Sphere: Related Content
The $700 billion bailout vote failed today, and the point-drop in the Dow Jones Industrial matched better than point for dollar. The DJI shed over 777 points on Monday. The only good news thus far is that it was not raining businessmen in Manhattan today.
House and Senate Democrats rushed to the microphones on Friday decrying the presence of John McCain as a force of division they could have done without, but as it turned out, it was Obama's quick tutor-job by the staff of Henry Paulson, through emails, that derailed Friday's "meeting". Obama walked in shooting from the hip and all hell broke loose.
The perplexing part of it all is this, however; Democrats claimed to "have a deal" in place before the arrival of McCain who, according to their accounts, "blew up" the meeting. So why did Indiana House Democrats, to name a few, vote two to one against the bailout? Even more important is the question of why Nancy Pelosi made this speech hours before the vote:
To me, that does not sound like a person trying to get a deal done. It sounds like a person holding a large knife and plunging it repeatedly into the deal.
Then Barney Frank decided to insert his foot into his mouth yet again by claiming that Republicans were to blame.
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the whip, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.
That was a remarkable accusation by Republicans against Republicans, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee: "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country."
That's a very interesting accusation of its own, considering that 40% of House Democrats also voted against the bill. This is the same Barney Frank, while we're at it, who in 2003 said:
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
And that was in response to a call by none other than President Bush for more regulations on the two institutions to prevent what many others recognized at the time as a potential disaster. How does Nancy Pelosi interpret history? Like this:
"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."
I read these quotes, I listen to the audio and I remember past events, and I am left scratching my head, trying to understand how a modern political party can utter such nonesense and not even be held accountable in the mainstream media.
But I am not alone. Is it any wonder why Congress enjoys an 11% approval rating?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
ARTICLE II EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 8. Powers of Governor as commander-in-chief of land and naval forces of State.
The Governor shall be the Commander in Chief of the land and naval forces of the State; and may call out the militia to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the execution of the Laws; but shall not take the command in person, without the consent of the Legislature.
How much foreign policy experience does Sarah Palin really have? Aside from cute Tina Fey jokes - "I can see Russia from my house!" - how much does Alaska's proximity to Russia and her being Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard matter? While we all sleep snug in our beds at night, probably more than you'd care to know.
Fort Greely in Alaska has eleven ground-based interceptor missiles buried in underground silos that represent a key part of a multi-layered defense system designed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. Governor Sarah Palin is the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.
According to a website called Blackfive, Palin may be better qualified than Biden in matters of foreign policy:
As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.
She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.
Don't let that cute face fool you. It just may well be that Palin and the McCain Campaign have a devastating sandbag prepared for the vice presidential debates. One other point worth noting, also from the Blackfive site; According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
We'll have to wait until Thursday to see how many she can use in the debate.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Aside from looking angry throughout the debate at Ole Miss last night, Obama also lost points for, take your pick, lying or just being poorly prepared. During the questioning on Iran, McCain pointed to Obama's past comments that he would engage in talks with Iran without preconditions, something that foreign policy experts have hammered him on. At one point in the debate, a clearly incredulous McCain uttered the words, "oh, please".
Obama proceeded to claim that McCain's own advisor, Henry Kissinger, agreed with Obama on his stance and incorrectly stated that Kissinger also advocated discussions with no preconditions. McCain called him on it and that was the end of the discussion on that subject.
Well, Henry Kissinger got on the television and slammed Obama hard. Here's what he had to say:
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
Perhaps Obama misunderstood whatever it is he thinks he heard Kissinger say, fine. Suffice it to say, he has been proven dead wrong.
There was another Obama moment in the debate that could only be characterized as a blatant lie. Discussing spending, Obama said that we're spending billions of dollars on missile defense. He then went on to say:
"Uh, and I actually believe that we need missile defense because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain uh, uh, uh, or to launch nuclear weapons."
That's not what he said in this recent campaign ad.
But hey, there are two more presidential debates to go, and I'm sure Obama will hear all about the advent of the internet by then. Maybe he'll even learn that everything he's said publicly in the past is there for all to see and hear. Then again, maybe not. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, September 26, 2008
Barack Obama and Bill Ayers...how much alike, or how close are they? At a debate this year, Obama said, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. . . . He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” Why does Obama feel the need to disassociate himself from people like Ayers or Rev. Wright? Because he knows that they are toxic to his campaign of "hope".
