It is obvious to anyone who has an ounce of intelligence that Arlen Specter is changing political parties for political preservation because Rep. Pat Toomey was giving him a run for his money. Polls showed that Arlen Specter was slipping big time against his Republican rival by some ten points. Alan Specter said the following:
"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
What I say to that is "HOOey!" And if Al Franken manages to steal the election in Minnesota, Republicans would never have had a filibuster anyway, because Specter never voted with the party. Specter slips in the polls, and for his politcal survival jumps ship. Previously, he tried to block party switching as reported by politico.com
This mind-bending revelation from my colleague Eamon Javers:
Back in '01, when Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords went independent so he could caucus with the Democrats, a senator took to the floor to suggest the Senate alter its rules to preclude midterm switchers from causing a changeover in control of the chamber.
His name? Guess.
Specter: "How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting."
He was most concerned with a technical issue: The ability of members to switch parties after "organizational" party meetings that determine which party serves in the majority.
And in other specter news - The National Review reports that Arlen Specter was the one who invented the conspiracy theory called "single-bullet theory" to explain the assasination of President Kennedy.
Long before he became one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate — and the target of Congressman Pat Toomey's GOP primary challenge — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania demonstrated a knack for notoriety. In 1964, as a member of the Warren Commission, he invented the "single-bullet theory" to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Conspiracy junkies have obsessed over him ever since. (In Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Kevin Costner's character labels Specter "an ambitious junior counselor" behind "one of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people.")
Pro-choice powell was never a conservative. He is one of those RINO - Republican in Name Only.
Powell says, "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim?" in his Meet the Press Interview referring to Obama hypothetically speaking of course. The answer is for an American, "NO", for a President, "Yes." Powell fails to understand the Middle East, the war on terror and what it would mean to be a Muslim.
Moreover, Islam differs from other mainstream religions in this way. Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and other denominations view separation of church and state differently. While it is entirely possible to separate church from state with regards to Christianity - this is not true of Islam. Islam teaches that religion and the state are inextricably linked. Would this not make it difficult for a Muslim president in a secular state?
Trinity United, Obama's church has consistently supported the Palestinians, and has been fierce critics of Israel. We are at war with Radical Islam, and electing Obama would be another victory for Hamas and supporters of terrorism.
Powell's endorsement should be no surprise. Powell has been making rumors about supporting Obama. He has never been a conservative, and this proves it. No true conservative could ever vote for Obama period.
Rush Limbaugh states, "I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with." That is putting it succintly.
Eduardo Verastegui talks about abortion and a reason to vote Eduardo Verastegui habla sobre el aborto y una razón para votar
Translation in English is below Spanish.
Eduardo Verastegui, a Catholic, and a Mexican actor tells his story and gives you a reason to vote this November.
Eduardo Verastegui, un católico y un actor mexicano relata su historia y le da una razón para votar este noviembre.
Hola que tal mi nombre es Eduardo Verastegui.
Y quiero invitarlos a que vean un video que me ha inspirado muchísimo luchar por aquellos que no tienen voz. Sabían ustedes que los niños de los grupos minoritarios están siendo abortados en una proporción del más del doble en comparación con los niños anglosajones. Según estadísticas de 1990 el 26 por ciento de las mujeres en estados unidos pertenecen a las clases minoritarias. Y de acuerdo con el Centro de Control de Enfermedades, (CDC) el 36 % de los abortos se cometieron en ellas. Los hispanos somos los más afectados por la industria del aborto y yo quiero saber porqué. La mayoría de los centros de aborto se encuentran en barrios habitados por hispanos, ¿Por qué?
Los periódicos y revistas – La radio y la televisión en español están saturados de anuncios y comerciales promoviendo el aborto. ¿Por qué?
El aborto no solamente es un negocio muy lucrativo sino que también es utilizado por personas racistas como un medio para eliminar a nuestra gente ya que ellos piensan que nosotros somos una amenaza a la democracia de este país. Desafortunadamente, la mayoría de la gente no sabe la verdad acerca del aborto y sus terribles consecuencias.
Sabían ustedes que con tal más de tres mil bebes son abortados diariamente en los estados unidos y que 650 de esos bebes son de origen hispano o sea que más de 200.000 mil bebes hispanos son abortados cada año en este país.
Muchas de las víctimas que ustedes verán en este video se encontraban entre el segundo y el tercer trimestre del embarazo ya que en estados unidos el aborto es legal durante los nueve meses del embarazo. Muchos de ellos fueron encontrados en bolsas de basura cerca de centros de aborto.
Algunos de ustedes quizás se pregunten si es necesario mostrar un video como éste y la respuesta es la misma que dan las escuelas para mostrar a los niños películas sobre el holocausto nazi. Los maestros no muestran estos videos para manipular emocionalmente a los estudiantes. Lo hacen porque el holocausto nazi representa un mal tan terrible que las palabras solas no bastan para describir la realidad. El holocausto del aborto no es diferente. Todos sabemos instintivamente que el aborto es algo malo pero hasta que no vean este video se darán cuenta lo perverso que es.
La decisión de ver este video debe ser tomada libremente por cada uno de ustedes pero yo espero que lo vean porque la ignorancia que nace de no querer aceptar la realidad nos impide como país a reaccionar ante el aborto. Si algo tan terrible que ni siquiera soportamos verlo no será que tal vez tampoco debiéramos tolerarlo. Al terminar el video, les voy a proporcionar información muy importante acerca de la postura de Barack Obama respecto al aborto.
(Video)
Amigas y Amigos,
Sé que ver este video ha sido difícil y muy doloroso. No es fácil ver a bebes que han sido asesinados de esa forma. Es muy difícil hablar sobre el aborto pero es más difícil ver a estos bebes siendo abortados como se los hemos mostrado en el video. Hay personas que después de ver este video se preguntan ¿Cómo es posible que esto sea legal? Yo considero que el aborto es legal porque no hay suficientes hombres y mujeres que alcen la voz en contra del aborto. Lo único que necesita más para triunfar es que la gente buena se quede callada. La primera vez que le mostré este video a una mujer que estaba considerando la opción de terminar con su embarazo, el video la conmovió tanto que no solamente tocó su corazón sino que también cambió su manera de pensar para siempre, meses después ella dio luz a Eduardito, un bebe que ha cambiado la vida de muchos.
Sabían ustedes que desde la legislación del aborto, más de 40 millones de bebes han sido asesinados. Es necesario poner fin al aborto y los candidatos políticos juegan un papel muy importante en este tema.
Sabían ustedes que Barack Obama apoya los abortos realizados durante los últimos meses del embarazo, que Obama apoya los inhumanos abortos de nacimiento parcial, que Obama quiere financiar abortos con los impuestos que pagamos usted y yo. Como legislador, Obama votó en diversas ocasiones en contra de una ley que buscaba proteger a los bebes que habían sobrevivido un aborto que habían nacido vivos. Obama se ha comprometido en remover todas las leyes próvida que actualmente en muchos estados ofrecen protección a los bebes aún no nacidos y a sus madres.
