie and Freddie owned/backed nearly 24% of the mortgage market (too high a percentage even then), by 2008 they owned/backed nearly 51% of the U.S. mortgage market, nearly ALL of the new mortgages in the form of those subprime loans.

THAT was the biggest government intrusion into the mortgage market ever...and it brought on the housing bubble and the subsequent Credit Crisis.

Bush also signed onto one of the most expensive and far-reaching pieces of business regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) in 2001.

G W Bush expanded government's size and scope, just as Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover (two other GOP Keynesians did)...In the first three months of the Obama administration the DEFICIT has quadrupled....and it's stil rising!

Yes, Carter and Obama are somewhat MORE Keynesian than the likes of Nixon and the two Bush's, but not by all that much.

So yeah, you're completely and utterly wrong about there having been "an unrtegulated free market over the last eight years."In FACT, America hasn't had an unregulated market since 1912, when Bernard Baruch and J P Morgan cooperated to create the modern regulated market-based economy, which is now the default economy of the industriallized world across the globe.

Regulation INCREASED steadily from 1912 through 1952, leveled off throught the 1950s, increased heavilly in from about 1964 through 1980, then lightened SLIGHTLY from 1981 through 2002 and then began to increase and is now ratcheting up at a faster rate than at any time since the 1930s.

Again, always glad to help out with factual information.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"and he INCREASED government's regulatory powers, first by pushing banks and brokers to "expand homeownership opportunities to more people by lowering down payment requirements (Bush signed onto the 0% Down on FHA mortgages in 2002) and directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee/BUY more of the new "subprime mortgages" - in 2000 Fannie and Freddie owned/backed nearly 24% of the mortgage market (too high a percentage even then), by 2008 they owned/backed nearly 51% of the U.S. mortgage market, nearly ALL of the new mortgages in the form of those subprime loans."

Must we do this again. Look JMK, you know damn well they weren't trying to help people with that way they went about things. LOANING MONEY TO POOR PEOPLE IS VERY EASY if you verify ACTUAL INCOME.

So stop trying to forward the fraud that banks were forced to keep up with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac based on federally regulated programs to loan money to people with little or no down payments.

HOW THE BANKS DID THOSE LOANS was their own choice, predicate on the highest income they could make regardless of ignoring the basic common sense way to do those loans.

JMK said...

Verification of income was NOT the primary cause of the Credit Crisis, the “counterfeiting of credit” or Credit-socialism was.

There is a traditional and very accurate formula for credit-worthiness, a person’s annual income minus there already existing obligations (ie. consumer debt) provides that formula.

At a maximum, a person without any other consumer debt can generally handle a mortgage of 2½X their annual income.

Yes, that formula does often tend to make it very difficult for lower income people to accrue enough credit to buy a home.

A couple earning a combined $80,000/year can get a maximum mortgage of about $200,000 IF they have minimal outstanding credit. That number goes down with substantial car notes and/or credit card debt.

Since more lower income people have a larger consumer debt to income ratio, it’s traditionally been difficult to lend to lower income people in higher numbers.

Some studies suggest that some ethnic groups also tend to have higher consumer debt to income ratios, for instance, numerous studies have suggested that blacks tend to have an average consumer debt to income ratio that is higher than that of many other groups.

To me, that is immaterial, because credit is given out on an individual basis, there’s no reason to look at group differences in either lending criteria or lending outcomes when assessing the “fairness” of traditional lending standards.

Credit is a form of wealth and the traditional lending criteria amplify why Freedom/LIBERTY and INDIVIDUALISM ALWAYS stand AGAINST equality. The more free the economy, the more free and individualistic the people, the greater the disparities in wealth and the larger the inequities between individuals. That’s why lending criteria, tend to favor those “who don’t even need a loan” and it’s part of the reason why Liberty/individualism WORKS and collectivism of any kind never does.

Banks and brokers ALWAYS adhere to those traditional lending criteria when dealing with their own and their shareholder’s money, just as consumer outlets ALWAYS strictly adhere to the dictum of charging more than the purchase cost when selling an item, largely because those lending criteria are not only established by banks but are backed by law (government), which regulates interest rates and fees for loans, etc.

