Dealing with the Devil

Eleven days ago, the only country on earth who formally recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan agreed to surrender part of its own territory to that despicable group to save its own skin. In response to a wave of violence perpetrated by those black-turbaned thugs, Pakistan has agreed to withdraw its military forces from the Swat River Valley and permit the imposition of Islamic sharia law in exchange for a cease-fire and the promise of relative stability.

From Pakistan's perspective, it looks like a good deal. They're a Muslim country clearly sympathetic to the Taliban and the propagation of fundamentalist Islam, and their military and intelligence services have supported the Taliban materially in the past. The violence stops (at least directly against the government) and the immediate threat against the capital - Islamabad lies only 100 miles to the southeast - is averted.

From the Taliban's perspective, it looks like a better deal. They have intimidated a sovereign government into retreating. They can exercise their brand of medieval cruelty with the freedom they deny others, they can finish the job of ejecting Western tourists from the picturesque valley, they can intensify their attacks against US supply convoys and transform the area into a base from which they can launch attacks against Allied forces in Afghanistan proper.

From the perspective of the ordinary people of the Swat Valley just trying to survive, this agreement represents a nightmare of a deal. Their government has abandoned them to the savagery of the Middle Ages; they have no recourse, no appeal. During the terror offensive cited above, the Taliban kidnapped, tortured and beheaded hundreds of people, attacked and overran military and police installations and directed their greatest fury at education: They blew up 191 schools including 122 just for girls, leaving 62,000 students with nowhere to go. With the Taliban now officially in charge, life for these poor creatures has devolved from miserable to hellish.

From the perspective of the United States, of course, this agreement represents a strategic setback. The situation in Afghanistan has become so serious that even a socialist one-worlder like Barack Obama recognized the need for 17,000 additional troops. However, Highway 55, the major line of communication running from the Karachi seaport through the Khyber Pass and thence to Afghanistan, passes south of the Swat Valley and has been attacked ferociously and often as the Taliban attempt to disrupt Allied operations. With the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the region and the impending closure of the airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan (under heavy pressure from the Russians), deploying those additional troops and supplying them will be extremely difficult. Moreover, it demonstrates the basic schizophrenic nature of our erstwhile Pakistani allies. On the one hand, they granted us access to their country after 9/11 and have at least attempted to throttle Muslim extremists, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and success. On the other hand, they allowed Osama bin Laden and his retreating Al Qaeda units to escape through Tora Bora in December 2001, they essentially gave them safe haven in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas by not pressing them too closely and have now ceded control of part of the Northwest Frontier Province to those same savages.

For the Pakistani government to be unable or unwilling to exercise dominance over an area only two hours' drive from Islamabad illustrates how flimsy their resolve actually is, and validates the policy of unannounced Predator airstrikes of the past several months. However, the major point of this agreement is that, if Pakistan thinks that the violence can be stopped or at least contained within the valley of the Swat, if they think the Taliban will be satisfied, they are wrong...dead wrong.

History shows us that negotiating with aggressors buys more aggression. The North resorted to half-measures for 84 years, ensuring a catastrophic Civil War with the South. By betraying Czechoslavakia to Hitler in 1938, the Allies guaranteed World War II in 1939. Ceding control of Eastern Europe to the Soviets at Yalta guaranteed 45 years of confrontation, misery, death and horror during the Cold War. By not finishing off Saddam Hussein when we had the chance in 1991, the US guaranteed his continued brutality and the eventual return of American forces to Iraq. By capitulating to the demands of the Al Qaeda terrorists who bombed the Madrid railway system in 2004, by withdrawing their military from Iraq, the Spanish only guaranteed they would be attacked again. And by the Pakistanis sacrificing the Swat Valley to the Taliban now, they only guarantee a greater and deadlier crisis with the Taliban in the future. As Winston Churchill correctly observed, "An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile - hoping the crocodile will eat him last."

Conversation Between Barack Obama and the Little Red Hen

NOTE: This conversation is fictional. President Obama has not yet demonstrated the ability to talk to animals.

THE OVAL OFFICE, THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESENT DAY

His Serene Loftiness: Good morning, Ms. Hen. I trust you slept well, that your accomodations were satisfactory?