El señor Obama no está de acuerdo en que los padres de una menor de 13 años que haya quedado embarazada sea notificados antes de que ella aborte su bebe. Leyes absurdas como ésta que ignoran la opinión de los padres son precisamente las que permiten a pederastas y a depravados sexuales a forzar a jovencitas a tener abortos en secreto para encubrir sus crímenes sexuales. A Obama le interesa más mantener la legalidad del aborto que el bienestar de los bebes, los niños y las familias de este país. Unámonos y hagamos algo para defender la vida en todo momento desde su concepción hasta su muerte natural.
Quiero agradecerles por haber visto este video. Si ustedes se conmovieron al igual que yo, los bebes necesitan que ustedes los defiendan, por favor que su compasión se convierta en acción. Si desean más información de cómo ayudarnos, si usted esté embarazada y necesita ayuda o si ha tenido un aborto y quisiera información confidencial, por favor visite los siguientes sitios de Internet. Muchas Gracias y que Dios les bendiga.
Translation in English
Hi, My name is Eduardo Verastegui
And I want to invite you to watch a video that has so inspired me to fight for those who do not have a voice. Did you know that children of minority groups are being aborted at a proportion more than double than that of their Anglo-Saxon counterparts? According to statistics from 1990, 26% of women in the United States belong to minority classes. According to statistics from the Center of Disease Control, (CDC) 36% of the abortions were from these minority classes.
As Hispanics we are the most affected by the abortion industry and I want to know why? The majority of the abortion centers are found in places inhabited by Hispanics. Why?
The Newspapers and magazines – Spanish radio and television are saturated with announcements and commercials promoting abortion. Why?
Abortion is not only a lucrative business but it is also used by racist people as a means to eliminate our people since they think we are a threat to the democracy to this country. Unfortunately, the majority of people know the truth about abortion and its terrible consequences.
Did you know that three thousand babies are aborted daily in the United States and that 650 of those babies are of Hispanic origin or more than 200,000 Hispanic babies are aborted each year in this country?
Many of these victims that you will see in this video were found between the second and third trimester during the mother's pregnancy. Many of them were found in garbage bags near abortion centers.
Some of you might ask yourselves if it is necessary to show a video like this one and the answer is the same that schools give to show children movies about the Nazi holocaust. The teachers do not all videos of the NAZI holocaust in order to manipulate the emotional state of the students. They do it because the NAZI holocaust represents a horrible so evil that words alone are not sufficient to describe the reality.
The abortion holocaust is not different. We all know instinctively that abortion is bad, but until you see this video you will not realize how perverse it is. The decision to see this video should be decided freely by each one of you, but I hope that you watch it because ignorance that is born from not wanting to accept reality stops us as a country to react against abortion. If something so horrible is happening that we can’t even stand to see it might it not be telling us that maybe we shouldn’t tolerate it.
After the video, I am going to provide you with very important information about Barack Obama’s position with respect to abortion.
(Video)
My friends,
I know that watching this video has been difficult and very painful. It is not easy to see babies that have been murdered this way. It is very difficult to speak about abortion, but it is more difficult seeing these babies murdered as you have just seen in this video. There are people that after watching this video ask themselves, How is it possible that this is legal? I believe that abortion is legal because there are not sufficient men and women to raise their voice against abortion. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I first showed this video to a woman that was pregnant and considering the option of terminating her pregnancy. The video moved her so much that it not only touched her heart, but it also changed her way of thinking forever. Months later, she gave birth to little Edward, a baby that has changed the lives of many.
Did you know that since abortion was legalized, more than 40 million babies have been murdered? It is necessary to put an end to abortion and the political candidates play an important role in this matter.
Did you know that Barack Obama supports abortions that take place during the last months of pregnancy? That Obama supports the inhuman practice of partial birth abortions that Obama wants to finance abortion with your and my tax dollars. As a legislator, Obama voted on several occasions against a law that searched for ways to protect babies that had survived an abortion after they were born, the born-alive amendment. Obama has pledged to remove all pro-life laws that currently are offered in many states that protect the unborn and their mothers.
Mr. Obama does not agree with notifying parents of a 13 year old minor child who becomes pregnant before she has an abortion. Absurd laws like this one that ignore the opinion of parents are precisely those that allow child predators and sexual deviants to force young girls to have secret abortions in order to hide the predator’s sexual crimes. Obama is interested more in keeping abortion legal than he is concerned about the welfare of the unborn, the children and their families of this country. Let us unite and let’s do something to defend life in all phases from conception until its natural death.
I want to thank you for watching this video. If you are moved as I was, the unborn need someone to defend them, please put your compassion into action. If you want more information on how you can help us, if you are pregnant, and you need help or if you have had an abortion and would like confidential information, please visit our following Internet sites.
As of this writing, I am watching my investment portfolio dissipate into thin air. Pope Benedict XVI the other day said that money is ephemeral, the economy is built on sand, and only the word of God will stand forever. He is right.
October 7th 1984, exactly 23 years ago from yesterday's debate. President Ronald Reagan faced off with Walter Mondale in their first debate. Mondale believed the road to reducing the deficit was raising taxes, President Ronald Reagan believed the way to reduce the deficit was lower taxes. He spelled out exactly how he was going to do it, and he was able to sell his plan to the American people. Reagan came from 16 points behind to a landslide victory. Last night, McCain didn't come close to Reagan's performance. There was no cohesive argument that Americans could understand. There was no passion. Where was the passion McCain has so often used on the Senate floor? The headline in the Drudge report is, "Boring!" In American Idol, Simon Cowell calls it "the wow factor." If a singer sings okay, but nothing spectacular, Simon Cowell says, "There was no wow factor." In last night's debate, I am afraid, "There was no wow factor."
The first twenty minutes should set the tone for the debate. McCain should have begun naming names right at the onset of people responsible for this financial debacle. He did not. Instead, he comes up with another 300 billion dollar bailout package for homeowners to stabilize the housing market. I wanted to get up from my seat and choke him. The majority of Americans were against the 700 billion dollar bailout, so why did McCain think that another 300 billion dollar bailout was going to get him any votes. What about his spending freeze? I heard a Democratic pundit call it a "Hail Mary Pass." Unfortunately, I would have to agree with her. That was the most ridiculous populous rhetoric I heard from McCain in the entire debate.
McCain finally talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
>But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis. But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Senator Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back. And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess. Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.
That was a good start, but he left it there. He never mentioned it again, and didn't name names. How can he not name the people responsible and hold them accountable? Poll after poll shows that Americans want accountability. Why did he not name Frank Raines, the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and a current advisor of Obama, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, and Democrat Barney Frank? Why did he then not tie these together to the Democratic congress that has a lower approval rating than President Bush? A president Obama and a Democratic congress are tantamount to a blank check, and Obama will use it. I wanted to put some dynamite in McCain's rear-end to get him fired up.
McCain did begin to talk about taxes, and he made some salient points. At one point McCain said, "the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point." I was waiting for McCain to explain his statement. He did not. If 50% of Americans according to polls do not know who is in charge of congress, how many does he think know who President Herbert Hoover was? Herbert Hoover was the president at the beginning of the depression, and his increase in taxes, and his protectionist policies such as the Smoot-Hawley act made the depression much deeper and made it last longer, but McCain failed to explain this.