So what changed this dynamic?

ONLY one thing – government intervention.

The Bush administration pushed for one of its early stated goals of “expanding homeownership” and along with a complicit Congress they passed the 0% down FHA home mortgage standard (a disaster) and pressed banks and brokers to find ways to expand their lending base.

Since banks and other private equity firms were unable to make more high-risk loans without risking default, Congress directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up/”guarantee” a larger share of the mortgage market.

In 2000 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned (backed) 24% of the U.S., which was already too high a number. By 2008 they owned (backed) just under 51% of the mortgage market and almost all of that increase was in the form of these new high risk, “subprime” loans.

THAT is what allowed and encouraged bankers and brokers to write that mountain of “bad” or high-risk loans (“counterfeiting credit”) and that led to AIG creating the Credit Default Swap to, in effect, insure that bad debt, which is why AIG wound up one of the first casualties of the Credit Crisis.

Government intervention in the form of allowing and encouraging both new lending criteria and new fee structures for loans AND having their GSEs buy/guarantee more of these new high-risk loans is what legitimized a period of widespread credit counterfeiting or credit socialism...and that move away from traditional lending criteria, generated by government intervention, is what caused the Credit Crisis.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"Some studies suggest that some ethnic groups also tend to have higher consumer debt to income ratios, for instance, numerous studies have suggested that blacks tend to have an average consumer debt to income ratio that is higher than that of many other groups."

And you all of course accuse me and Uptown make RACE an issue. Race is not the predicate here, income or lack of it is, which is predicate.

And againg, debt to income ratios are not a problem if there is AFFORDABLE housing tin the first place.

Verification of income was NOT the primary cause of the Credit Crisis, the “counterfeiting of credit” or Credit-socialism was.

See, here we go. You tell the "buyer to beware" BUT at the same time you want to give the financial services industry a pass because they DIDN'T verify income and some people made up income? Yep, these MBA having bankers and all their corporate attorneys were outsmarted by people who were "counterfeiting credit". Simply amazing how you will never let corporations take responsibility for the stupid things they do or did.

Like here: "and that move away from traditional lending criteria, generated by government intervention, is what caused the Credit Crisis."

No, spreading risk in unregulated credit default swaps predicated on the DEBT in question making up these and other marketable securities is what caused the Credit Crisis.

Like I said, you conservatives like blaming the little guy and have some sort of mental block for giving any responsibility to the businesses that should have had high powered graduate degree possessing professionals who should have known better.

JMK said...

"And you all of course accuse me and Uptown make RACE an issue. Race is not the predicate here, income or lack of it is, which is predicate." (DJBA)
<
<
Actually RACE WAS the primary issue of that policy. Both G W Bush and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton, sought to "close the minority homeownership gap."

THAT was the stated goal behind the policy of creating the 0% DOWN FHA mortgage and Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's buying/guaranteeing mortgages they previously wouldn't touch (subprimes).
<
<
<
<
See, here we go. You tell the "buyer to beware" BUT at the same time you want to give the financial services industry a pass because they DIDN'T verify income and some people made up income? (DJBA)
<
<
No, you’ve got that backwards, or upside down. I don’t really have the consumer/borrower in my equation at all.

The ONLY reason that banks and brokerages doled out those high-risk, subprime mortgages in the first place was government’s changing the traditional lending parameters and then having the GSEs (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) BUY/guarantee them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac DO NOT give mortgages. They BUY mortgages given out by private sector banks and brokerages and package those into CMOs (collateralized mortgage obligations).

The FHA has a mortgage program, but it’s always been a very small part of the overall mortgage market.

When government loosened lending criteria and then had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac BUY/guarantee much of that high-risk debt (which is what they did in raising their share of the overall U.S. mortgage market from 24% to just under 51% between 2000 and 2008) that created the environment in which the counterfeiting of credit could happen.

Government merely legitimized the counterfeiting of credit, the banks and brokerages then engaged in it and got rich off it.

While both where culpable, the primary fault, the initiating trigger was government action.
<
<
<
<
Yep, these MBA having bankers and all their corporate attorneys were outsmarted by people who were "counterfeiting credit". Simply amazing how you will never let corporations take responsibility for the stupid things they do or did.” (DJBA)
<
<
Again, you don’t understand the situation.