LRH: Thank you and good morning to you, too, Mr. President, but I'm glad you asked. Maybe I'm being presumptuous but I thought your guests usually stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom or maybe Blair House. Spending the night in a barnyard in Loudoun County was disappointing in the very least.

His Serene Loftiness: I can see your point and I can sympathize, but Rahm thought you'd be more comfortable in a familiar setting. The pomp and protocol of the White House can be a little overwhelming, as I'm sure you understand.

LRH: If you'd have let me judge for myself, I'm sure that I would indeed understand, such as if you'd lent me the use of your limousine for the ride in this morning instead of the back of a poultry truck, but I think we're getting off-track.

His Serene Loftiness: Indeed we are. Let's proceed to the substance of our meeting, shall we?

LRH: By all means.

His Serene Loftiness: Very well. Now, Ms. Hen, you know from my background that I have nothing but the greatest respect for single mothers and the challenges you handle every day but we're facing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and we all have to move out of our comfort zones if we're going to pull out of this, agreed?

LRH: So far, so good, Mr. President.

His Serene Loftiness: Great, great. Well, here's the thing, Ms. Hen: I'm very concerned about this situation involving the wheat and the bread and the way you handled it. From the reports I've received, it sounds like you behaved in a very selfish, profit-seeking, elitist manner toward Mr. Dog, Mr. Cat and Mr. Duck and we have to change that if we're going to move this country forward.

LRH: You're kidding. That's why you asked me to come here, because those lazy good-for-nothings ratted me out? Because I didn't share my hard-earned bread with three goldbricks? I can't believe this!

His Serene Loftiness: Ms. Hen, I'm going to have to ask you to control yourself while you're in the White House. Characterizing your neighbors in such an insulting manner doesn't move the process forward and you can't possibly know everything about their situation, how they got to where they are. Judging them so harshly doesn't help.

LRH: But didn't your Attorney General just call us a "nation of cowards"? How is that not being judgmental? Sounds hypocritical for you to accuse me of something Eric Holder just did.

His Serene Loftiness (glaring): Ms. Hen, Eric Holder is a friend of mine, he is a brilliant, accomplished legal mind and this administration is extremely lucky to have him serving in such an important post. On judicial matters, he speaks for me and I'll remind you that I won the election last November, not Senator McCain, I get to set this country's agenda and I get to say who's judgmental and who's not! Now as I was saying, your behavior toward Dog, Cat and Duck is disturbing in that you refused to help them when you had the chance, and as the American people have given me a mandate to change the culture of greed and corruption that has pervaded our country for decades, I wanted to persuade you to change your attitude so we can all move this great nation forward into the future. Will you get on board? Can I count on your support?

LRH: Mr. President, I want to make sure that we both understand exactly what happened before we "move forward," as you put it. And another thing: I may live with a bunch of cackling hens but that doesn't mean that you have the right to disrespect me. I won't have it.

I was scratching for food in a wheat field some time ago - I am, after all, a chicken - when I found some grains of wheat and thought, "Wouldn't it be nice if I had some bread for a change?" It may strike you as odd that I have any preferences about my diet or that I even know what bread is, but that's all beside the point. The point is that at each step in the process - planting, harvesting, milling and baking - I asked Dog, Cat and Duck if they would help me and they all refused, leaving me to do all the work. So when the bread was ready to eat, I thought it was only fair that I keep it for myself and my chicks. After all, I have to think about them, don't I? At any rate, that's what happened and I dare anyone to gainsay any of what I've said.

His Serene Loftiness: Not at all, madam, not at all; in fact, the reports I mentioned earlier dovetail exactly with the account you just related, leading me to this conclusion: That you are indeed the sort of stingy, profiteering, me-first sort of individual that my administration has dedicated itself to reform. You could've helped three of your neighbors who were reaching out to you and deliberately ignored their desperate cries, displaying a shocking lack of sensitivity and compassion in these difficult times. It is therefore my order that your bakery operation be immediately placed under the supervision of the Federal government as part of my overall stimulus plan for the economy, to wit: Every loaf of bread you bake from this point onward be shared equally between yourself and Messrs. Dog, Cat and Duck to ensure that nobody goes hungry, to spread some of that wealth around as the saying goes, to ensure that nobody gets left behind. That is my order, Ms. Hen, and I hope you understand that it is only issued in the best interest of the country.