Funny, because Ayers described his terrorist activities as being "driven by hope and love, not despair". He also claimed that the acts of his Weather Underground group were "not a big deal". In an interview with Fox News, Ayers said that they were out to destroy property and not lives, but that's a lie. Three of his cohorts were killed in a townhouse in 1970 while making a bomb to Ayers' specifications. The bomb was a nail bomb, and according to Andy McCarthy of National Review Online, it was intended to kill a bunch of soldiers at a dance in Fort Dix:
That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."
Very nice. And then there's this, from Discover The Networks
Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."
Bring the revolution home; another word for revolution is "change". Now, it must be examined in-depth by honest journalists (an oxymoron, perhaps), the extent of Obama's association with Ayers.
At the start of Obama's state senate campaign, Ayers hosted a meeting at his home, which the Obama's attended. They served together for three years on the Woods Fund of Chicago. Then there's this, from an AP article that curiously is no longer available, but which an intrepid blogger from JustOneMinute managed to grab:
The minutes of the Annenberg Challenge meetings show that during a June 1995 meeting, Ayers was credited with having "worked diligently" to support the effort. More than a year later, Obama pushed the group to be bolder in its reforms.
"At the end of five years, will we have broken the mold? Not much seems to be bubbling up that is inspiring or substantive," October 1996 minutes say, paraphrasing Obama.
That would clearly indicate that not only have they been closer than fence-talkers, but that they have a common direction. It seems that they both want "change" to happen in America.
Then there is his twenty year relationship with "his mentor" and friend, Rev. Wright, who spews racist and anti-American vitriol from his pulpit and whom Obama listened to for those twenty years. We know from his own writings that Obama is personally preoccupied with race, and now we have his wife's college thesis made public. Here is just one excerpt from page two of that thesis:
“There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”
Will we have a First Lady who will use all of her "present and future resources" to benefit one segment of society over the others?
To all those who plan to vote for Obama, Hope and Change, I have one message for you; if you wake up on January 21st, 2009 and don't recognize the country, don't come crying to me. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
So many odd photos, so many questionable associations, so few serious inquiries. I have opined recently that the mainstream media is so desirous of finally breaking the black barrier for the top office in the world that they really don't have the sort of hunger for answers, real answers, that is their hallmark.
Call it hypnosis. As it stands right now, according to Rasmussen, 52% of Americans have been mesmerized by Obama and refuse to see the evidence that something just doesn't pass the smell test. Further, many of those 52% intentionally treat such rare reporting as something akin to a UFO sighting. It simply can't be, they'll say, and others will readily agree. For anyone watching with a keen eye, this is becoming a nightmare. My intention is to wake people up and and free them from the terrible dream.
The opening photo is a random one I found on the internet, but there is one from a campaign office of the Obama campaign. Behind the desk of the office worker, working for Obama, hangs a picture of Che Guevara. This was quickly forgotten by the MSM after the campaign explained that it was an independent campaign office, and there was no follow-up at all. Gone, forgotten.
The problem is, it wasn't the only office. Still, the reaction was, "Nothing to see here, folks, move along". Still not enough Socialism for you? Sit tight, there's more.
Obama has previously advocated for a "National Police Force" at least equal to the United States Military. In a July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs, he said:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Couple this attitude with his comment that folks in Pennsylvania, et al, "Cling to their guns and their religion", and what you have is a candidate for President of the United States who wants to take your guns and then surround himself with a national police force. Joseph Farah from WorldNet Daily couldn't have said it better:
"Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?"
Now combine all of the above with Obama's other mysterious shortcomings, and there is more than enough to keep the press busy, would that they were inclined to seek out the endeavor. It seems that they are completely uninterested in digging, however, so it falls to people like us. We are the only ones who seem interested in learning about such things as Obama's Muslim past, his connections to George Soros, and his Constitutional qualifications to even assume office.
I started this blog less than a year ago, and I have tried to promote it as subtly as possible, relying on word of keyboard, as it pertains to type-written words on the internet. Here, I am asking all of you to either pass this along or at least take the general message and run with it. I'm not seeking anything here but the spreading of the truth, so use your own discretion in how you relay the information provided. I seek nothing more than a genuine scrutinizing of this man who would be President.
It's the least the press could do before we succumb to tyranny. Sphere: Related Content
Sphere: Related Content
I decided to write this not to point the finger of blame at any particular person or party, but rather to prevent the current financial crisis from being used as a club in the upcoming presidential election.
