“Figuring out how we’ve reached this point is not easy. One choice is to blame laissez-faire policies, an argument that’s been invoked by everyone from notoriously pessimistic economist Nouriel Roubini and reporters at the New York Times to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

On the other hand, the number of pages of federal regulations has swelled, not shrunk, over the last decade.

A new book by Thomas Woods called Meltdown (Regnery Publishing, 2009) provides a more fulfilling account of what went wrong, why it happened, and who’s to blame. Woods holds a doctorate in history from Columbia University and is the author of the bestselling, iconoclastic The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Woods’ latest book makes a strong argument for laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of Washington politicians and regulators. One chapter is titled “How Government Created the Housing Bubble,” and points to special privileges granted to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a federal law allowing tax-free capital gains, and the Community Reinvestment Act’s incentives for banks to make bad loans.

The ultimate culprit, in Woods’ view, is the Federal Reserve. In 2001, he writes, “Fed chairman Alan Greenspan sought to reignite the economy through a series of rate cuts… the new money and credit overwhelmingly found its way into the housing market, where artificially lax lending standards made excessive home purchases and speculation in homes seem to many Americans like good financial moves.”

This is not a unique criticism. Many economists, including Stanford University’s John Taylor, have charged that the Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low and that the housing boom and bust could have been avoided with more prudent government policies. At a congressional hearing last fall, some Democratic politicians made similar allegations.”

Read the entire article

Taki’s contributor Dylan Hales joins me in a discussion with author Kirkpatrick Sale, director of The Middlebury Institute and contributor to countless publications including The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, The American Conservative, Chronicles, Counterpunch and Mother Jones – just to name a few. Sale is the author of the landmark 1980 book Human Scale, most recently After Eden  and is a leading figure in contemporary, decentralist political thought.

Length: 22:46

Download Here

Yet, the serious problems that plague American society cannot be addressed so long as the majority of citizens harbor very real fears – and at times disdain – for those entrusted with protecting our person and property from criminals. Though many Americans would not publicly admit to a fear of the local constable, privately there is a near unanimous sentiment that police have too much power and are prone to abusing it.  With new stories of police brutality coming to light daily, it is no stretch to say that these perceptions are realities. 

The creeping dread the average commuter feels on the way to work when a patrol car pulls alongside his vehicle has become an all too common phenomenon.  The mere site of a cop is enough to make the totally innocent clam up. Even my eighty-year-old grandmother once confessed that she had an eerie feeling of “uncertainty” by the mere presence of a policeman. That this unfortunate discomfort between law enforcement and the citizenry could ever change is rarely considered by most Americans. But while it is true that the days of Mayberry, USA and the neighborly constable may be things of the past – do they need to be?”

Read the entire article

House Republicans have put up a united front in opposing Obama’s stimulus package. Writes conservative columnist Robert Stacy McCain “Man, if all it took to get Republicans to vote conservative was to elect a Democratic president, this is a change I can believe in.” Indeed. Yesterday’s “we must support the president” big government economics is rightfully seen today as “socialism.” And whether out of principle or partisanship, it’s refreshing to see Republicans standing on conservative principle once again.

Watch “A Republican Realignment?”

I have also always found it bizarre that some of the most pro-war Americans are pro-lifers. To be passionate enough to protest on a street corner in the hopes that you might save lives is something I can understand. Yet for pro-lifers to consistently and enthusiastically vote for leaders whose foreign policies will admittedly lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians — women, children, babies — in order to achieve political objectives is something I cannot understand. “It’s a Child Not a Choice”? How about “It’s a Kid Not Collateral Damage”?

The pro-lifers I met that day all agreed that when it comes to supporting the Iraq war, the ends justify the deadly means, and yet they dedicate their lives to convincing pregnant women that no matter how desperate their situation, deadly solutions are never acceptable. According to some pro-lifers, political objectives can be worth thousands of deaths, while individual objectives are never worth one.

Read “Collateral Damage”

“Ron was the star of the Morning Joeys today. It was a cage match on the economy. They’d throw one Keynesian guy at Ron, and when the guy was beaten, they’d throw another Keynesian, and another. Ron was superb, even by Paulian standards. He wielded the empire, the Fed, Greenspan,l fractional-reserve banking, and other unmentionables against the economic ignoramuses.”

What struck me is how some of these folks seemed to suggest Paul’s dollars-and-cents common sense was somehow “utopian.” I don’t remember the punditry questioning President Bush too hard as to whether trying to establish American-style democracy in the Middle East was utopian, which it unquestionably was, not to mention has a lot to do with the current economic crisis – and Paul goes there:

For all the yammering by talk-radio nitwits and GOP chicken hawks about “supporting the troops,” it’s quite ironic that these same pundits and politicians have had little to say about the many high-ranking troops who support Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay. Throughout, the Bush presidency, I made the point time and again that thanks to talk radio, being a “conservative” now meant never questioning your government so long as a Republican was in charge. To not support the president in a time of war was not only unpatriotic, but anti-military, we heard time and again. Last week these same pundits and politicians not only refused to support their president and his decision during a time of war, but on torture and Guantanamo Bay – they loudly and boldly opposed the military.