Tom Brokaw asks who will be the next treasury of the state and McCain comes out with Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet is one of the greatest financial geniuses of our century but he is a big liberal. Couldn't McCain come up with a conservative? And why wouldn't have the candidates have thought of this before since the treasury secretary is now the most powerful person in the United States Government? Of course, Obama is going to come back and say, "Yeah, Warren Buffet sounds good."
McCain then elaborated on Obama's tax policies,
"Small businesses across America will have to cut jobs and will have their taxes increase and won't be able to hire because of Sen. Obama's tax policies. You know, he said some time ago, he said he would forgo his tax increases if the economy was bad. I've got some news, Sen. Obama, the news is bad. So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000. "
McCain also made the point of Obama's spending over 800 billion dollars in new spending, but he did not effectively tie the two together. He was off to a good start but again it was not enough. He also knew Obama would come back with his usual talking points when Obama said,
>"I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent. If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down. Now, Senator McCain talks about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan. "
McCain left this statement unchallenged. There is no way with Obama's spending plan that he can only tax his so-called rich. In one of Obama's crackpot ideas he wants to spend 25 billion dollars a year to send to foreign countries to cut down on poverty. Guess where that money will end up? – In the hands of terrorists and warlords. He wants to enact a windfall profit tax, the same type of tax that proved an abysmal failure during the Carter years. A windfall profit tax is no different than the excess profit taxes tried before World War 2 that ended up hurting the economy. He wants to expand the earned income credit which is welfare. He says his taxes won't affect small businesses but there are currently 21.6 million sole proprietorships under the individual tax system. Obama's taxes include these taxpayers too. These rates would change from 33% to 39.6%. And what about stifling economic growth with an increase in the tax rate of capital gains and dividends? Obama's tax plan is the same-old redistribution of wealth that has always hurt economies. That is the only way 95% of Americans can get a tax break. This is the opposite of supply-side economics.
McCain talks about earmarks, but it's beginning to lack credulity. His 700 billion dollar bailout was laden with earmarks.
Why did McCain not mention the far-left organization ACORN and Obama's involvement in it which is well-documented? Acorn has been involved in a number of voter fraud cases and just today, the FBI raided the Las Vegas offices of ACORN for more voter fraud including the falsifying of forms with fake names, addresses, etc. This is a commonality of ACORN.
Governor Palin had referenced that Obama was palling around with terrorists such as Bill Ayers, former terrorist of The Weather Underground. This was in reference to newly released documents last Thursday According to these documents, Bill Ayers wanted to radicalize students "in his words" and he hired Barack Obama as chairman of the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" who was responsible for distributing the 50 million dollars raised by Ayers to various schools. This would have left more doubt in the mind of voters. Why did McCain not mention this?
Or, what about Obama's cozy relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko from whom Obama bought a house under suspicious circumstances that even Hillary Clinton mentioned in her debates?
We have one relationship after another from Obama's past of characters of unsavory and dubious quality yet McCain does not mention one of them. One relationship wouldn't mean much, but it is the pattern of these relationships throughout his life that we have to wonder on who Obama really is.
McCain should have refined his energy plan a lot sooner. This is the first time I heard McCain say that he would reprocess nuclear waste like France and other countries. Before it was all about where do we put the waste? France reprocesses 95% of their waste, and the remainder is almost nothing. It is only recently Obama has been for nuclear energy. McCain lost this as an issue.
Obama's plan even sounded better on health care. It's going to cost an arm and a leg, but it sounded better than what McCain was proposing. But again, Obama wants healthcare for 45 million uninsured individuals. That number has always included 14 million illegal aliens. What kind of burden will that put on the government? We don't have money for any of these spending programs.
As we watch our economy crumble, who does not think Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations are looking on this as an opportunity?
There will be one more debate, but who will be watching?
This is not about who will be the best president of the United States, because both of these candidates are dolts. The question comes down to who will do the least damage to our country?
"Dime con quien andas, y te diré quien eres" Show me your friends, and I will tell you who you are." is a favorite saying in Spanish and a warning to America. In last night's debate McCain was unable or unwilling to make the sale. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will be our next president, but be warned. Barack Obama will take us to places we have never been before, and these are places that are not good. Barack Obama is a product of far-left George Soros and Moveon.org and he comes from the corrupt Chicago political machine, and anyone who has looked at his relationships understands what I am talking about. Last night's debate was a turning point in our country. We have now begun the metamorphous transformation from what America used to be to a socialist style of Europe. Its Ironic that Europe is electing leaders by the droves that are right of center because their socialistic policies are killing them; France - Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany – Angela Markel, Italy – George Napolitano and Sweden – Fredrik Reinfeldt. This country will now be run by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Like Britain, our greatness will be greatly diminished by socialistic and protectionist policies. Barack Obama will turn this country into just another member of the European Union. I hope we will be able to recover.
The McCain debate needless to say was a disappointment. Prior to the debates, the media revealed that Obama spent days practicing for the debate. It was also said that McCain didn't spend much time preparing, because he does better without preparation. Well from watching the debate, I think McCain should have practiced more. I was hoping for an Obama knockout by McCain. Admittedly, McCain did better on foreign affairs, but he didn't do well on the bailout, and that was the most important issue of the night.
I have said before that we should do debates more like the French where the candidates sit down at a table and dialogue, and the moderator only controls the questioning process. Friday night was the closest to these French debates I have seen except that the candidates instead of sitting were standing at a lectern. Jim Lehrer, the moderator, was to start with a lead question, and the two candidates were to dialogue, but I don't think either candidate got it. On several occasions, Lehrer, said, "Talk to each other", as opposed to the television audience or he would say, "say it directly to him" directing Obama to McCain. McCain not catching on sneered "are you afraid I can't hear him?" This prompted Lehrer to say, "I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try." It was like a schoolmarm trying to get her students to follow a new process, but the children, hesitant to change, just couldn't get what the teacher wanted. Isn't Obama big on change? Lehrer just gave up after awhile.
Obama did catch on after awhile, and began talking to McCain, but McCain did not look at Obama once during the entire event. That did not look good. It was also obvious that Obama had practiced for this debate because he had improved in his debating style quite extensively with very few uhs and duhs as is his custom. But, this was a referendum on the economy, and McCain should have and could have done much better even though the focus of the debate was supposed to be on foreign affairs.
What polls showed and what the American public wanted to know was; why did McCain feel it necessary to go to Washington? And what is the difference between his bailout plan and Obama's bailout plan? These questions were not answered. When the three page Paulson plan was announced, the senate was receiving 100 to 1 phone calls against the plan. Obama said, "We haven't seen the language yet "but there is a huge difference between what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want. McCain needed to spell out these differences, and why his plan is what the American public wants. This would have gone a long way in alleviating the public's fears. Moreover, it would have shown once again how McCain is not Bush since McCain was against the Bush plan, but he remained reticent, and said nothing. During this entire round, I wanted to grab McCain's neck and shout, "Don't let this radical leftie near the White House." – but I didn't think he would hear me.
And why didn't McCain say anything about Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd. These are two of the principals involved in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess yet they are overseeing this bailout. Wasn't McCain going to name names?