LRH: I'm trying to understand what just happened. Are you saying that because I refused to subsidize my deadbeat neighbors just one time, that I have to bake for them indefinitely? What kind of stimulus is that? They get fed whether they work or not while I get to slave for them? What sort of incentive is that for me to keep working, when 75% of what I produce goes to feed three sluggards? I doubt you've thought your plan through, Mr. President, because that's its Achilles heel. You call me into your office to criticize and berate me for refusing to share what I earned with others who refused to lend a hand, and order me to essentially work for them rather than myself. But what would happen if I changed my mind and became as they are, a lazy, demanding, selfish lounger? What if I complained loudly that I was hungry and nobody was working hard in the hot sun to feed me? What if everyone changed their minds, Mr. President? What if all the hard-working, diligent, responsible people of America decided not to be suckers and play your stupid game? Who would support the deadbeats then? How could your stimulus plan overcome that?

His Serene Loftiness: Uhh...I have to admit I didn't see that one coming. That could be a problem.

The Dog Who Doesn't Bark

In the short story Silver Blaze, literature's most famous detective investigates the disappearance of a prize racehorse and an apparent murder in the Dartmoor region of Devonshire in southwest England. During this investigation, Sherlock Holmes learns that the animal was led out of his stall in the middle of the night and that the stable hand charged with guarding the thoroughbred had been drugged senseless. Nonetheless, there was a dog nearby that should have raised an alarm if any suspicious characters were lurking around, whether the stable boy was conscious or not. Had the dog also been drugged or otherwise silenced? This question led to one of fiction's greatest exchanges:





Inspector Gregory of Scotland Yard: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"



Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."



Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."



Holmes: "That was the curious incident."





The dog didn't bark because he recognized the man leading Silver Blaze out of the stable as John Straker, the horse's trainer. Mr. Straker was a bigamist whose second wife had very expensive tastes, and he intended to injure the animal so as to fix a major race for gamblers. He drugged the stable hand so he could lead the animal out into the dark unobserved, but unfortunately for him, the horse panicked and killed him accidentally, solving the suspected murder.





His Serene Loftiness has repeatedly and forcefully urged Congress and the American people to support the now-$789 billion spending bill presented for his signature. He has stated clearly that the economic crisis now upon us is the worst since the Great Depression and that the only remedy is massive government intervention paralleled on President Roosevelt's New Deal. The upheaval in the banking industry, predicated on the upheaval in the housing market, seems to validate the President's claim and unemployment stands at 7.6%, double the figure from April 2000 and the worst level since September 1992. But inflation barely registers at 0.09% (as of December 2008) and the Federal Reserve's prime lending rate stands at a miniscule 0.25%. Are these really the worst economic conditions we've faced in seventy-five years?





When Ronald Reagan assumed the Presidency in January 1981, the country was enduring a "double-dip" recession; that is, we had recovered from the recession that began in 1978 under President Carter and plunged into another. Unemployment stood at 7.5% and would peak at 10.8% in December 1982. Inflation, which had jumped as high as 14% under President Carter, was a still-dangerous 9.2%. The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to throttle said inflation, had increased the prime lending rate to an astonishing 21%, making credit extremely expensive even when it could be had. President Reagan's answer to this triple threat to the economy was to cut taxes, first in 1982 and again in 1986. By the time he left office in January 1989, the prime lending rate had settled to 10.5 % as inflation had been cut to an annual rate of 5.4%, and unemployment had also dropped to 5.4% as nearly twenty million jobs had been created. The effects of President Reagan's tax cuts and the Federal Reserve's tight control of money markets was to allow wage earners to keep more of their own money, that money held more of its value, jobs were created and prosperity returned across the board - the percentage of husbands of poor families working low-income jobs dropped 13.7% between 1979 and 1990.