With the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the gyrations now under way to fix the problem, Barack Obama is out on the stump trying to blame the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for the mess. His running mate, Joe Biden, is cheering him on and saying that deregulation at the hands of Phil Graham is the root cause of the collapse. Phill Graham did sponsor S.900, which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, true. Democrats at the time, however, showered praise on the accomplishment. Now they want to blame Republican deregulation.
It's bad enough that Obama, Biden, Schumer and others are more concerned with winning back the White House than they are about rescuing the economy, but it's worse that they seem to think none of us have memories. When the Senate passed S.900, also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley and was a bold deregulatory move, here's what Chuck Schumer had to say then:
"I first want to thank Chairman Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach, Representative LaFalce, and all of my colleagues who worked so long and hard on this legislation," Mr. Schumer began, "Mr. President, this is a historic moment. We've been working towards it for 18 years ... the future of America's dominance as the financial center of the world is at stake. This bill is vital for the future of our country."
What is he saying nine years later?
"Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of 'the market can do no wrong,' have led us down a short path to economic recession."
Yet just five years ago, the President sought to impose more regulation on the institutions, something that never came to fruition.
President Clinton, at the time he signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law in November of 1999, had this to say:
"The [Gramm-Leach-Bliley] Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries."
Just in case he wants to jump into the fray at somepoint and explore a bit of revisionist history as well.
Whether the bailout will prove to be wise is debatable and a cause of spirited disagreement among conservatives, to be sure, but I will continue to write on this subject right up until November 4th. I simply will not allow the democrats to rewrite history unfettered.
Monday, September 22, 2008
While it is not an abridgement of free speech per se, the dis invitation of Sarah Palin to the anti-Ahmadinejad rally certainly robbed us of the pleasure of her speech, which the New York Sun was kind enough to reprint for our reading pleasure.
Below is the full context of what she would have said...
I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.
Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.
Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.
He must be stopped.
The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.
The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.
The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.
So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.
If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.
But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.
Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.
It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.
If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.
If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.
But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.
Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.
Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.
We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.
We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.
We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.
President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.
We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.
Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.
Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
If someone suddenly begins casting overboard people that have shaped his ideology, doesn't that ideology become suspect by default? When it becomes politically expedient to disavow those who were once considered friends and mentors, Obama implicitly acknowledges that they are unsavory characters, and yet, he spent all those formative years listening to them and seeking their counsel.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet the ranch that if you witnessed someone murdering your child but he was let go free because of a legal bungling of the case, you'd certainly not give him a job as nanny to your other children. So why do Bill Ayers and several of his cohorts become professors at American Universities? They still readily admit to their crimes and refuse to even attempt to explain them as youthful transgressions.
Worse yet is the seeming forgiveness of Ayers by Obama and the rest of liberal Americans. Ayers was a domestic terrorist who declared war on America. I can't even imagine John McCain having such ties and if he did, you can be assured that the media would be all over it like bark on a tree. Oh yeah, the media cares about whether Sarah Palin improperly fired a subordinate, but they don't care at all about Obama rubbing elbows with a domestic terrorist.
Just a short while ago, Jack Abramoff was big news, and to be anywhere near him meant singed flesh and radiation poisoning. Yet Tony Rezko has had no apparent effect on the Obama campaign. I find that more than a little odd. Obama's own pastor is on tape saying, "God damn America", and yet the only reaction from the main stream media is a collective yawn. They'd prefer to investigate really important matters, like whether Trig was Sarah Palin's son or grandson.
Philip J. Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, has filed a federal lawsuit, No. 08-cv-4083, alleging that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements of citizenship to become President of the United States. It may have merit, and it may not, but one would think the press would be intrigued by it and report on it. No, we must first find out if then-mayor Palin tried to get books banned from the Wasilla Public Library.
The Clintons made an art form of successful denial, and Obama has learned well. To prove that there is no media bias towards the left, they simply say, "No there's not". And people shrug and say, "Okay", despite the proof all around them to the contrary.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Written By Wild-Abandon
I saw a show yesterday that called into question Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth'. The title suggested that this was the conservative fresh breath of air I have been waiting to see. As it turns out, the author was irritated because Al missed the main point behind his Global Warming epic. Capitalism. It is not enough to suspend progress. It is vital to suppress capitalism. The engine of global warming.
A quick inventory of world affairs shows a dramatic disparity among the nations and the peoples of the world. Where ever capitalism is allowed to take root, the streets are filled with polluting automobiles and the once lovely countryside is dotted with the misshapen hell holes called factories. China is the best and latest example of this capitalistic business model. Imagine what would be if the Chinese go total capitalism?