What was amazing was how Jim Lehrer kept asking if there were any fundamental changes that either candidate would do because of this new economic crisis. As circumstances change ones plans would presumably change. But both McCain and Obama stuck to their talking points. McCain finally said he would consider a spending freeze which is actually a good tool. Businesses do it all the time during slow periods in a business cycle. Obama not understanding economics once again said, "The problem with a spending freeze is your using a hatchet instead of a scalpel." At least McCain's pro growth policies of drilling off shore, lower taxes, lower corporate taxes, cutting spending works in any environment whereas Barack's policies of high taxes, socializing health care, etc will hinder growth and kill a slowing economy. Barack, however, stuck to his talking points of raising taxes even on corporations and even after Jim Lehrer prompted questions to both candidates on what they would do differently.
McCain did not spell out how Barack's taxes would destroy the economy and cause the bailout to fail. He needed to do this. He would say one line about Barack's taxes and then go back to his earmark talking points. We all know about McCain's earmarks, but he needed to expose what Barack's taxes will do. Imagine how much it is going to cost to socialize medicine when we just bailed out Wall Street. That is going to kill the economy.
McCain said, "Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent." And Barack Obama shot back that American corporations have all kinds of loopholes. McCain should have said how Ireland has been booming because of its low tax rate. Ireland is a good example. Not sure what loopholes Obama was talking about, the point is you lower corporate taxes, you grow the economy period.
The second part of the debate was McCain's shining point and while foreign policy should be as or more important than the economy, Bush's success on the war on terror has actually hurt McCain – Why? - Because the American public has the memory of a gnat. 9/11 is as distant to the left as Pearl Harbor, and many on the left don't even believe the war on terror remains a threat. They still believe global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.
When Russia invaded Georgia, Obama made three evolving statements, the first showing he had no clue as to what the incursion of Russia meant into Georgia. During the debate, McCain said the following, "Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."" McCain, then showed a very deep understanding of the situation with Georgia and Russia. As McCain derided Obama's naiveté on Georgia, Obama appeared flummoxed. Obama had no clue that Georgia was an ally of ours with 2000 troops fighting alongside of us in Iraq. A sound bite that the media will repeat over and over the next day is an important aspect of a debate. But again, McCain missed an opportunity. McCain knew he would be speaking about this; this would have been an opportune time to sneak in a memorable sound bite. How about, "Obama first said each side needed to show restraint until others made it clear that this was purely Russian aggression, and then he had to google whose side we were on." Or something of that sort.
Obama looked visibly flustered at times during the second half of the debate, and interrupted McCain several times. When Obama first interrupted McCain, McCain should have put him in his place by saying, "Do you mind if I finish my point." But, he did not, he let Obama interrupt him. Several times Obama raised his hand like an impatient child, but then just smirked in the usual Obama condescending way. This is the man that could be president.
In any event the foreign policy part of the debate clearly went to McCain, but the country is focused on the economy and because McCain did not score any major points against Obama on the economy, I believe that Obama won the debate. Polls show that Americans trust Obama ten points more than McCain, and only God knows why. I wonder what the voters base this on. I can only surmise that we are dealing with an illiterate electorate.
I hope someone is prepping Sarah Palin correctly for the VP debate. I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning, and she makes a valid point. Whoever prepped McCain for the last debate should be fired, whoever has been handling Sarah Palin should be fired. I hope that Sarah Palin does well on the VP debate, and I hope she is being well prepared. She needs to be authentic. She needs to be Sarah Palin.
As of this writing, latest poll data per Gallup shows Obama up eight points less than 40 days to the election - God help us all.
The current crisis in which we currently find ourselves was 100% preventable.
During the Clinton years, it was the Internet bubble. Bill Clinton was widely credited for the economic growth and expansion that took place during his eight years in office. However, anyone who studied what was really going on also understands that this expansion was due in large part by the dot-coms that were making no money. The economy was run by venture capital. There were no products, just hope. At one point there were six Internet companies of dog food. The growth in sales was what counted, profits didn't matter. Stock market valuations reached the stratosphere. All of this occurred as a result of the infusion of massive amounts of venture capital. The adage, "Stock market valuation doesn't matter, we have reached a new paradigm" was the mantra heard. Anytime you hear this, it is time to head for the hills, because stock market valuations always matter, and bubbles will always pop. What goes up must come down. At the end of Clinton's term, the Internet bubble did burst, and in its wake, it left collateral damage of companies from every industry. These companies were affected since they no longer could do business with these failed Internet companies. This is what I call Clinton's "Fake Economy."
When Bush was elected president in 2000, he inherited a fledgling economy, and in 2001, there was another shock to the system, September 11th. This could have portended disaster to the economy. The tragedy of September 11th caused the Dow Jones to fall 681 points 7.1% to 8920, its biggest ever one day point decline. The stock market lost 1.2 trillion dollars in one week. Every industry declined especially the airline industry. Can you imagine if Bush raised taxes in this scenario? President George W Bush campaigned on lower taxes, and in 2001 he followed through on his promise. These tax cuts spurred the economy on, and avoided a recession that everyone thought was going to happen.
As the economy grew, a new bubble was forming, this was the housing bubble spurred on by low interest rates and easy credit. This was Bush's bubble. People who could not afford houses were buying houses with loans lower than the cost of money on the assumption they would make up the difference later when they sold their houses later at a higher price. Why? - Because houses would always go up. Where had we heard that before? Banks would package these loans and offload the risk to other financial institutions and investment houses making a quick buck. Investment institutions would package these loans into fancy financial instruments known as derivatives that few people could understand. Earnings on these derivatives were estimated and wildly optimistic, and their ultimate value depended on the creditworthiness of the counterparties involved, and we now know the creditworthiness of these counterparties. Warren Buffet called these derivatives in his annual letter to shareholders 2002, "Weapons of financial destruction."
If you want to understand the idiocy of bubbles, and how we will continue to follow them like a pack of rabid dogs, and how the same pattern will repeat over and over again, check out the Tulip Bubble. The tulip was introduced in Europe in the mid 17th Century from the Ottoman Empire. The tulip became so popular that buyers bid up the price to astronomical levels. In Feb 1637, Tulip bulb prices collapsed abruptly, and the trade of tulip bulbs grew to a halt. Click on Tulip Bubble to read the rest of the story. You may think that people were really gullible falling for tulips, but there is no difference in what is happening today.
Greed pure and simple drove the borrowers to take out loans they could not afford, and greed pure and simple drove the financial institutions to lend to any dead man walking.
Who is to blame? The Democrats will say it happened on Bush's watch so he is to blame, so they will point the finger and say, "This is Bush's legacy." But this started long before Bush was president. Even Bill Clinton had to concede that the Democrats were partly at fault. You can reach no other conclusion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a Democratic mess unless you are blind. The Democrats pushed for easier loans so everyone could buy a home. They don't understand that not everyone should own a home. Bush, however, is not blameless. He was responsible for many grants to left-wing organizations for the purpose of sub-prime mortgages.
So what do we do now going forward?
