Who's Fault is this Financial Mess? Everybody's -- Part 3

What's a good bank to do?

Faced with increasing pressure and legal threats from the Federal Reserve, the federal government, and fringe organizations, banks and lending institutions did what they had to do: take on an increasing number of risky mortgages.

In 1994, for example, Bank Of America reported that 34% of its mortgage business (paragraph 2) went to low-income borrowers. Lenders tailored specific programs and educational platforms aimed at low-income borrowers. Banks created corporations to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act. The Clinton administration worked overtime to pass new government programs and goals, including simplifying the CRA, creating more empowerment zones, and tax incentives.

In addition to the subprime markets, financial institutions were drastically deregulated in many other areas. Most importantly, perhaps, was in the area of leverage ratios. Typically, banks are allowed to loan out $12 for every $1 in deposit. Lenders, investment banks, Fannie and Freddie, and subprime lenders started leveraging upwards of $30 to $40 per $1 in captial.

This paradigm, right or wrong, seemed to work "well" for years, undetected by and not concerning to the general public. Lenders would approve mortgages for people who normally would not qualify; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, if the loans were not repaid, would buy the bad loans -- principle and interest -- with no questions asked.

People got houses, banks got money, and politicians got to crow about helping the "little people."

However, when housing prices exploded in 1998/99, and wages did not follow, suddenly problems began to emerge.

That three-family in Boston that cost $200,000 in 1996 may have listed for $400,000 just a few years later. People who could barely afford to buy the house at the lower cost were priced out of a market that was artificially opened to them.

Enter the subprime mortgage.

Subprime borrowing is a completely artificial mechanism to get as many people into houses as possible. Low introductory teaser rates and zero down/zero fee agreements again provided access to home-buying for the borderline borrower.

Everything seemed to settle out and housing rates in the U.S. increased to record levels by 2004.

Fannie Mae was heavily involved in the drive to increase home ownership among the middle and low-income wage earners, pouring a staggering than $615 Billion in loans to 7.5 million families (roughly $82,000 per family) between 1994 and 1998 (paragraph 6, above link).

Then, as the subprime mortgages were designed, the interest rate on a loan jumped dramatically; facing 25 to 30% increases in mortgage payments (paragraph 10), the borrower who could barely afford the lower mortgage payment could no longer make payments without major sacrifice, if at all.

Enter the crisis.

The number of mortgages in default or late doubled; money stopped flowing to the lenders; Fannie and Freddie were forced to step in and buy out far more mortgages than they anticipated or could afford. People were being evicted; over-extended banks were losing money and closing; and Fannie and Freddie were drowning in debt.

With the initial vision of mainlining mortgages for low-income borrowers in trouble, public and private activists were sent scrambling for ways to keep people in their homes and to continue the dubious programs that put them there.

Activists lobbied/threatened/protested the "evil" banks, Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, and the lenders were seeking help.

Suddenly, we were plunged into a "credit crunch"; we entered the next Great Depression, subprime lending programs became "predatory" loans, and life as we knew it was over.

Enter the government.

In the face of only 4% of people unable to pay their mortgages on time, the U.S. government swept into action with a typically hysterical "solution" to the problem they created.

To be continued...

Who's Fault is this Financial Mess? Everybody's -- Part 2

Continued from Part 1

Is that Bank of America or 7-11?

In addition to legal pressure from the Fed to make loans to people who could not afford them, the US Legislature was in on the act.

In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act. One of the basic principles of the CRA is that "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities." (Sec. 802.a.1)

The tenets of the CRA gave the government the legal authority to force banks to expand their reach into the lower-income borrower's pool. The CRA went further, requiring banks to find ways to get money to lower-income borrowers. Not only did banks have to loan money to people they would not normally approve, the banks had to seek these people out.

If a bank did not approve "enough" low-income loans, the government could punish the lender through a number of means, including requiring approval for branch openings, preventing branch closures, and blocking banking mergers.

The real power of the act lies in the fact that, according to the Federal Reserve, "Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions." Instead, the evaluation process "should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances."

This means that anyone can decide if a bank is complying with the law or not. Community activist groups like the far left-wing "community activist" ACORN expend great energy confronting banks to ensure that the banks subscribe to and meet ACORN's ideas of fairness (paragraph 25).

It is these pressures, in addition to political pressure from myriad politicians lobbying to increase home ownership, like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and John Kerry, to name but a few.

To support these initiatives, the government assured lenders that, though it's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae vehicles, these loans would be bought, principle and interest, if the loans were not repaid (paragraph 8).

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted as much during a speech At the Community Affairs Research Conference in August 2007:

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... to devote a percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals (HUD, 2006). "

This system, for better or worse, worked "well" for years, until housing prices exploded in 1998/99, suddenly problems began to emerge.

People who "could afford" to buy the house at the lower cost were priced out of a market that was artifically opened to them.

Enter the subprime mortgage.

To be continued...

Who's Fault is this Financial Mess? Everybody's! -- Part 1

A Moron's Guide to the U.S. Financial Crisis

The current financial mess on Wall Street is everyone's fault:

• the people who took out loans they can't afford
• the banks who tool advantage of the deregulated environment
• the politicians who forced banks to make loans to people who should not have qualified
• the voters who kept putting these political nit-wits back in office

The cause of the problem is quite simple, if you stand far enough away.