Like the dog that didn't bark, the choicest clue is often the one we don't hear. It seems evident from the historical record that President Obama is simply lying when he omits this period of economic difficulty and recovery when he appeals for his "stimulus package." Why would he do so? Because to mention it would undercut the urgency, the absolute necessity of such colossal spending, as well as the purpose. If we have overcome worse economic troubles than what we currently face with different methods, and those methods succeeded wonderfully, it would seem logical to use those methods again, except that Mr. Obama is philosophically opposed to them. Cutting taxes is not what he's about, not what his liberal allies are about, and he will ignore the lessons of our own recent history and imperil us all rather than admit that a conservative principle is correct.

Similarly, while Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi and all the other usual suspects rail against the unbridled greed and arrogance and corruption on Wall Street, and grandstand on TV, raking corporate CEO's across the coals in Congressional hearings, you hear not a word about investigating Congress' role in launching the housing market crash. As discussed in earlier postings here, liberal Democrats decided to ingratiate themselves to their constituents in the 1990's by changing the laws to help bad credit risks obtain home mortgages, bullying HUD and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and everyone else with a dollar to lend to lend it to their cronies. As late as 14 July 2008, Rep. Frank stated, "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

Of course, the Federal government seized control of both lending giants less than three months later after they lost about 80% of their value in nine months, costing taxpayers about $11 billion and sending shockwaves throughout the financial markets. But will someone, anyone, vigorously pursue Mr. Frank's responsibility for causing the financial panic, and the responsibility of his social engineering friends on the Hill? No. No, we will not. Doing so would bring the guilt and shame of this mess to their doorstep, so we will not see it. So as President Obama glories in this first legislative victory, pay attention, as Baker Street's most illustrious resident did, to what is not said, to what is not heard, to the dog who doesn't bark.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-set-bail-out-fannie/story.aspx?guid=%7B46D1439E-A2C4-418C-9BE0-09BE0B9EE60D%7D&dist=msr_7


Source: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm





Source: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ratewatch/leading-rates.asp





Source: http://www.bls.gov/CPS/





Source: The Real Reagan Record, National Review, August 31, 1992

For God's Sake, DO NOTHING!

On 13 December 1799, George Washington spent the day laying out some improvements to the front of his mansion at Mount Vernon, Virginia. The hardiest in an an era of hardy men, he worked diligently outdoors all day in the cold and freezing rain, not stopping until the work was completed and he was satisfied. After coming inside to change clothes, however, he complained of nausea, chills and a sore throat to his adopted grandson George Custis and cut dinner short that evening, managing only a cup of tea before retiring to his library for a few hours. He spent an agonizing and sleepless night wracked by fever and acute laryngitis before allowing his family to summon his family doctors the following morning, who spared no effort in treating him. All their accumulated knowledge and skill were bent to the task of saving America's greatest hero but nothing worked, and late on the evening of 14 December, George Washington passed into history.

Further examination of General Washington's symptoms indicated that he likely suffered from pneumonia, a severe throat infection and probably dehydration as he fought multiple problems at once without being able to eat or drink and was in serious trouble even if no other complications had arisen, but examination of his doctors' methods revealed that they likely accelerated his demise, albeit through ignorance. Men well-educated by 18th century standards prescribed mercury chloride to induce vomiting in a man whose throat was constricted, and repeatedly a bled a man whose blood was his only means of fighting the symptoms that plagued him. In short, they made a perilous situation fatal.

The point is that sometimes the remedy can be worse than the disease. Three intelligent, dedicated, professional and well-meaning doctors, employing commonly accepted medical techniques with the full approval and urging of the patient's family, probably killed the Father of our Country. Now, His Serene Loftiness feels compelled to administer a $789 billion injection to the United States economy, driven by philosophy and the urgings of a Democrat Party reeling with power. His constituents, the millions of Americans who feel cheated by free enterprise, scream for action. He has won an historic election and in his mind, an historic mandate. He cannot stand by and do nothing, he must intervene powerfully and decisively, he must be a dynamic, even epic figure. Doing nothing to harm the patient - the first rule of Hippocrates' credo - is forgotten in the mad scramble. Disregard the failures of the New Deal, disregard the gigantic increase in government spending during the Bush administration (if government spending were beneficial to an economy in crisis, why does Obama criticize his predecessor's lavish habits?), disregard the failures of the Spring 2008 rebates and the $700 billion TRAP package to stimulate the economy. Obama demands this colossal bill to validate himself as an American icon, to validate liberalism and the idiotic Keynesian economics to which liberals cling. But when the bill is passed and signed into law, when the money is spent and the bridges are built and the sod is laid and every wild pork-barrel fantasy is indulged and relief is still wanting, the President will be exposed for what he is: Another left-wing politician buying votes with other people's money. For God's sake, Mr. President, do nothing.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2283.cfm