Reinstitute the Glass-Stegall act – The Glass-Stegall act was enacted in 1933 as a result of the Great Depression. It was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1991. The intermingling of commercial banking and investing activity were thought to be the reasons for the financial crash. It was believed commercial banks took on too much risk. Banks became too greedy risking depositor's money as they tried to reap big payoffs. Many thought that the Glass-Stegall act was too harsh and adversely affected the banking industry. But with the repeal, what feared might happen after the Great Depression, happened. The Glass-Stegall act should be looked at. There needs to be a barrier between the normal financial activities of a bank and investing activities (ie: the speculation that was occurring in the subprime market between banks and the major brokerage houses.)
Severely curtail the securitization of loans. Securitizing loans is the packaging of loans and selling them to a willing buyer for a profit. This allows a bank to take on more risk than they should because they offload the risk to other institutions. When did banks forget how to assess risk? That is their job. If loans are not securitized, the risk remains at the bank. The banks would not take undue risk if they knew they had to hold on to the loans.
Golden parachutes and bonuses should be forfeited if companies fail.
Banks and investment institutions should be transparent in the risk they are taking. I have invested in many bank stocks, and when I read the annual reports, it is almost impossible to assess the risk these institutions are taking. Loans on and off the books, performing and non-performing assets should be transparent, and the risk these financial institutions are taking should be in the annual reports. Had this been known, investors would not have been buying these companies. On April 2nd , 2008 I predicted this financial crisis in my entry The Coming Economic Tsunami. In my blog entry I quoted Whitney Tilson of Tilson Funds in which he stated,
We've been very bearish on housing for a number of years, but after all of the recent terrible news, we had thought that we might be in the 6th or 7th inning of this unfolding debacle and perhaps it might be time to start buying some of the stocks that have been obliterated, in anticipation of a bottom and then recovery. But then we were introduced recently to the CEO of Amherst Securities Group L.P. Sean Dobson, who has collected extensive data on every mortgage that was securitized in the United States this decade. He was kind enough to share some of his data with us, which shows that we are still in the early innings of the bursting of the housing bubble. Believe it or not, as bad as things have been to date, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg: an enormous wave of defaults, foreclosures and auctions is about the hit the United States. We believe it will get so bad that large-scale federal government intervention is likely.
Why does it take a financial analyst talking to the CEO of a Securities firm to find out the gravity of this problem? Why is this information not disclosed in the financials so investors can make informed decisions?
One final thought – The ire of voters is palpable and understandable. But, if Obama should be the next president of the United States, who thinks that Obama will not go ahead with his inane idea to raise taxes, and what do you think that will do the economy already teetering on the brink? He already suffers from abulia. One shudders to think of the possibilities.
Last night we discovered Obama was in fact Zeus reincarnated as he delivered his fiery speech at Barackopolis with 80,000 swooning adoring sycophants. He wants us to believe that he is better on the judgment issue than McCain. He wants us to believe he is ready to run this country. While it was probably the best speech he ever gave, Barack Obama is in fact the most radical of any nominee this nation has ever produced probably more akin to the likes of Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He doesn't have a clue about the economy nor does he have a clue about the world, yet his fans swoon over him.
I do believe McCain wanted to pick his friend Senator Joseph Lieberman. I respect Senator Lieberman, but you can not put a pro-choice Veep on a Republican ticket. He is probably one of the few democrats who has a brain, but this pick would have torn the party asunder. When McCain tested the waters, and floated Lieberman's name around, he found out what he would be up against. The conservative party would have been split. It would have been the narrative during the convention, and conservatives would have stayed home in droves, and the most radical candidate ever would have been elected president. We would have been in grave danger. After a rocky start, McCain is now running a magnificent campaign.
Today, however in this high-powered political chess game, McCain made a brilliant move by putting Obama in check possibly check-mate by selecting governor Palin (nicknamed Sarah barracuda) of Alaska as his VP choice. This move sucked the air out of Obama's convention and it pulled the rug right out from under Obama. This was a magnificent choice. This will galvanize the Republican Party, and it proves that McCain wants to win, and I now predict with this move McCain will win.
McCain should use his convention on spelling out his agenda and answering the empty rhetoric that was Obama's speech, and what Obama's policies will do to this country.
Senator Obama and Reverend Wright permeated the airwaves this weekend. Who do you think Wright was trying to help? Himself?– he is trying to sell a book-, or Obama? Hmmm I don't think so.
Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wright was dressed in a suit and well-coiffed. He sure didn't look like the radical everyone portrayed him to be. Bill Moyers seemed to be quite enamored with Wright. Wright talked of the black experience, "
I was a teenager when I heard the call to ministry. I grew up in a parsonage. I grew up a son of and grandson of a minister, which also gave me the advantage of knowing that there were more things to ministry than pastoring. I had no idea that I'd be preaching or pastoring a church at that teenage year. As a matter of fact I left Philadelphia going to Virginia Union University. And unfortunately, I was starting during the civil rights movement. And the civil rights movement showed me a side of Christianity that I had not seen in Philadelphia. I had not seen Christians who, as I saw in Richmond, Virginia, who loved the lord, who professed faith in Jesus Christ and who believed in segregation, saw nothing wrong with lynching, saw nothing wrong with Negroes staying in their places. I knew about hatred. I knew about prejudice. But I didn't know Christians participated in that, in that kind of thinking.
He talked of Black Liberation Theology, "I think that's a fair bumper sticker. I think that the terms "liberation theology" or "black liberation theology" cause more problems and red flags for people who don't understand it." I understand liberation theology, and I also know it's a perversion of the gospel. Click on
Reverend Wright claims the sound bites that are endlessly looped take his words out of context, but if one examines the entire sermon, the only conclusion one can reach is that they are not taken out of context.
We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost!
The United States has been more benevolent, and has helped more nations than any other nation in the world. At the end of World War 2, many more people would have died if we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When confronted by Mike Wallace about controversial statements Obama had heard during Wright's sermons, Obama soft peddled the answer, and talked about the Jim Crow laws, etc. I don't think Mike Wallace was talking about the Jim Crow Laws. We all know racism is wrong, and we all know the Jim Crow laws were wrong. There is more audio. From Hugh Hewitt.
The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us into the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela, and our CIA helped put him in prison, and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie. Turn back to your neighbor and say it again. Governments lie (audience responds). The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposefully infected African-American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia. And Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, let me make myself perfectly clear, we are not...governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme, orchestrated by Oliver North, and then they pardoned, the government pardoned all of the perpetrators, so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie. The government lied about adventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and are connected between 9/11/01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie. The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they're going to do just like the LAPD, and plant them some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie. (applause)
When I was in Nicaragua, and I saw the liberation theology movement; I didn't worry about it every reaching our borders. I was wrong. Liberation theology is trying to become mainstreamed. It was rejected by the Vatican, and it should be rejected by any rational person.
Sure, the Blacks have had a different history than most Americans. I don't mind if their church focuses on its African traditions. I don't even mind a Black Messiah. After all, the renaissance painters painted a white Messiah which is also probably not true. Jesus was probably more of a middle-eastern color since he was born in the Middle East.
There is a reason the Reverend Wright coddles Louis Farrakhan. Reverend Wright is a radical and Louis Farrakhan is a radical. Obama attended this church for twenty years without batting an eye as Reverend Wright would say. He also took his children to see this radical preacher on a weekly basis.
