The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Morning Reading

May 5th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 3 Comments · Politics

Here are a few choice pieces to read to get up to speed on Obama’s Chrysler mess.

Neal Boortz explains secured and unsecured loans. (It sounds boring, but it’s not.) Usually secured lenders get precedence in a bankruptcy, but Obama is setting another ominous precedent by turning that upside down. And in the process he has demonized the secured lenders involved as “speculators.”

Obama demagogued these secured lenders by saying “I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities” and not “those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.” So there you go. If you want to enforce your security interest – if you want your money back — you’re against Chrysler’s employees and families. Everyone else is making sacrifices and you don’t want to. Hey … wait a minute here. Are we forgetting that these people have obligations to their shareholders?

What effects will this have on the loan industry?

More from Boortz.

(I’d like to hear about this from Yaron Brook, who has written on the history of money lending. Obama is the latest in a long history of fools who demonize moneylenders.)

Mickey Kaus on Obama’s Chrysler debacle.

On another subject, here is a liberal who is uncomfortable with the conformist thinking on her side. With such independent thinking, this author can’t remain a liberal for long.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin writes about how Obama is destroying the rule of law. Now we see what Obama meant when he promised the fundamental transformation: he meant turning the greatest capitalist nation in the world into a banana republic.

3 Comments so far ↓

  • Jim May

    Obama’s actions remind me of why the metaphor I use to describe the current state of this country (and the world) is that of a magnificent house built by brilliant architects long gone, but now inhabited by a bunch of intoxicated ignoramuses having a party.

    They have no idea how the house was built or how it got there, nor of how it stays up. They just expect that it will, as they drunkenly stagger around, smashing out walls when it suits them.

    One of these days, they’ll take out a load-bearing pillar of the structure — what the hey, they’ll say, nothing happened when we took out all those other walls.

    Then they’ll only have a short time to notice the difference between drywall partitions and load-bearing ones…

    Rule of law is a key part of the structure no doubt…. and it hasn’t taken a licking like this since the 1930’s. One key difference: OBama sees no need to bother wish such legalities as packing the Supreme Court.

  • Mike N

    Good analogy. They are intoxicated with the idea that they now have the power to force their irrational whims, wishes and feelings on the rest of society. Forced altruism is what this administration is all about but it is not just the helping others part of altruism that they focus on. They bring with them the seething hatred of anyone who is productive and not in need. A person or populace not in need cannot justify their irresistible desire to force the good on others and must therefore be demonized as greedy, selfish and the cause of everyone else’s need and suffering.

    You are right that the Rule of Law hasn’t taken a licking like this since the FDR years. But how can an intellectual concept like Rule of Law have any meaning to a mind whose chief concern is the enshrinement of forced sacrifices to achieve an imagined collective good?

    So far none of this administration’s efforts have been challenged in the Supreme Court. And I don’t know whether to relax or shudder at that prospect.

  • L-C

    “Forced altruism” is a bit of a redundancy. Altruism always leads to force. As a practical matter, LF Capitalism is the best system for honest people who got a bad start in life.

    Altruism isn’t about the giving, but the taking or more fundamentally, the destroying. The “helping the poor” is spitshine.