Is the elusive answer to the hysteria over global warming really the old stab at capitalism we are very familiar with, but have long forgotten? Let's examine the why of anti-capitalism. This movement was best personified by the old Stalinist and Marxist of the communist movement. The term “capitalist Pig” was once widely known as the mantra of the comrades of the communist regimes. They viewed us as wasteful and soft. Rich pigs consuming to consume and aspiring to the lofty goals of the wealthy they had murdered years ago. Those wealthy, evil men who would ruin the landscape with plumes of toxic smoke and cities of the poor all huddled together out of sight of the country clubs enjoyed only by the select few capitalists.
The premise of communism is based on the equality of the classes. This puts the government in the position of benevolent capitalist. A big brother who is always looking out for you and planning your next profitable move. Never again would the people work for the wealthy slobs. Never again would the people have to deal with the hardships of risk and failure. Everyone would live in a Utopian society of equality.
However, we know what men do with such power. The few capitalist were replaced with the few party members who fed themselves at the trough of wealth at the top of the food chain. Through brutal tactics and lies, lies and lies upon lies, they kept the workers working. Slaves to the system. Most rights were nonexistent and personal freedoms were a thing of the past. All that mattered was the state.
The promise of being equal is tempting to those who have been told that they can not succeed without the government's help. Those who do not want to work find the idea of taking money from the wealthy attractive. Minority equality is yet another area that buys votes.
The easiest way to stifle capitalism is to kill it's engine. The ignition switch is energy itself. Without the energy provided by fossil fuels, the capitalistic economy that is the giant of Western culture would surely die. No longer needed would be the cars and high rise apartments of out great cities. No longer possible would be the great exchange of wealth that occurs each day and products and services are traded.
This has come to us in the form of global warming. The blame for a natural occurrence , global warming, is laid squarely on the very lifeline of capitalism. The emissions of the energy producing machines we rely upon each day. CO2.
Is there really any further doubt that the claims concerning the IPCC report that it has been invented to crush the West is valid? Why reasonable questions about the report concerning human contributions to Global Warming and the unlikelihood of CO2 being substantial have been met with a nearly incomprehensible thick headedness on part of the liberals. It might be because saving the planet is not the goal. World dominance can only be attained by a communist world order. Americans must no longer be free. Free Americans are the only ones who really stand in the way of this progressive's wet dream. AGW is designed to kill Capitalism and install communism in it's place. Once this is accomplished, and your freedoms have been stripped away, then the One World Government can be implemented. You will not be able to deny it. The UN is that one world body that is working to make this a reality.
Check this website for a background of just what socialism is and what it looks like. Define socialism by defining capitalism. Then take a good look at what the future will feel like.
Sphere: Related Content
Democrats hold themselves up to be the champions of the poor. It always struck me as odd that a bunch of rich guys and gals, most of whom have never held a real job outside of Congress, can claim to be "one of us", the working people. They do, though, and quite successfully based on the electoral polls.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were tools used by Congress ostensibly to help poor folks own a home. While home ownership is a big part of "The American Dream", it was never intended to be a guarantee. It was historically the culmination of hard work and personal sacrifice. It may be again once more, but not in the foreseeable future.
Helping people who are not financially capable of buying a home buy one anyway is not only a bad idea, it is cruel, as we are now seeing people who had a small sip of the Dream having it wrenched from their grasp. It's almost like stealing a sandwich and handing it to a starving homeless person with the police in pursuit, who then rip it from his hands just as he's about to take a bite. The sandwich-snatcher then blames the police for taking food from the hungry.
The Bush Administration is now the target, bearing the blame for the woes of Freddie and Fannie, when he tried to fix the problem five years ago.
From the above link, Barney Frank had this to say about Bush's proposed plan:
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Note the title for Mr. Frank; ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. Maybe it's time for some new leadership in that area. Oh yes, and another financial expert, in the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, is in trouble because he had trouble navigating the tax codes! He then had the unmitigated audacity to blame Republicans for his misdeeds. He paid the back taxes, but "penalties and interest were not included in those payments". Yeah, he's just like you and me, alright.
This brings us to Barack Obama, who is leading the charge against the Administration in an attempt to lay blame, and ultimately win the Presidency. But while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were about to crumble, Obama saw fit to accept over $126,000 from them. That's in just three years as a senator, folks. By contrast, John McCain accepted $21,550, over twenty years.