Even the Reverend Wright admits that liberation theology comes from the vantage point of the oppressed. This is not the gospel. The gospel does not refer to class. The "poor" is the "poor in spirit" not "poor economically" As Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, Black Liberation Theology is not the Black Church. I would go further; Liberation Theology is not Catholicism.
The Democrats are trying to give McCain the election, and McCain is trying hard to give it back. He wants to run a respectful campaign. Let's not mention Pastor Wright, let's not mention Bill Ayres. Let's run a respective campaign, and let Obama win. Wait until Soros starts running his 527 ads via moveon.org. Almost sounds like compassionate conservatism. What does McCain think? Is he playing a friendly game of Monopoly?
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15
Imagine this scenario. It is January 20, 2009; Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office. This is what I call the era of politics a la Michael Moore. In this setting, we will have reached the lunacy and psychosis of a world gone mad, the world of Michael Moore. In other words, we will have handed our nation over to the likes of Michael Moore, the New York Times, Move-on.org and the rest of the extreme left.
Yesterday, I was talking to my brother, (let's call him Jerry to protect his identity.) He said if McCain gets the nomination, he will not vote in the general election in effect giving the election to Hillary Clinton or worse yet Obama. I used to think it was only Democrats with whom you could not have a rational discussion. I guess that is no longer true. This is insanity at its nadir.
It is at the very least disturbing and at the most infuriating to watch how Democrats slowly dismantle everything that keeps us safe, that keeps our taxes low and that keeps this economy growing.
During the state of the union speech, there was one thing that was clearly evident, the disdain the Democrats showed for the president. When the president talked about keeping the tax cuts permanent, only the Republicans stood up and clapped, when the president talked about the success of the surge, only the Republicans stood up and clapped, and when the president talked about extending FISA (more about that later), only the Republicans stood up and clapped. From the war in Iraq, the surge, the economy, taxes, the expressions on the Democrats were the same. One can only conclude from that that the Democrats will raise taxes, retreat from Iraq in defeat, and take away every measure that keeps this country safe.
What was striking is when the cameras panned the faces of Obama and Clinton. Both sat with their arms folded and expressionless. They knew the country was watching, and this was exactly the body language they wanted to express, derision for all of Bush's policies whether good or bad. It took a herculean effort to watch the state of the Union with Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house, behind Bush. Pelosi's expressions would have made for a great segment for Tonya Reiman's segment on body language on the O'Reilly Factor. After the state of the Union, Pelosi made several derisive remarks stating the surge was a failure. It doesn't matter how much success there is in Iraq, the Democrats will always tout defeatism, and once in power they will retreat.
Monday, a cloture vote on FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, failed 48-45. Both Obama and Clinton voted against it. The FISA amendments expire on Friday. FISA is necessary for our intelligence agencies to gather the required information to keep us safe. The bill was produced by the senate select committee on foreign intelligence, and Democrats had no problem passing the bill last October.
The FISA Bill has been responsible for:
Insight and understanding leading to disruption of planned terrorist attacks
Prevention of efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative
Prevention of instructions to a foreign terrorist associate about entering the United States
Prevention of efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition
Prevention of terrorist facilitator plans to travel to Europe
Prevention of terrorist efforts to disguise their appearance
Information on terrorist money transfers
Identifying information regarding foreign terrorist operatives
Understanding international al-queda networks
Plans for future terrorist attacks
Movements of key extremists to evade arrest
The Democrats have been responsible for undermining everything concerning the war on terror including the Patriot Act.
It doesn't matter what evidence is shown the Democrats, the mantra, "Bush lied, people died" will forever remain in their psyche.
Last Sunday, 60 minutes interviewed the Sadaam Hussein interrogator known to Sadaam as Mr. George. Mr George said Sadaam and he had a close relationship because he was his only contact for months. Mr George, a native of Lebanon, spoke fluent Arabic. He said Sadaam didn't expect the US to invade. He said Sadaam lied about his WMDs because he did not want Iraq to know he had gotten rid of them. He also said he purposely forged documents to show the US. He also said Sadaam had every intention to reconstitute his WMD program both nuclear and biological. All leading Democratic senators believed we should have gone into Iraq (except for Obama and a few other senators), and every intelligence agency said he had them. In addition, we know Sadaam was sending 25,000 dollars to families of suicide victims, and he had meetings with top Al-Queda officials. Al-Zarqawi stayed in Baghdad. The Democrats are the ones not telling the truth.
Clinton's tax increase proposals, particularly her support for a higher capital gains tax, can be painted, accurately, as foreshadowing doom for the economy.
Jerry, you know my brother for whom I gave a different name says he would rather Hillary be president than McCain. That is in effect what sitting out the election means. His rational is that Hillary will screw up the next four years so much; the electorate will have no choice but to put into office another Republican instead of 8 years of McCain. There are sure a lot of assumptions in that assessment. First, no one knows what will happen in four years. Four years in politics is an eternity. Second, we do not know what Republican candidate will come forward. Third, Hillary can destroy this country in four years, and it can take years to recoup.
A good number of people, not even Jerry, understand the consequences of what would happen if a nuclear device were detonated. Panic would ensue, the stock market would crash throwing the world economies in turmoil, and unemployment would skyrocket. It's questionable whether or not we would see a recovery from such a scenario in our lifetime. The terrorists understand this better than we do.
First and foremost, the scale of disaster would quickly overwhelm even the most prepared city and state governments. To avoid repeating the Hurricane Katrina fiasco on a much larger scale, Washington must stop pretending that its role would be to support local responders. State and local governments — though their actions to save lives and avoid panic in the first hours would be essential — must abandon the pretense that they could remain in charge. The federal government, led by the Department of Homeland Security, should plan to quickly step in and take full responsibility and devote all its resources, including those of the Department of Defense, to the crisis.
This is a hard truth to absorb, since we all would have a strong instinct to flee. But walking toward the suburbs or sitting in long traffic jams would directly expose people to radiation, which would be the most intense on the day after the bomb went off. After that, the amount would drop off day by day (one-third as strong after three days, one-fifth as strong after five days, and so on), because of the natural decay of the radioactive components of the fallout
After such an attack however, we will respond in kind. If the Democrats are in power, that may even be questionable. They may have decimated our military to such an extent, we won't have the resources to fight.
Jerry even went so far as to say McCain is like Schwarzenegger, but I disagree. When Schwarzenegger was voted into office, we did not know who he really was or what he really believed in. There was no record to go by. We now know Schwarzenegger is no Republican, he is a Democrat dressed up in Republican's clothing. We know McCain. We know he is a maverick on a lot of issues, but we also know he will keep us safe.
There is a lot to not like about John McCain, but there is also a lot we can also agree on. In my post, the best man for the Job – Mitt Romney. I write about John McCain:
What do conservatives like about McCain?
He is prolife. he is pro nuclear power, he believes in cutting spending, and he is a great advocate against pork barrel spending. He would be good in the war on terror for the most part, ---
Admittedly, I will have to suck it up when I vote for him because of his stance on a myriad of issues, immigration, global warming, and the list goes on. But, I know I will be relatively safe, and he will continue to fight an aggressive war on terror instead of rolling over and laying dead for the New York Times, and I don't have to worry about the era of politics a la Michael Moore.