The banks and brokers were the ones who were counterfeiting credit.

The government merely changed policies and those changes had the “unintended consequence” of legitimizing or at least making possible, the counterfeiting of credit.

Government is responsible for ALL the consequences of its actions, intended or not.

The 0% DOWN FHA mortgage and having Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac BUY/GUARANTEE a huge share of this new subprime/high-risk debt was the policy that triggered the counterfeiting of credit, which in turn generated the credit crisis.
<
<
<
<
“...spreading risk in unregulated credit default swaps predicated on the DEBT in question making up these and other marketable securities is what caused the Credit Crisis.” (DJBA)
<
<
Absolutely correct...and that was CAUSED entirely by a change in GOVERNMENT policies.

Banks and brokerages would NOT have engaged in such reckless ventures UNLESS government (1) changed the legal lending criteria, which it did, (2) change the requirements for lending, which it did, with the 0% DOWN FHA loan and MOST VITALLY (3) directed the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to BUY/GUARANTEE more of this high risk debt, thus their increase FROM 24% of the overall mortgage market in 2000, TO just under 51% in 2008 (a staggering amount of bad debt).

In effect, once the GSEs were doing that, the banks and brokerages weren’t betting (putting at risk) their own money, they were betting with the taxpayer’s money.
So, why not take advantage of the situation?

If you suddenly make it your policy to give out your wallet to strangers in the hopes they’ll improve their current condition and then repay you, so you can help others, and I get a hold of it and run off to Vegas and bet your money and lose big, I may have taken advantage of the situation, but it’s the unintended consequences of your own naïve and reckless personal policy that caused and triggered that catastrophe.

In government’s case, it’s even worse.

Government is responsible for the sanctity of the taxpayer’s monies. Besides the fact that trying to help more poor people get more credit than they’re assets warrant is NOT a rational nor even “fair” policy, it’s reckless, irresponsible and is virtually designed for disaster. That is called malfeasance and that’s what the entire federal government was guilty of between 2000 and 2008.
<
<
<
<
“Like I said, you conservatives like blaming the little guy and have some sort of mental block for giving any responsibility to the businesses that should have had high powered graduate degree possessing professionals who should have known better.” (DJBA)
<
<
Actually, I AM blaming the BIGGEST GUY (government) because it was their reckless and irresponsible policies that created the environment in which credit counterfeiting WOULD inevitably be generated.

Government controls all the lending in this country by virtue of it controlling all the laws surrounding lending (fee structures, lending criteria, etc.).

Government policies irresponsibly changed those criteria, encouraged the private sector to “expand mortgage opportunities” and ultimately BOUGHT/GUARANTEED and repackaged much of that bad debt in the form of CMOs.

The bankers merely took to these “brave new world of unfettered lending” and took advantage of the situation until house prices were bid so far up that few new buyers were able to afford to enter the market, leading to an excess of housing inventory and the popping of the “housing bubble” – plummeting house prices put many buyers “under water” and had millions defaulting on ARMs and subprime “interest only” mortgages that were rising, when they could barely pay the “interest only” or low teaser rates.

The issue here isn’t Left or Right. It’s that YOU (you individually) don’t understand why or how the credit crisis came about.

You think the private sector “ran amok.”

The FACT is the private sector DID run amok, ONLY AFTER the government changed long-standing policies to create exactly the kind of environment that did occur – easy credit and cheap money.

The fact that both government and some bankers hoped that the feeding frenzy would be self-perpetuating, does NOT absolve the government of the fault/blame for the unintended consequences of its irresponsible actions.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

Aside from that "minority home ownsership" issue (again, that has more to do with poverty than race) I thank you for calrfiying your statements.

It appears that we agree more than less.

JMK said...

“Aside from that "minority home ownership" issue (again, that has more to do with poverty than race) I thank you for clarifying your statements.”“It appears that we agree more than less.” (DJBA)
<
<
I’m glad the clarification helped. I appreciate your taking the time to read them through and come to that agreement.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether or not one feels the stated goal of “closing the minority homeownership gap” was a serious one or not, or even a good idea or not.