The bottom line here is this; the democrats were opposed to Bush's oversight plan for these two institutions because they claimed it would make it harder for poor people to get homes. So they staved off the inevitable for a little while and in the meantime some poor folks bought houses, which they are now losing again.
While it may appear to be compassionate, it is certainly not helpful at all to give a homeless person a new refrigerator box.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Photo from AP's Marc Duncan
When will they ever learn that once they make their true intentions known they are doomed to failure? "They", of course, being Liberals, who have an ideal that is contrary to what most Americans believe and want - freedom.
Joe Biden was out on the stump for the Obama campaign trying to capitalize (a misnomer to be sure) on the troubled stock market and its detrimental effect on the economy by dragging out the old mantra of "tax the rich". Here's a snippet of what he said:
We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.
Most people who have "greenis envy" (yeah, I made that up), where the Warren Buffet's and the Bill Gates's are concerned, tend to applaud such comments because they feel that these men are above them and need to be taken down a peg. But ask any one of those same people if they'd be in favor of the local constabulary clubbing such men, rifling through their pockets and doling out the subsequent proceeds to the nearest panhandler, and my bet is that the answer would be a horrified, "NO".
People have their heroes and only hear what they want to hear, so when someone like me points out this obvious move toward socialism I am castigated as a McCarthy-esque kook. "Socialism is dead", they will cackle, and make the attempt to call it something else, but when it is presented as an example that will affect them on a more personal level, they suddenly see. Case in point:
There is an old axiomatic story that I will present here. It hits the nail squarely.From PoliticalHumor.org
A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
Beliefs and polls are something that are shaped by the way the queries are presented. It's true that people want the "rich" to "pay their fair share", but many of them will never be convinced that that is already so. Again, ask those many people if they would accept a freshly-confiscated pile of cash from a nearby, unconscious "rich guy" and I bet that the honorable among them would decline. Further, ask them how they would enjoy being forced to hand over large sums of cash to be given to someone else and they'd likely gouge out your eyes.
Let's just see how many vote to forfeit. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Picture from Christian Science Monitor
**** Written By SleeplessByTheSea ****
The Palin Effect
What an impact one person can make on an otherwise dull election year. It seems impossible that less than two weeks ago, all of the hype was still about Obama, and still trying to figure out what he is all about, and what he is really up to. Not any longer.
Obama has become insignificant in the bigger picture. Who would have ever thought that a vice presidential candidate would change the American political landscape so much, so quickly.
I doubt seriously that even John McCain or his entire campaign staff had a clue what they had done to change the momentum of this campaign. But, it’s far more than that. Whether McCain and Palin win still remains to be seen although it’s looking more hopeful for them everyday. So what is it about Sarah Palin? What is it about her that has changed this whole election? She’s not one of “them". She’s one of us. Sarah Palin represents what millions of us have voiced that we needed in Washington. Real people, with with real insight into real everyday problems. She is not just another “career politician". She is a little bit of all of us, that have been disgruntled with the way our government is being run, and voiced our desire to change it back to work for the people, instead of working the people…back to what our founders had in mind.
For the first time that I can recall, I feel a real positive outlook for real change. Even though Sarah’s tasks may be limited as vice president, her impact could have consequences of real change. We all know there are honest and sincere people in our own neighborhoods that would make terrific leaders. Perhaps now, they too will feel compelled to buck the system, and step out, and run for local office, just like Sarah did.
She did not run for mayor to get to Washington. This is exactly what we need more of.
And the outpouring of attention and admiration she has received nationally, even with the media and the DNC doing everything in their power to downplay Palin’s ability, only proves that this is the real change people want.
We have the best nation on earth to live in, and we need to do everything in our power to keep it that way. Who better to be our leaders than real people that have walked the walk, and not just spent years talking the talk. So, whether or not McCain/Palin make it all the way to the white house, the Palin effect will still impact our political system for decades to come. No longer will the Washington insiders feel like they have it over us.
We can call the shots. Our government needs to serve the people, not the people serving the government. Our government is not suppose to provide for the people, except to keep them safe from foreign threats, and ensure their rights provided by our constitution. Somewhere along the line, the status quo politicos have lost their way….until now. We have a shot at real change, from real people.
We can thank Sarah for that.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
She was supposed to be the first woman President of the United States. It was a given and no one saw Obama coming. Then Obama stormed ahead and eventually won the nomination, and it was expected that Hillary would at least be the first woman Vice President of the United States. Then something else happened; Obama changed his mantra of change, and picked a running mate from the same old, same old.