Hillary Clinton will be just plain dangerous. McCain might cost me a little in the pocket book, but at least I won't be dead.
There is one caveat to all of this. When the military comes home, the men and women from our armed services will be for the most part conservative. They will come home with a better understanding of the world, and what is at stake. It may give us hope yet that all may not be lost.
This is not the time for sitting out the election, staying home and playing tiddlywinks. We can't afford Hillary Clinton for even one year. If John McCain is our nominee, Republicans need to unify and vote for him. There is too much at stake.
The Democrats want to bailout the borrowers from their bad decisions. Hillary Clinton wants the government to issue a $1 billion federal bailout to avoid foreclosures. New York Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democratic senators have joined her. John Edwards has also recently attacked subprime lenders until it was discovered he had 16 million dollars invested in Fortress Investment Group, a firm involved in the foreclosure of more than 30 homes. This is just another reason not to vote Democrat.
I tend to be very conservative in my approach to life. I worked hard to obtain my BS, and my MBA. I paid my own way through college. I did the apartment thing. I worked, I saved, I bought a house with a substantial downpayment. I made sure my income far exceeded the amount of the mortgage. I invested; I diversified because I did not want to find myself in a financial bind. In 15 years I paid off my house, and I continue to build my portfolio. I did all this with a neurological disorder that has impeded my way to the top and which has made me have to make several compromises along the way. I don't presume to be full of braggadocio, but my intent is to point out the anger I feel when I see the liberals wanting the government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave.
I have heard all the excuses for people not being able to get a college education from I can't afford it to its just too hard. To this I say - "Bull Pucky!." Statistics show that people with college educations earn far more than people without college educations. I have known a lot of people whom I thought could never earn a college degree, and time and time again these people have proved me wrong. If you have a child out of wedlock, if you end up in a gang, if you get kicked out of your house - those are your choices. Regardless, even if you have made mistakes, it only toughens the odds; you can still earn that degree. In America, there is always a way.
Try Central or South America. The only way to get ahead in those countries is through political connections or owning a business. People all over the world are clamoring to enter the United States, yet we keep hearing the liberals complain. How about this for an immigration solution. For everyone who wants to hug Hugo Chavez or blame America first, I say we should exchange him/her for one person in another country south of the border who wants to come here and work hard, get an education and be a part of the U.S..
Everyone wants the American dream. We live in a world of immediacy. We want everything now. Saving for tomorrow is just putting off the inevitable, so college students rack up average credit card debts of 10,000 dollars at a time when their parents pay for everything. Savings rates are at all time lows. If we can't afford to pay for vacation, we will just put it on the credit card. I can't help all the bad decisions people make.
During the dot-com craze, instead of starting businesses in garages like Hewlitt Packard and Intel, venture capitalists poured money into so-called full-fledged business with no proven model or record. It was a recipe for disaster.
People can make all the bad decisions they want until it starts affecting me.
So, now let me get this straight.
Joe wants to buy a house. He walks into a lender. The lender gives him some forms to fill out. Joe inflates his income to make sure he will get the loan. The lender understanding that Joe (even with his inflated income) doesn't make a lot of money and has not been at his job very long still lends him the money. He just ups the interest rate but not for the first twelve months. The first twelve months, Joe will be on easy street, but then his payment doubles. 12 months pass, and Joe can no longer afford the mortgage, and the lender is forced to foreclose on his home. In addition, from the time Joe bought his house to the time he is forced to foreclose, his house has devalued so he now owes more than he borrowed. The Democrats want me and you to pay for his mistake by bailing him out.
Joe is a man who lives beyond his means like so many others in this subprime debacle. He should rent but wants to buy. Houses continued to appreciate due to the plethora of these shaky loans, but it was an artificial appreciation since people who should not have been buying houses continued to buy. Under normal circumstances, these borrowers would not have been able to make such loans. Both lenders and borrowers alike were caught up in this subprime world hoping that when the inevitable crash occurred, it would be the other guy who would be caught with his pants down.
"We will raise your taxes" should be the Democrats motto. You can't afford health insurance, don't worry, we will raise taxes, and give everyone health insurance. You can't afford to pay your mortgage, don't worry we will raise taxes, and everyone will pay your mortgage. You can't afford to pay for Global Warming (you know that hoax everyone is talking about), don't worry we will raise your taxes. You don't have any money but you had six kids out of wedlock, don't worry we will raise taxes, and everyone will pay for your kids. You can't afford to pay your taxes, don't worry we will take the money away from the ones who busted their butts garnering the necessary tools to become successful and they will pay your taxes.
The only people I want to bail out are my kids and at my discretion.
There are certain things I don't mind giving to:
Joe for short term assistance The disabled Certain medical research, etc
but do not force me to give to every bad decision made by every Tom Dick and Harry!
Yet, the Democrats are poised for a comeback - go figure!
Read Michelle Malkin's piece on it http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/24/the-democrat-clamor-for-a-housing-bailout/
Last night youtube joined CNN for the Democratic freak show of the week. For the first time, we were given the opportunity to watch the youtubers (the average mentally deficient Democrat) ask the most illiterate of questions from a guitar toting musician (the best of the youtubers) singing about paying too much taxes to a snowman asking about global warming. As usual the Democrats gave the same mundane Democratic talking points. However, there were a few things new in this debate. We learned the word “terrorism” was never mentioned. In fact, it was never mentioned in the other two debates either, but global warming was a hot topic. Immigration was not mentioned either. It is scary to think that Hillary has a definite chance of winning this election. If we were to learn anything from the debate, we learned we are heading the way of Socialist Europe.
Pajamasmedia.com in his live blogging puts it succinctly:
5:52pm We’re in a dead spot, so I’m going to throw one more question out there that I’d like to ask. “It’s 9/11/2001. Airplanes have just flown into buildings, killing thousands. What do you do? Do you take command? Or do you sing ‘God Bless America’ on the Capitol steps, then spend the next six years bitching about the guy who’s trying to do something about it?”
And now a few observations…..
Does Hillary like the word liberal? No, she prefers the word “Progressive.” She states she is a modern progressive. "Liberal," Clinton lamented, "has been turned on its head." She continued to explain how the word "Liberal" has taken on a negative tone meaning "big government." This, of course, is from a lady who wants to socialize health care. One only needs to look at Europe or Canada or maybe Michael Moore’s Cuba to see what a debacle socialized health care will do to the United States. Or a little closer to home, one need only take a gander down to the local Medi-Cal clinic and see how long people have to wait to see a doctor. I would recommend not planning anything for the day. Hillary calls her health care plan Universal Health Care http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/. If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Changing liberal to progressive or Socialized Medicine to Universal Health Care doesn’t change who Hillary really is, a European Socialist.
Hillary lists ten issues on her website www.hillaryclinton.com and doesn’t even mention terrorism. Do I feel safer now?
I mentioned the Snowman who asked about global warming. What a concept! In the Early 70s, they would have used a Sun since the argument was global cooling.