To me, I don’t doubt that BOTH G W Bush and Bill Clinton were sincere in that goal and I’d even begrudgingly admit that “it might at least appear like a noble goal.”

It is certainly NOT something I’d consider a “good idea” because I don’t understand all the reasons behind that gap. I’m certain that most, if not all of it is probably due to blacks having come to the middle calls a little later than other groups and thus lag behind...AT THIS POINT.

In my view government has NO ROLL to play in either speeding up or slowing down that transition. It would and will happen on its own accord.

Personally, I’ve always been confounded by people who “care deeply about other people’s problems.” To me, such a gap may be an “interesting observation”, but since I’m not black and it doesn’t impact me, I really couldn’t care less that it exists, much less why, any more than UTS here cares much at all about the far more pervasive and deeper problems of rural poverty. Suffice to say, I DO NOT believe that ANY of it was ever due to “discrimination in lending” or discrimination of any kind, either against blacks or rural whites.

It’s the same with Bill Shockley. The wealthy inventor of the transistor and acknowledged “father of the Information Age”, who late in his life, went on a lecture tour promoting his views that many public policies (ie. WIC, etc) were having an increasingly dysgenic effect on the black community and would ultimately have one on a larger and larger portion of the white community, as well.

Shockley’s observations were interesting, as were Patrick Moynihan’s at the time – that programs that forced men out of the home when public assistance was given to women, infants and children were dysgenic in their overall effect, by creating more fatherless homes AND WORSE, unwittingly incentivized breeding among the least capable and most dependent, while de-incentivizing breeding among the more affluent who are taxed at higher rates to pay for that.

Ironically enough, Shockley’s real observations were overlooked and he was assailed for holding to Arthur Jansen’s views about race and IQ, which he did not ever address.

I remember Shockley being harangued at the time and wondered why he even bothered to point out a problem that didn’t directly effect him. He was certainly right about the dysgenic impact of many otherwise well-intentioned social programs, but the forces aligned against him – a huge social services bureaucracy and the behemoth federal government – made his plight pretty much hopeless.

Same with Arthur Jansen, who wrote the now famous or infamous Bias in Mental Testing, which, ironically enough, found NO BIAS in conventional standardized tests, but a significant IQ disparity between the various ethnic and racial groups, AFTER having come into the study with the exact opposite preconception.

BOTH Jansen and Shockley sought to address what they saw as very real problems that could be addressed and rectified through technologies and things like early educational intervention...again, I’ve always wondered WHY BOTHER?

In my view, in a free society, people are judged INDIVIDUALLY, so group differences, whether real or not, are immaterial, at least so long as we don’t go around counting by race/ethnicity – why are there so few Italian lawyers, or Irish doctors, etc.

When the focus is INDIVIDUAL, the group matters not at all.

Same with the Bush administration’s housing goals, which were, largely in accordance with the late Jack Kemp’s “Ownership Society” views (although Kemp NEVER supported any changing of lending parameters).

I’ll accept that those goals were sincere and those policies were well intentioned, BUT the government is ultimately responsible for all the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of those policies. Government changed the lending parameters. Government signaled that with the signing onto the 0% DOWN FHA mortgage and MOST OF ALL government aided and abetted the counterfeiting of credit by directing the GSEs to BUY/guarantee so much of this new high-risk, subprime debt.

Those policy changes enabled the private sector to virtually print money or “create wealth out of thin air” (as Ron Paul called it) by abandoning traditional lending practices and, in effect, counterfeiting credit.

The really sad, even frightening thing is that many of the people behind that disaster (Tim Geithner was a protégé of Robert Rubin’s of Citi Group) are in charge of “fixing” the problem they helped create!

To date, many of the lending policies that were changed over the last decade have not been restored to their default positions by law...that is, the laws haven’t been changed back!

We could still have another Credit Crisis redux.

The problem is that so few people seem to even care, let alone understand how and why the credit crisis happened in the first place.

stopsocialism said...

Well if it is I guess we can marry a tree or a horse. I'm sick and tired of the radical gay community trying to shove their BA out way. Just shut up, leave children alone a screw yourselves into extinction. The vast majority of Gays are not represented by these morons. You have the right under the 14th amendment to civil unions.