Watch “Anti-Military Conservatives” at Takimag.com

As a conservative I have little use for Obama’s politics, but as an American and more specifically a Southerner, I think I can understand the excitement, particularly in the black community. Listening to urban radio this week, black nightclubs advertised Obama inauguration parties and drink specials. A black-themed clothing store in downtown Charleston advertised deals on suits for Obama’s swearing in. It could be said these folks are just being smart capitalists, and they are, but I don’t remember these businesses offering any Bush inauguration specials.

The first black American president likely represents many different things to many different black Americans. But much of the joy I see in my black neighbors and friends, seems to be a sense that a new level of respect, perhaps the greatest respect, has now been paid to them by their nation.

Watch “Obama and Black Pride” at Takimag.com

Today, we have the exact opposite, as the pundits and pontificators who represent popular conservatism have abandoned ideas or principles for pure party partisanship.

What conservatism has the Bush era produced? Exploding government, enhanced state power, reckless spending, increased federal programs, open borders, starting a needless and costly war — the list is endless — and yet most self-described mainstream conservatives have little criticism for this catastrophe of a president.

Read the entire column

Watch “Young Americans for Liberty” at Takimag.com

Listening to the radio and watching television on the day before the inauguration, the meaning of the word “change” seemed to depend on the politics of the pundit. For the generally Left-leaning media-at-large, Barack Obama was a beacon of hope who represented a new day in America. For them, the coming “change” was good, even if they couldn’t specifically tell you why. For generally Right-leaning talk radio, the new president meant impending doom and hosts attached the word “socialist” to his name repeatedly, with no mention of the socialism that had just been served up by a Republican president, or the recent socialism that was endorsed by the 2008 Republican nominee they wanted to become president. For talk radio, the coming “change” was unquestionably bad, even if they couldn’t specifically tell you what might actually be changing.

My biggest fear concerning Obama is not “change” but the extent to which the new president will govern similar to the last. I would love to see something actually “change,” but the kind of serious, conservative reforms in government I desire weren’t likely to occur under any of the men running for president this year from either party. Well, except one…

Young Americans for Liberty is the continuation of the Students for Ron Paul organization which had established chapters nationwide during the election. While many if not most American youth remain sympathetic to Obama, this enthusiastic group of young libertarians and conservatives will spend inauguration day passing out literature on college campuses nationwide, explaining how Obama doesn’t represent any change at all. Calling the event “Real Change Requires Revolution” the group’s website states that Obama “promises more foreign intervention, more socialism, more restrictions on our civil liberties, and a greater disregard for the Constitution.” While the mainstream Right remains silent on Bush, yet won’t shut up about Obama, these young peoples’ goal is to convince their peers that the incoming president won’t amount to much precisely because he will be much like the last one. Their message is not only Right, but refreshing.

Senior Editor of The American Conservative magazine, Daniel McCarthy, heralded the group in December:

“Back when the conservative movement was actually conservative it was in significant part a youth movement. Students for Goldwater was instrumental in pushing the Arizona senator — even against his wishes — for the Republican nomination in 1960. That fall, the core of the Students for Goldwater organization converted into Young Americans for Freedom, a group which kept a rightward pressure on the GOP and conservative movement, facilitating the Goldwater ‘64 and Reagan ‘68 efforts.

Now what promises to be an even better organization is getting off the ground: Young Americans for Liberty, a successor to the Students for Ron Paul groups that flourished on some 500 campuses during the campaign season. Dr. Paul provided an official endorsement of YAL last week — not only putting his good name behind the venture but $25,000 in seed money as well. Of course, it’ll take much more than that to wrest the young Right away from the neocons and party hacks, but I’ve seen for myself how readily Paul’s principles resonate among students, so I give YAL a fighting chance. It’s a cause well deserving of support.”

McCarthy is correct. It’s fitting that the only real youth excitement on the Right continues to center around the one man the Republican Party wanted nothing to do with. The establishment-friendly candidates who ran for president on the Republican side each took their turns chuckling at the 73-year old Texas Congressman, as each prediction Paul made continued to come to fruition. And in election year where the concept of “change” has meant so much, the GOP’s reluctance to embrace its most Right-wing reformer continues to prove why the party currently is of so little use to principled conservatives.

On this inauguration day, conservatives worried that Obama will lead America down the road to an even worse socialism, should remember that it will be a socialism whose groundwork was laid by his Republican predecessor and will likely be maintained and even expanded by any successors, Republican or Democrat.
And as the current, pathetic, mainstream conservative movement continues to stand for nothing except being against Obama, perhaps it will take the next generation of conservatives and groups like Young Americans for Liberty to finally deliver “change” we can believe in.