In response to the global warming question, Kucinich, the wag of the evening, made a funny and said, “We have to understand the difference between Global Warring and Global Warming” Huh? And then he said we need to go away from oil and begin using alternative energy sources, and then we won’t have to worry about the snowman melting. Kucinich is out to lunch.
We heard all kinds of statements using alternative energy sources from wind (kills birds) to solar, but no one ever mentioned drilling for oil in our own backyard. They are finding more oil in Mexico, Australia, and Russia to name a few, but the wackos in the environmental movement have prevented us from drilling anywhere in the United States.
Someone actually asked a question about Nuclear Power. I have been waiting for this in everyone of the Democratic debates. It is the cleanest from of energy, and the one answer to the candidates so-called global warming.
The answers were revealing. Chris Dodd wants hybrids, electric cars (a total failure), and a carbon tax, Dodd states he is the only one who stands with Gore on the carbon tax. More taxes – who does he think will pay for it? Edwards says “no” on nuclear power. We stopped it in the 70s, and there was a reason for that, and we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the waste, (wrong!) He also believes Global Warming is a crisis, (wrong!). Obama thinks nuclear power should be explored. Clinton is agnostic on nuclear power (which means she won’t do anything). She agreed with Kerry on his position. “Global warming has the promise of creating millions of jobs” states Clinton. Is she nuts? It could create jobs subsidized by the government. Instead of creating clean and efficient nuclear plants, we take our technology and build nuclear plants in France. The Democrats know nothing about nuclear power and nothing about global warming.
With regards to Nuclear Waste, Dr Bill Wattenburg, an expert in nuclear science states:
New Process saves 95% of Waste from Nuclear Power Plants! This is the UREX process for reprocessing nuclear spent fuel rods that can be done to reduce nuclear waste by 95% and supply a great deal more inexpensive and non-polluting energy to the world. This process is called UREX. It extracts the plutonium from spent fuel rods in a way that the plutonium is not usable for making bombs. This has always been the main argument against reprocessing spent fuel rods -- so-called "nuclear waste." The French have been reprocessing spent fuel rods for over twenty years. The Japanese are now doing the same. Their process called PUREX extracts pure plutonium that can used to build bombs if they want, but they reuse the plutonium as fuel in their power reactors.
Michael Chrichton in State of Fear writes the following about Global Warming:
We know astonishing little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every detail all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
We are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began in 1850, as we emerge from a four-hundred year cold spell known as the “little ice age.”
Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be a natural phenomenon.
Nobody knows how much of the trend is man-made.
Global Warming is a purely politicized issue that is not based in reality. You should have become suspicious when Gore said there was a consensus on global warming among scientists. But to counter this pseudo-science, the Democrats are willing to stifle the economy. Global warming is similar in scope to the theory of eugenics propagated in the early 20th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Eugenics was politicized pseudo-science also never based in reality popularized in the 1930s by such people as Alexander Graham Bell and Henry Ford and later used by Hitler to justify his extermination of the Jews. Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated, “Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough, and people will believe it's the truth."
This next guy looks like he just woke up around noon to look for his welfare check as he struggled to find the right words and ask the candidates if they favored reparations.
Edwards doesn’t favor reparations. He wants a president who is going to fight for equality, someone who is going to take these people on, the mortgage companies, the bankers, the insurance companies, the drug companies – hmmm – how about the trial lawyers? Obama said reparations should be focusing on investments in the school system and he used the best term of the night, “corridors of shame.” I am sure we will hear more about that. Kucinich was the only one for reparations and evoked the Bible.
All in all, I think the top three winners were in this order, Obama, Hillary and Senator Joe Biden. Even though I did not mention Joe Biden in this piece, he did seem very presidential, and he seemed the most knowledgeable of the other cretins in the debate. My prediction is Hillary will still be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, and God help us all should they win.
Oh by the way, Clinton once again brought up the notion that Bush didn't really win the election against Gore. Of course, she didn't mention Gore's names.
Those were just a few of my observations on the debate. Youtubers were allowed to ask their questions in 30 second clips. Maybe the following should have been the last question:
And so it begins. “The war in Iraq "is lost" and the US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country”, Harry Reid, announced Thursday, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US congress. This is the beginning of the dismantling of the War in Iraq and the US defeat.
We already know the analogies to the 1930s. Hitler walked into the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia virtually unopposed beginning the war in Europe. The world was too cowardly to confront Hitler. It was only until December 7, 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that prompted the United States to enter the war. By that time Hitler had amassed a huge military machine in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty. The war in Europe had already been waging in Europe for four years. The US had to ally herself with Russia (an alliance of convenience) in order to defeat a determined enemy. The war ended in August 1945 and caused an estimated 50 million deaths, 20 million of those deaths were civilian. To put that in perspective that is 1/6 of today’s population in the United States. The huge casualty losses were a direct result of ignoring the warning signs Hitler gave in the 1930s.
The Democrats love to compare Iraq with Vietnam. If they return to power in 2008, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The war in Iraq will turn into another Vietnam, not as it is now, but as it will be with the Democrat’s defeatist attitude. When we left Vietnam, it caused South Vietnam forced to capitulate. Our so-called defeat gave rise to Pol Pot.and his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who exterminated 1 to 2 million people. Hundred of thousands of South Vietnamese were also enslaved. We were not affected much when we left Vietnam, because we were separated by an ocean. That ocean however no longer exists in this age of long range missiles. History repeats itself; Reid calls the war lost, Pelosi cozies up with President Bashar Assad, and the Democrats stop funding the war. Who in their right mind does not think the Democrats will not give up and just leave if they are in power? Iraq will become a breeding ground for Al-Queda and all other forms of terrorists. The Democrats will still use their policy of appeasement while Iran prepares for its bloody assault on the state of Israel. Iran will become a Nuclear Power with hegemony over the entire region. In all likelihood, Iran will attempt to annihilate Israel, and that will be the beginning of the elimination of the Infidel. If you are unfamiliar with the Infidel, that is anyone who is not Muslim, (sounds like us).
By this time, a draft will definitely be necessary, and full mobilization of the economy to the war effort will occur again. This is what happened in World War 2 because the warning signs are not being heeded, and there is no reason to think it will not happen again. Radical Islam already believes it has won, and as the propaganda from the left here is disseminated throughout the Middle East, the average person on the street also believes it.
I fear for our country especially if the Democrats regain power.
At this writing, President Bush is speaking about Harry Reid’s comments. It’s about time he countered such ridiculous assertions as those made by Reid immediately instead of waiting. Bush says the surge is working. Baghdad where most of the sectarian violence was occurring has diminished because of the brigades and force level increase in the area. Bush is showing maps to where the Brigades were and what they are doing now. They are receiving tips from locals on where to find insurgents. Bush says Al-Queda is the greatest threat to peace in the United States (Al Gores says its global warming.) Day by day Bush Says Iraqi and U.S. troops are making incremental gains since the new strategy. They have captured car bomb squads. The violence has dropped by half.
The Democrats would have you believe otherwise. All is lost. The United States is evil. The Virginia Tech massacre was nothing compared to the murderous rampage Bush is engaged in. Islam is a religion of peace. Global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, not terrorism. God help us all!!!!
