More on Freddie and Fannie

The outrageous scam perpetrated by the GSEs has predictably become a blame game, finger pointing typical Washington big government indictment.  Unsurprisingly Nan Pelosi has her footprints all over the history rewrite that has been going on in an attempt to deflect responsibility from the political class to the Wall Street bankers.  This article in the WSJ catches this unscrupulous politician in the act:

The SEC's case should embarrass Congress's Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which spent 18 months looking at the evidence and issued a report in January 2011 that whitewashed Fan and Fred's role. Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the commission to prosecute the Beltway theory of the crisis that private bankers caused it all, and Chairman Phil Angelides delivered what she wanted.

Wall Street's runaway greed which resulted in balance sheet leverage of up to 50 to one surely deserves some of the blame for the debacle, however the major fault lies with the politicians (Carter Administration) who created the CRA back in the '70's. and those who hyped it later on (Clinton Administration with a little contribution by Bush Administration) and the nefarious managers at the GSEs who hid and multiplied the risks to the point the program was bound to fail.  Hopefully as this article suggests this case will go to trial which would give everyone the opportunity to focus on the real culprits.  At the very least his example of political intervention in the economy should become a central issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.  However since the Republicans' hands are at least soiled, chances are this important issue will not be raised.  Meanwhile the depression will continue until all the toxic paper clogging up the credit machine is finally written off.  The Austrian economics school economists predicted all of this but of course have never been listened to for fear their philosophy would end the drunken party.  Jim Whelpley also saw this coming but, unfortunately or fortunately, did not live to see the chaos it caused.

Required reading for sane Obama voters

For all those friends who for some inexplicable reasons voted for The One,  this should be required reading.  When from the vantage point of 10 or 15 or 50 years the history of the Obama administration is written (by an objective historian/reporter, of course) there will be general disbelief that it could have happened in this country.  There will also be general disgust by those who allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a fraud without a documented past,  whose supporters and connections were all anti America, anti Capitalism, anti Constitution, interested only in changing our traditions and way of life.  It will be seen as the darkest period in our history since the Civil War.

Protestantism's weak link

For many years now mainstream Protestant sects, e.g., Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, et al, have been losing communicants while Evangelical sects have been growing. There are no doubt many and complicated reasons for this development;  however,  at least one obvious explanation lies in thinking of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who as the head of the Church of England putatively speaks as the religious voice of the state of England and its worldwide offshoot, the Episcopal Church.  Williams embodies the secular and politically correct "social justice" philosophy reflected in the leftist politics of Barak Obama and his minions.  Briefly this philosophy is anti the values embodied in the American Constitutional, anti the concept of American exceptionalism,  anti-Western values in general, specifically Capitalism's embrace of the importance of self interest, private property rights, competition, and all the rest that goes with an economic system that has raised millions of people out of poverty over the last two hundred years.  Communitarians like Williams and Obama want  an economic system that produces equal outcomes and a society in which all group political and religious rights and values are accepted and respected equally.  The only real difference between the Obama-Williams and communist philosophies is the acceptance of a role by religion by the former.  Of course those religions must embrace the relativism and social justice values inherent in communism to be acceptable. Clearly the protestantism of shared values with Capitalism, to wit: the importance and significance of the individual person and the attendant values of  hard work, self discipline, competitive spirit, individual good works, and the like, has given way in the Obama-Williams world to a group rights, non competitive cooperative feel good, equality above all else, Protestantism.  Roger Kimball provides some interesting insights into the thinking of Rowan Williams here.

Newt's not the guy

that The "insider" complaint about Gingrich as the nominee for the Republican Party is his undoing.  Since his ignominious removal as Speaker of the House in 1999, Gingrich has enriched himself as a consultant for various corporations and GSEs including Freddie Mac.  His defense of his activities is that he never lobbied any government agency on behalf of his clients.  This is, at best, a highly dubious claim.  Can anyone with a straight face suggest that one with Gingrich's background and history would be hired for any other purpose than to influence some government entity on behalf of his client?  And influence peddling is the operative definition of lobbying, no matter any of the so-called nuanced explanations being floated in Gingrich's defense.   Since the Tea Party, big government, and anti Obama sentiment prevalent today are all predicated on distrust and disgust with Washington and cronyism, it's hard to see how Gingrich can avoid this backlash.  Romney will likely win the nomination as the last guy standing and because he has the least amount of big government/Washington taint.  This outcome is probably for the best for conservatives and Republicans since of the two leading  candidates Romney is the steadier, more rational and has more appeal among swing voters.  Buckley's dictum of choosing the most conservative candidate who can be elected, is just about right in this case.

Forbes on the warpath

There is do doubt that the Republican "establishment" is anti Gingrich.  To the extent Forbes Magazine represents the Republican establishment, this article is highly pro Romney and anti Gingrich, with a great deal of justification in the view of this blogger.  There is no disagreement anywhere that Gingrich is THE consummate Washington insider.  His entire career, until he was thrown out by his own party in 1999 on ethical grounds, has been spent in Washington where he attained the status of Speaker of the House, perhaps the second most powerful job in the federal government.  Gingrich is bright, and his is a lifelong conservative.  He has wobbled on some favorite conservative positions in healthcare and social issue involving abortions, however his core beliefs are substantially conservative.  Where many in the Republican camp part company with him is on matters of character (three wives, history of philandering, revolving door history, etc) while in and out of public life.  He's simply too erratic and personally suspect for true blue conservatives.  Forbes attacks him on his lack of meaningful private sector business experience, and on his exclusively insider political experience.  This critique is surely merited and will be hard for him to overcome.

Differences between left and right

Steven Hayward has begun a series that explains the seemingly irreconcilable differences between conservatives and liberals.  This post is the first of three on this truly interesting series.  Most of what he says in the second installment  here we intuitively understand.  Nevertheless it is still instructive to see these differences on paper to be able to focus and reflect on them a bit.  Because conservatives understand the value of learning from the past, and liberals are willing to expunge the past from consideration in their search for a the perfect world order, it's clear the views are indeed irreconcilable which is why there is such an intractable divide between the democrats and republicans these days. It remains a mystery how these two philosophies can exist within the same family unit, a not uncommon occurrence.

Finally, Here is the third and here fourth installment of Hayward's PL posts on the differences between the left and the right.

The PC Administration

Clifford May is an expert on the Middle East and Islam.  His views on these two subjects are measured, thoughtful and always worth hearing.  In this article he comments on the current administrations's policies vis-a-vis terrorists, and the Islamic faith.  Their attitude is about what one would expect considering the cast of characters involved at all levels ob the bureaucracy.  May comments specifically on the policy calling for expunging all reference to Islam from any documents regarding terrorist activities, specifically to avoid any connection between Islam and the activities of terrorist, all of whom practice a version of Islam.  Try as they may this administration cannot disassociate the Islamic religion from activities of terrorists especially so because there is estimate of many experts that as many as 10% of Muslims back the activities of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  !0 per cent of a worldwide 1.2 billion Muslims is 120 million followers of the faith who condone killing unbelievers, namely us in the West.  Those who practice political correctness in this matter contributed directly to the murder of 20 innocent US Army personnel in the massacre by the Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan at a military base in Georgia several years ago.  Elections have consequences
.