John McCain pounced on the opportunity and picked Sarah Palin for his running mate and effectively seized the brass ring of change. Almost immediately, the fortunes of the two candidates reversed, and Obama is now tilting at windmills, flailing blindly in a feeble attempt to regain his political footing.
One claim made by Obama was that he was going to “change the tone” of campaigning. Gone would be the usual vitriol and personal attacks, at least emanating from his camp. That all changed in an instant once they got a taste of Sarah Palin, and the ensuing attacks have been beneath even those to which the most seasoned political junkies have become accustomed. It shows a frantic desperation.
Obama himself has said that he “doesn’t believe in coming in second”. That would indicate a belief that desperate times call for desperate measures, and I look for some to begin bubbling to the surface soon. If the polls don’t start to even out again soon, there could be a huge shake-up in the Obama Camp.
In order to reclaim his stake in the change game, he will need to usurp Governor Palin’s appeal to women voters, and quickly. Look for Joe Biden to “fall ill”, paving the way for the democrats to hoist a woman of their own in the campaign, namely one Hillary Rodham Clinton. It will not be reported in the media, of course, but the reality of Biden's "illness" will be the direct result of the rear wheels of Obama's bus.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sarah Palin Being Rolled Out
When fishing, especially for the big ones, the tried and true tactic after hooking one is to let the fish take the line and run; let it think it may win for a short time while it swims frantically and then jerk the line once more and start reeling it in. It will still flail about in vain, tiring itself out even more as you bring it closer to the boat. Then rinse and repeat, until you have achieved victory.
Muhammad Ali had another term for the tactic; The Rope-A-Dope. In both cases the idea is to trick your enemy into a false sense of easy and impending victory while causing him to expend vast amounts of energy on a fruitless pursuit. Give him a little of what he wants until he feels over-confident and then put him away.
The McCain campaign gave the public a taste of Sarah Palin and they loved her. At least those inclined to love her, did. The other side, not so much. They pounced almost at once and began demanding more of her, and right away. When the campaign implied that she'd be unavailable for a short spell the line was set, the fish hooked, and it began taking line. Bloggers and main stream media outlets alike began asking why she was unable to face scrutiny. Just when the media they thought they'd burst from self-righteous indignation, the campaign announced that Palin would be more than available, for two days worth, and this week.
Charles Gibson of ABC News will have all the access he, or anyone else questioning her "seclusion", could have asked for, and they will then see that "the Barracuda" can also hold a fishing rod.
According to The Politico:
Campaign aides said the anchorman will get extensive, repeated access to Palin throughout her first trip home since becoming the nominee.
“ABC News will have plenty of time to question her and examine her and spend time with her,” a campaign official said. “They’ll do multiple interviews over two days. No topics are off-limits – there are no ground rules. There’s tons of time to talk to her about every topic.”
That doesn't sound like a candidate being sequestered. It sounds like a candidate about to lay a smack down on her critics. As the old axiom goes: "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". Or, as George W. Bush might say, "Never misunderestimate your opponent". Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, September 6, 2008
(c) 2004 Robert Darling
When the Sky Fell Silent
September 11, 2001 was a quiet day for me. I was one of very few Americans whose attention wasn't riveted to a television set on that unforgettable, unforgiveable morning. I was on a fall moose hunt with my friend and business partner, Don, near Red Shirt Lake in the western Susitna River Valley, and the nearest TV was probably 120 miles east. Dale, another friend and a bush pilot, was supposed to land on the lake early that morning and fly us back to Talkeetna with our kills. He never showed. I remember waking that morning, and not noticing the silence at first. It wasn't until well after the frost was melting and the coffee boiling that I became aware of the silence. There was no hum of small aircraft in the distance.
I mentioned the silence to Don, and we both stood for a long while next to the fire, two scruffy men in long johns and socks, watching the sky, watching and listening. No deep-throated Beavers or Otters with floats, trailing their mooring ropes like kite tails, no buzzing little Cubs, no aircraft at all. We talked it over, and neither of us could remember a morning without seeing a few aircraft overhead, or at least hearing a plane's murmuring drone in the distance. And it wasn't just the absence of small aircraft that struck us -- there were no contrails up high, there was none of the normal cargo and passenger jet traffic that normally plied the cross polar route and made refueling stops in Anchorage.
