The $65 Billion Lie

The occasion, recently, of Mrs. Bernard Madoff's using the subway, and being ridiculed for doing so by the New York Post, is the inspiration for this little bit of rhetorical virtuosity.

Let's begin by putting things in perspective, something the for-profit media seemingly cannot do. Because Bernard Madoff's crime is, according to the headlines at least, running a "$65 billion Ponzi Scheme," a review of what a "Ponzi Scheme" is would be a good start.

Charles Ponzi, of Boston, recruited investors by, as all investment recruiters do, offering attractive returns. When he was unable or unwilling to actually produce those returns in fact, he did so by the sleight-of-hand device of using the subscriptions of later investors to provide the returns for the earlier ones. If this practice sounds familiar, it's because governments do it all the time, but they call it "Keynesianism" and it's perfectly legal, for them anyway.

At some point, however, later investors couldn't be found to pay off the earlier ones, and so ground the merry-go-round to a flaming halt. And since then, this age-old scam has been called a "Ponzi Scheme."

The principle of cognitive consonance requires an acknowledgement of the fact that the Ponzi-schemer doesn't simply take in money from gullible investors and salt it away in a Swiss Account for himself. No, he returns it -- redistributes it, really. And while redistribution schemes by any name are morally questionable, they are the stock-in-trade of progressive governments everywhere. But they claim the monopoly on the practice so that, if anyone else does it, it's a crime.

In fact, Mr. Madoff deposited his receipts in interest-bearing accounts and never exposed them to market risks. He never, for example, promised double-digit returns to pensioners and then buried them in vaporous derivative securities, as many hedge funds -- which still enjoy status as legal entities -- have. If anything, he did the opposite: he put his investor's hard earned assets in the safest possible places: bank accounts. Not much of a big, greedy scam, if you ask me.

Perhaps an accounting of the Madoff funds would show that Mr. Madoff skimmed the interest income. Or that he used the credit balances as backing for cheap capital for his own, successful, and legitimate businesses. I don't know what it would show, because I've never seen one. And I gather that it's because what it would reveal would be a terrible disappointment to the public. But one thing it would certainly show is that Mr. Madoff, however much he might have skimmed, did not steal -- could not possibly have stolen -- anywhere near $65 billion.

If Mr. Madoff recruited something on the order of $65 billion in investments, it follows -- by the very definition of "Ponzi Scheme" -- that he returned, or redistributed it to his investors. In either case, he certainly didn't steal it. His crime, therefore, is a technicality, not a theft. He also apparently had difficulty saying "no" when people accosted him to manage large sums of money for them. And for that, of course, they hate him.

Ever on the lookout for a sensational Public Enemy, the media can't acknowledge the facts. I say "sensational," because the true public enemies are simply seldom newsworthy. Imagine pitching the headline, "Government Redistributes Wealth Again Today" to your editor. It just wouldn't sell.

Mr. Madoff did do something so unusual, and so extraordinary, that it is worthy of a story: he got up one morning, and disclosed his illegal activities to the authorities. He wasn't being investigated -- in fact, the SEC ignored evidence that cried out for an investigation of him. Instead, he presented himself to the legal system fully ready to cooperate, and he did so of his own initiative.

I think it's a safe bet that there are lots of people riding the subways in New York City who would never confess their crimes to anyone. They're probably riding in limousines, too. There are people sitting behind laptops, hammering out news stories, who would wilt under a moment's public scrutiny of their personal shortcomings, who will never have to endure the full heat of a trial by public opinion.

As it takes a measure of integrity to confess ones wrongs, so it takes a measure of character to endure a public excoriation for it. The Madoffs, at least, will wake up better people for having done so.

Media Reports Story Accurately and Impartially.

Ha! Just kidding.

That would be blogworthy, though, if it actually happened.

Happy Father's Day, President Obama

Father's Day is the day that fathers everywhere celebrate being "punished with a baby," Mr. President.

Let's Play Connect the Dots

The following are some observations we've made concerning the current administration:

• The president has been pushing mandatory, national healthcare with an obsession from his first days in office.
• Bills mandating national healthcare are now being drafted; it's highly likely congress will fall into line and pass them and it's highly unlikely the president will veto them.
• The campaigning Hillary Clinton vowed never to quit the presidential race, and then she did.
• The idea of mandatory national healthcare was, during the Clinton administration, such an obsession of Hillary Clinton's that it was once known as "HillaryCare."
  
  We've noticed some other things:
  
• The president has a noticeable number of pro-abortion, lapsed Catholics in key places in his administration, including Secretary of Health and Human Services -- the position that would oversee any national health care administration.
• The president, while campaigning, was a keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood event and made assurances of his commitment to pro-abortion policies.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was "honored" with the Margaret Sanger award, Planned Parenthood's highest honor, at a recent event.
• The president's nominal Catholic cabinet appointees support the agenda of Planned Parenthood and many have past ties to pro abortion groups.

The common link to all these observations is abortion. Planned Parenthood, which is supported by the government to the tune of $371,000,000 this year alone, has a direct, financial interest in seeing taxpayer-funded abortion become a reality. A healthcare plan mandated by the government, that provides coverage for abortion, would make taxpayer-funded abortion a reality.

We know Planned Parenthood has "honored" the president and the Secretary of State, and, even if we aren't privy to any money trails at the moment, it's a safe bet that PP has financed these and other candidates as well.

