Regarding that previous posting: this posting at American Thinker hits on the subject of what I called the contrived necessity.

I’m reluctant to quote any of it here, because one must read the whole thing. But this bit will adumbrate where he comes from:

Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

James Simpson, the article’s author, has a chart which he argues clarifies Barak Obama’s connection, via the Cloward-Piven strategy and the radical left. Decide for yourself how well he pulls it off:






Of course, you can really only do that if you read the article and follow the chart.

H/T: Gateway Pundit

Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, such as Glenn Beck, have objected to the bailout plan on the grounds that it is an unwarranted takeover of a great deal of our economy, making it ever more a command economy. Limbaugh cites the statement of purpose in the present bailout plan, as an abrogation of the constitution.

It may all be true. It may bring us one step closer to a police state. But the road to police states is paved with cobble stones of self-indulgence, the self-indulgence of those whose behavior (even if only arguably) more and more renders drastic action not only thinkable, not only tolerable, but even desirable. If the people will not exercise self-control, state control is inevitable.

And the culprit isn’t capitalism, as some have said. Capitalism is simply an extension of notions of freedom and ownership of private property. The problem is with some of the practitioners of capitalism, whose desire for more and more for the sake of having more and more. The problem is with an out-of-control entitlement bloc, asserting that it isn’t just a beautiful thing for people one day to own a home; it is a right, and government (which must ensure that we all get our rights) must provide for the acquisition of those homes. The problem is with greedy “grievance-mongering”, in the form of people claiming “aggrieved” status and demanding redress of these grievances and never being satisfied with any redress. It’s just another form of greed. In the same way that greedy capitalists can only pursue more money, greedy grievance mongers can only pursue more redress. (Enter Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose mission was to increase homeownership among minorities, who, recall, are never quite satisfied with their own form of “more”. Enter also, arguably, the Community Reinvestment Act, which was used to motivate banks into loaning money to people who really couldn’t pay them, by threatening them with “racism” otherwise. The banks – get this – really thought those loans should be paid! Racists.)

Why not capitalism itself? I admit my bias: I am a capitalist, a rabid capitalist – of the “Austrian” school. But I’m a Christian first, so when there are failures I must look to the human element, specifically the human heart. Speaking of the “failure” of the Law, in the book of Romans, St. Paul says it was weak. He doesn’t say that it was weak in itself. Quite the contrary, it is good and holy. The weakness of the Law is in the weakness of the flesh, the heart of the one under the Law, even the one who wants to obey the Law. The Law is good, but my state is so bad that the goodness of the Law is of little good to me.

So it is with capitalism. Liberty and private property in themselves are good. The weakness of capitalism is in the flesh. When capitalism is understood as liberty, as opposed to libertinism, it isn’t a problem. But when liberty – capitalism – comes to mean anything goes, the situation is altered tremendously. Like sexual license any all freedoms are to run rampant; any attendant responsibilities can be passed along elsewhere. The price for our limitless sexual expression: millions of dead babies. The price for limitless “capitalism” is perhaps just coming into focus. If millions of dead babies could exact the price they probably would. The victims of limitless capitalism have a voice; they also have a vote.

There is a price for failure to exercise self-control, which the Puritans (whom we love to hate) called self-government. We can control ourselves, govern ourselves; or we can be controlled. Limbaugh and others may object to the necessity, even if it is a contrived necessity; but the logic is inexorable. The history is incontestable.

Police states don’t just pop up out of nowhere. And they generally are not found where people govern their passions.

Yes, in a manner of speaking.

The world is the general name for all the passions. When we wish to call the passions by a common name, we call them the world. But when we wish to distinguish them by their special names, we call them the passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasure from which comes sexual passion, love of honor which gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothes and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancor and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active, there the world is dead; for though living in the flesh, they did not live for the flesh. See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it. -- St. Isaac the Syrian

Relevant, for such a time as this.

Although they made mention of fundamental differences between the two of them, the fact is there isn't much in terms of fundamentals. They both fundamentally agree that an economy can be managed; they both fundamentally believe in a command economy. They both fundamentally agree that the tax code can and should be employed to manipulate human behavior. (For example, they both fundamentally agree that the tax code can be employed to manipulate businesses into coming or remaining here and, more importantly, keeping or bringing jobs here.)

They both fundamentally agree that governmen can and should prevent recessions. They both fundamentally agree that government can and should provide healthcare, do various acts and things to ensure a college education for any one who wants one.

But they differ only over how to execute policies on which they fundamentally agree.

On the other hand...Obama does occasionally use language that makes his economics views seem more in line with socialist answers to economic questions, while McCain is pretty much Keynesian I think.

Whew! I'm glad that's over.

I want a drink.

McCain gives his resume again to make a guarantee. He knows how to heal the wounds of war.

These guys are both magic.

Another mini-speech by McCain.

Both of them are long on generalizations, short on specifics.

Yes, let's get healthcare for everyone. Let's also not ask why healthcare costs keep going up and up instead of, like most other things, down and down.

If we truly are focused solely on Iraq (think about what the word solely means) then why do we have even one soldier in Afghanistan?

Yes, yes, yes. Get Osama and it's all over.

Senator Obama, why are we just assuming that those nations are just unquestionable correct to respect us less? They could be wrong. I'm not saying they are wrong, just that they could be.

You too, Senator Obama. Yes or no. And then the elaboration.

I wish McCain could just have answered yes or no on another 911 and then do the elaboration.

Senator, yes or no.

I've been thinking: McCain just said that Russia was the unqualified aggressor in this. But Pat Buchanan thought otherwise.

I've looked. And I can't find any one of substance -- anyone who matters -- who has said unequivocally that we can drill our way out of this.

Oh, yes. Internation peace keepers -- they always work so well.

I suppose they might have better than Russian peace keepers.

Yes, it was really silly of the President to talk about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul.

Good one, McCain: I looked into his eyes and saw K-G-B.

No kidding.

K.G.B. does stand for Kapitalist Good ol' Boy.

Oh, I see. We just explain to Russia that they can't just do this sort of thing.

Yes, sit down with someone who has called Israel a stinking corpse and wants to wipe it off it the map. That way we can find out how we can change their minds.

So, McCain must unquestionably yield to his advisors? What kind of leader is that?

One difference between the Soviet Union on the one hand and Iran on the other is Mutually Assured Destruction. It has never appeared to me that this certainty bothers Iran.

The War in Iraq has strengthened Iran? He can't be serious. He must mean that the war in Iraq has given Iran the excuse it needs to strengthen its position. Sure. I can see that.

Our efforts at isolation has excellerated the arming activities of Iran and N. Korea.

Iran, among others, has long wanted to obliterate Israel. If not by nuclear weapons then by some other means.