Except for birds, and a light breeze whispering through the black swamp spruce, and a few bull moose dueling in the treeless uplands northeast of the lake, it was a day of uncanny silence. Several times Don and I caught ourselves whispering, and nervously laughed off our unease. Both of us jumped several times when a log on the fire popped.
Late that afternoon, several formations of F-15s passed over low and fast, not the normal two-aircraft training runs out of Elmendorf, but combat formations. After that, the silence returned.
Three mornings later, on the 14th, we awoke to a familiar sound -- several small aircraft flying west from Talkeetna or northwest from Anchorage, Wasilla and Birchwood. Just after Don and I finished breakfast, we heard a Beaver lumbering in from the west -- once you've heard one a few times, you never forget the sound. Dale came in low, made two scouting passes over the lake, and then landed, shut down the powerplant and drifted to our makeshift spruce log dock, standing on the portside float and using a canoe paddle to guide the plane the last few yards. I remember Dale's face that morning -- I'll never forget it. He had that ashen expression you'd expect to see on a good friend's face if he was about to tell you your entire family had just been killed in an automobile accident.
Not one of us said a word until after we were seated on logs around the fire. There was none of the usual laughing, joking and backslapping you'd expect when a friend shows up to take you home after a long and successful hunting trip in the bush.
"We were attacked," Dale finally said. "The Godd---ed Arabs flew commercial planes into buildings out East."
"What was hit?" I asked.
"The Pentagon," he answered. "The Pentagon, and both tall towers in New York, the Trade Center. The buildings are gone. They're gone. Just f---ing rubble."
On the flight back to Talkeetna, Dale explained to us through headsets the flight moratorium, how only in Alaska were small aircraft finally allowed to fly, but only to retrieve hunters and others who were stranded, some of them hundreds of miles from the nearest road or village. Medical flights, too, were now allowed, while the rest of the nation's airfleet remained grounded. Military aircraft patrolled the skies around Anchorage, Dale said, prepared to down any plane, large or small, that couldn't provide an approved reason for flying.
Back in civilization, we spent an hour or so at the Talkeetna Roadhouse, watching satellite TV footage and replays of the attack, footage almost every other American had been watching for days. Except for the television, the roadhouse, normally filled with a wild bunch of boisterous and drunken bush pilots, riverboat pilots, grubby locals and a few city folks from Anchorage, was silent as a tomb. Men who'd normally be taking bets on arm-wrestling challenges, and even the few rowdies who normally ended their visits to the roadhouse with a friendly drunken fistfight, sat nursing their drinks in stunned silence.
When I arrived home that afternoon, my daughters ran down the driveway when they heard my truck coming. I don't remember them ever before clinging to me as tightly as they did that day. I don't remember another time when I held them for so long, without any of us ever saying a word.
No, I will never forget that day. I will never forget the silence. I'll never forget, or forgive, those who struck my nation, who forever stole fathers and mothers from their children, sons and daughters from their parents, brothers and sisters from their siblings. I'll never forget how closely I held my loved ones. I'll never forget the silence in the skies.
I remember seeing the walking dead doing their half-hearted best on the Sunday talk shows, trying mightily to muster the energy to support a lackluster campaign run by John McCain. I remember thinking to myself that we were all but doomed to an Obama Presidency, and I remember being afraid. Very afraid.
The Obama campaign was enjoying energy and victory while the McCain campaign was twisting in the wind, searching for a handhold and anything to ease the misery. It all came to a screeching halt on a June night, the night Obama was effectively crowned the winner in his war with Mrs. Clinton before a wild crowd. While that was happening, McCain was giving an embarrassing speech before a sparse crowd somewhere in America that, at the moment, didn't matter.
Enter Steve Schmidt, a senior advisor to McCain, who was moved to action that night. He was also moved up in the pecking order in the campaign, achieving near equal status with Manager Rick Davis. It has paid off in spades because, since that fateful day, the McCain campaign has been running on all cylinders and gaining speed. Gone are the doldrums many in the Republican Party had felt and exhibited, replaced by an exuberance and youthful zing no one thought possible. And just when things couldn't have looked better for the campaign's success, McCain hit the nitrous oxide switch.
Sarah Palin has amplified the party's fuel system twofold and managed to pull even with the campaign that was once a mirage in the distance, seen through the haze of dust kicked up by Obama's tires. To mix metaphors, we've got ourselves a real horse race now.