I Am Joe's Mortgage

My name is Joe Smith. Six years ago when the housing market was white-hot, my wife and I decided to jump in and buy a house of our own so we wouldn't be left behind by our friends and family. We'd been lifelong renters but come on! When everyone you know is buying and flipping and making all kinds of cash, how could we resist? We've had some problems in the past - getting fired from jobs, missing payments on stuff we'd bought, $50,000 in credit card debt and stuff like that - so we were really surprised when the bank approved our application, especially with no down payment, but the loan officer said we were getting something he called an "adjustable rate mortgage" that was tailor-made for people like us. We could move into the house with a really low interest rate to start off, and by the time the rate went up, we would have our finances squared away. It sounded pretty good to us at the time and like I said, we didn't want to be left out when every house in America was being bought up, so we took it.

Unfortunately, things have gotten worse, not better. We've been late on a few of our mortgage payments because we decided to play the lottery and take a trip to Cabo instead - booyah! - and we got sued by one of our creditors because we wrote a rubber check as a down payment for our car. (Don't judge us! How else could we get a new Escalade with our credit score?) The bank jacked up the interest rate on our mortgage which Hello! we couldn't afford and now they're threatening to foreclose on us. The good news is that Barack Obama is President now and he wants to help us out, like if things get really bad and we declare bankruptcy, we can ask the judge to lower our interest rate, lower our monthly payments, lengthen our mortgage out to forty years or even cancel part of our balance which would really be cool - we could stay in our house as long as we wanted, on our terms and the bank couldn't do a thing about it! After all, shouldn't everyone have the American Dream, not just the people who can afford it?

My name is Joe Smith and I am the president of First Neighborhood Bank of Anywhere, USA. Ten years ago when the subprime lending craze was starting to sweep the nation, I tried my hardest to stay out of it because the money I lend belongs to my friends and neighbors and I would no sooner risk their life savings than I would risk my own. If I jeopardize their kids' college fund, or their retirement savings, or their home, I violate their trust and deserve to lose their business.

That is not to say that I haven't been pressured to compromise. It seemed like every week HUD or Fannie Mae was issuing new guidelines for "underserved demographics," meaning people you'd never loan your car keys to, let alone $300,000 for a house. Bankruptcies, lawsuits, judgments, defaults on other loans, nothing seemed bad enough to disqualify these people from a mortgage, every basic premise of good credit being sacrificed for some damned Washington social experiment, and now we're taking it on the chin. In fact, the world is taking it on the chin because of this idiotic lab test. Things are tight in my town and at my bank, we've seen a few of our customers laid off from their jobs but overall, we seem to be weathering the storm OK unless Obama gets this new legislation through Congress that I've heard about. Judges dictating the terms of a mortgage? Interest rates and balances and monthly payments subject to their whimsy and not financial principles? That's nuts. Mortgages are contracts, Mr. President, and as a lawyer you should know that - they're not collectibles you buy on QVC and return in thirty days if you don't like them. Giving millions of bad credit risks a break on their mortgages sounds great on TV but is extraordinarily destructive for my customers since they would have to pay for it. I'd be forced to raise their fees, increase interest rates on their new loans or reject their loan applications, punishing hundreds of diligent, responsible, thrifty people so some deadbeats can get over. Bunk! It's not politically popular right now but if someone defaults on their mortgage, that's why we have foreclosures, and that might be the opportunity someone else is looking for: Joe's mortgage, you might say.