If you see leaves moving a certain way, you can tell the wind is blowing, even if you can't see the wind itself. We see lots of things all blowing in the same direction here. We cannot see the wind, necessarily, but we see what it's doing. We wonder:

Wasn't is so very tidy the way Hillary pulled out of race, endorsed Obama, and popped up as Secretary of State? And isn't it interesting how Obama has adopted Hillary's obsession for nationalized health care? Isn't it thought-provoking how Obama and Hillary both sound like nothing if not pitch-men for the abortion industry? Isn't it likely that these two, er, forceful personalities, when they team up to ram socialized medicine down the throats of Americans, will make good and sure "reproductive rights" are included in their plan for "healthcare?"

We further wonder who, in the final analysis, benefits from these personalities and their happenings?

• Obama got his Presidency.
• Hillary got a good shot at her "HillaryCare."
• Planned Parenthood's got good shot at a direct deposit from the taxpayers.

Though they would have you think they're standing on principal and doing what's best for you, we'd say they're angling for power and more power. About the only thing that can make people so ruthlessly pragmatic is either money or power, which are pretty much fungible. And since all the ingredients required to make a political machine hum are here, i.e. lust for power, lust for money, and, alas, somebody to pay the bill, this is what we're wagering on. We bet you're going to read about the smoking gun, eventually.

Tillers, Killers, and Turning Points

The blood was hardly mopped up off the floor of the Lutheran church in Witchita, Kansas where usher and late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller was gunned down, when the pro-abortion press releases got full rotation in the national media; and before the pro-life spokespeople responded.

In less time than it takes to say "public relations blitz" the news of the abortionist's murder was followed by boilerplate declarations of outrage at "anti-choice" and "extremist" violence with a smattering of hero-worship for the prolific practitioner. So frantic was the output that editors were seemingly bypassed, at least in the case of the particularly logically-contorted remarks about vigilante "anti-abortion assassins," and the late Dr. "making the ultimate sacrifice."

Typically, the pro-life side released its "we do not condone violent acts" disclaimer. By now everyone knows this is true, but the essence of public communication is stating the obvious and stating it positively.

Dr. Tiller's specialty was late-term abortions -- loosely defined as abortions performed after the 2oth week following conception.

All this is very well known. And that's a problem for the pro-choice/pro-abortion side of the debate. It's a problem because, at 20 weeks, arguments invoking the "blob of flesh" device just don't work. At 20 weeks, it's clear to anyone who looks that a "late term abortion" elimates a person -- a little baby. Eliminates -- kills -- in the most sinister and painful of ways.

It is a problem for the pro-choice argument because by now, everybody knows (0r can know, after spending a few seconds on Google) that premature babies (those delivered before week 37) have survived when delivered at the 21 week mark. Nobody believes that what is a baby at 21 weeks was a "tumor" at 20.

It's a problem for the pro-choice side because so many of that persuasion -- NARAL, NOW, the other late term abortionist, even -- curiously -- the president of the United States -- have gone on record decrying "extremists" -- which of course means anyone who dares to object to abortion -- they've gone on record decrying this "heinous crime;" yet because the late Doctor's specialty was plainly, unmistakeably, gruesomely the violent torturous murder of viable infants, your average American, who might not have given the term "late term abortion" a second thought, can't avoid thinking about it now. And when they think about it, they will do what all normal people do: recoil in horror.

It was recently reported that the majority of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" (51%, as against 42% "pro choice). How can this be, when the rock-star, reportedly universally-loved near-messiah president who was just elected is so vehemently, unapologetically in favor of abortion without limit? No matter. It is.

This great majority, this Pro-Life America, is listening to NOW, to NARAL, to the rock-star president, to CNN and the ubiquitous media defend Dr. Tiller's livelihood as though were he a saviour of women, but they are fully aware that, as a practitioner of late-term abortions, he really was a dismemberer of their babies. They know the oracles of our age who rush to defend his trade have got this one wrong -- that, wait a minute, we're talking about tender little babies here, and did this guy actually kill them? They're not okaying vigilantes anymore than they are condoning the killing of babies, but the oracles have lost credibility.

Americans know that presidential protocol doesn't include an interruption of the Sunday routine to make a presidential announcement singling out one murder in America (they're all tragic) to denounce it unless the victim is some sort of national hero or dignitary. Or some great public enemy. And they know that, if Dr. Tiller was such a hero to president Obama, then there's something really wrong with the President. He's either not paying attention, and that's bad, or he's really in favor of this unspeakable procedure, and that's...almost unthinkable.

There are times in history when people's eyes are opened, when they are jarred conscious from media-induced myopia, when they finally notice an injustice, and their will is mustered against it. It's as natural a response as a crowd tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein; or rallying to take sledgehammer blows at the Berlin Wall. Times when people say, "we see now. Enough is enough." And they act. And they speak. And they act. And they cannot be lulled into complicity of complacency any longer. People of goodwill might be temporarily convinced enough by high-falutin' discussions about "the beginning of life" or the definition of "viability," to be agnostic about abortion, but, please, everybody knows what a baby looks like, and everyone knows that a "late term" pregnancy means there's a baby well on its way.

There is a majority -- it's out of the closet, it's been reported and put into the public debate -- at odds with a very vocal, increasingly shrill and illogical sounding minority -- albeit a very powerful minority. And this minority is on record -- in the public debate -- as advocating with all its influence something the American people just won't tolerate. Something they know is not merely misguided, but sinister. Americans have been hearing about pro-life "extremists;" they know they aren't "extremists," they're just ordinary working people, raising families and trying to pay the bills. And they know -- we all do -- that there's something very "extreme" indeed about pulverizing an unborn infant.

This is a moment, a turning point. All the momentum is about to be reversed -- it can't happen all in an instant, but there is always an instant when the other side feels immovable resistance and irresistible encroachment, and it knows it can no longer dwell boastfully in the dominant position.

This America has seen its president defend a practitioner of procedures it now understands are abominable. Tolerance is no longer an option; tolerance of "violent acts" against the innocent never was.