When we can finally say President McCain, I think there will be a parade for Steve Schmidt. Or at the very least, there ought to be.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
It's strange sometimes how things just fall from the sky into your lap, figuratively speaking, of course. Watching the Republican Nation Convention tonight, I was struck by a moving video, narrated by actor Gary Sinise. Sinise is a rarity in Hollywood; he's an unabashed conservative who is fortunate in that he is so talented that the powers that be simply cannot separate their politics from their pocketbooks.
Sinise narrated a short video commemorating the brief life and career of Michael Monsoor, a brave Navy SEAL who gave his life in Iraq by falling on a live grenade in order to save his platoon. "Mikey", as he was known to those close to him, was honored in front of his surviving family at the Convention and the video was beautifully done, as was the somber narration of Sinise.
The video was a condensed synopsis of an equally condensed life story. The thing that leapt out at me was the fact that Mikey was a Navy SEAL. Becoming a SEAL is one of the most difficult processes in the military. One of the requirements is the ability to pass a test in which the cadet must hold his breath under water for 5 minutes. Michael Monsoor had asthma as a child. He conditioned himself by taking up swimming and snowboarding. Then he became a Navy SEAL.
Vice Presidential candidate Joe Bide, a 35 year veteran of the U.S. Senate, received five deferments to Vietnam because he was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager. Just how badly did Biden want to defend his country? Obviously not as badly as Mikey.
As the campaign season wears on we can count on the Democrats to make as little as possible of McCain's service even though it is a scant four years since they tried in vain to convince us that such service was the biggest reason to vote for Kerry over George W. Bush. Keep this in mind as the season winds down to November.
Asthma was an excuse for Biden to sit it out. It was a motivation for "Mikey" Monsoor. And Mikey's family was at the RNCC. 'Nuff said.
Monday, September 1, 2008
There is much to be said of the hypocrisy of the left in America, but nothing more important than the ultimate damage it causes. And while they leave destruction and despair in their path, they march ever forward and successfully lay the blame on others, more specifically, their own country. Somehow they manage to garner the support of those they harm most in the process, which is nothing short of astounding.
The left is pressing more boldly each day to force America, inarguably the greatest nation the world has ever known, to emulate Europe, the continent we left for a better life. Does no one see the intrinsic irony in this? That is obviously a rhetorical question, but one I felt the need to throw out there nonetheless, because it seems at times that I am alone. Understandably, many of us feel the same way, which is why we take turns writing and reading articles such as this. The oblivious are not concerned enough to be here in the first place.
One glaring example of the blatant hypocrisy of which I speak is the argument being made by “intellectuals” such as (pick Hollywood star here). Forget Iraq, that dog is done hunting. But Iran…ah, now we have some juice! Iran has been sabre rattling in a fashion to make the post-mortem Kruschev envious, and yet we still have actors and dancers defending Ahmadinejad. What I find most intriguing about this, however, is their insistence that “Iran has every right to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes”. Is that so?
Why is it then, that when America tries to open a nuclear power plant to move towards energy independence and lower costs, that we are stifled by “concerned environmentalists” aided by lunatic politicians worried about the dangers of nuclear power? It must either be that they believe the lies of Iran, or they don’t care if those Iranian citizens have a melt down. Ha, who’re the racists now?
But I digress. Back to the damage that “concerned” environmentalists can wreak. In September on 2005, all we heard about was the government (read George W. Bush and FEMA) failures to protect New Orleans. It was the government’s fault that the levees failed. What you never got to read for any number of reasons, most likely because the stories were either buried or discredited, was that the levees were slated for vast improvements. Those improvements never happened though. Why? Here’s why:
Environmentalists were concerned about the impact levee reconstruction would have on the wetlands surrounding New Orleans. A Los Angeles Times article from September 19th of 2005 notes that “damage to wetlands, which provide natural protection against hurricane damage”, were more important than an actual barrier, built by the Army Corps of Engineers. In effect, the everglades-like surroundings would have protected against the devastating flooding more adequately. Looks like the Greenies were wrong.
So we must emulate Europe, but only in certain circumstances. For example, we must adhere to their liberal policies in regards to societal conditions, but we cannot adopt lifesaving technology, such as they have in the Netherlands. Nor Venice or London. America must explain her policy of letting people drown because of archaic earthen levees because it saves the piping plover or the spotted owl or some other ridiculous excuse, but Europe can build elaborate, modern structures to protect people from dying.
Katrina was no “racist dance”. Unless you have two left feet.