The Root Cause

In the 1990's and 2000's especially, there was a move from Washington D.C. to increase home ownership in lower-income and minority neighborhoods.

A good instinct on the surface. Many studies -- and common sense -- have shown that home owners take better care of their residences than renters, and home-owners are more concerned about their neighborhood and city. Stability is good for any community.

However, to meet this lofty goal, the federal government forced banks and mortgage companies (Sec 807.a.1) to grant mortgages that the lenders would normally have denied. The feds required lenders to give money to people who could not afford the mortgage, and to ignore an applicant's lack of credit history or worthiness.

One piece of evidence is this 1992 set of guidelines from the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston. The Boston Fed "encouraged" lenders to ignore the typical standards applied when reviewing mortgage applications, and in fact should give "special consideration" to lower income applicants:

Lenders should:

• Ignore higher debt obligations, because "lower-income households are accustomed to allocating a larger percentage of their incomde to rent (p. 13)." And stated that the secondary market (read: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) is willing to allow borrowers to commit more than 36% of their income to mortgage.
• Allow charitable gift and government grants to cover down payments (p 14). Standard practice disallows the use of gifts as down payment.
  
• Disregard lack of credit history (p 14). A borrower's complete lack of credit history "should not been seen as a negative factor," because of cultural differences. Some cultures discourage borrowing, preferring to "pay-as-you-go." If a person pays their $200 phone bill, he should have no problem paying the $2,000 mortgage.
• View credit counseling as equal to credit history (p 15). Participation in credit counseling means a borrower has the "ability to manage their debts." Taking a class on paying debts is the same a actually paying them.
• Evalutate properties based on their "potential" value, not current market appeal (p 15). A bad house in a bad neighborhood should be judged the same as a nice house in a nice neighborhood, as long as someone thinks the bad neighborhood could get better.
• Ignore an applicant's unstable work history (p 14/15). Just because someone hasn't stayed in a job very long does not mean that he can't keep a job.
• Accept temporary sources of income (p 15). For lower-income applicants, temporary income should be accepted, such as "overtime," "welfare payments," and "unemployment benefits." Someone who is receiving 30-weeks of unemployment should be given a 30-year mortgage.
• Don't take No as an answer. When it comes to appraisals and primary mortgage insurance, the lender should find another source, particularly appraisers or insurers "experienced...in minority and lower-income neighborhoods. (p. 22)" Why stop at 2, just keep looking until you find an appraiser that will give you the answer you want: Yes!
  

Among the initiaves, this one from the Clinton administration, would have allowed people to take money from their 401K account without penalty to make a down payment.

So, if I am reading this right, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston wanted lenders to grant mortgages to people with no credit history, no job history, too much debt, and cannot make any down-payment on their own so he can buy a house that has no market appeal and is in a neighborhood that might be improved in the future. For the borrower, his first foray into the world of credit is a 30-year mortgage that he, by definition, does not need to be able to afford.

Gee. I wonder why this didn't work?

McCain Hand Signals -- Update

It appears that my previous post might be slightly incorrect.

Apparently, my source called me on the phone with his allegation of someone giving semaphore signals to McCain list night after 75 minutes of playing the McCain Debate Drinking Game. He might not have been clear on his facts; actually he got my name wrong through most of the conversation.

It could be, too, that this whole thing is a joke.

Developing...

McCain Getting Hand Signals at the Debate???

Was Sen. John McCain getting signals from someone in the crowd at the first US presidential debate last night?

Remember the 2004 Bush/Kerry debates, when a suspicious bulge in the back of Pres. Bush's suit led to charges that he was receiving radio messages from aliens.

I have it on good authority from someone associated -- albeit loosley -- with the McCain campaign that someone in the crowd was flashing some kind of signals to the Republican Senator. It is the only possible explanation for all the squinting McCain did last night.

He was clearly gawking past the cameras and moderator Jim Lehrer into the crowd.

I am told by that same source that this is a photo of someone relaying semaphore to McCain on stage last night. The man claims he was just waving flags out of patriotism.

You be the judge!

As drudge would say, developing....

Did McCain Save the Day?!?

The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it." -- John Steinbeck from the Grapes of Wrath

The monster is out of control and trying to take us down; like Godzilla, the fiscal "crisis" is a man-made disaster stomping on all of society, indiscriminate, and unrepentant.

OK, so that is a little dramatic; but so is the rhetoric coming out of Washington and the mainstream media.

Now, I am no economist. Heck, I am not even allowed to balance the checkbook at home. But, I feel rather comfortable, after listening and reading countless experts during the last week or two, that the country is not doomed if little or nothing is done to "fix" this mess.

No, we are not plunging into a depression. Just ask ol' Tom Joad, he knows a depression when he sees one.

I been thinking about us, too, about our people living like pigs and good rich land layin' fallow. Or maybe one guy with a million acres and a hundred thousand farmers starvin'.

There ain't a hundred thousand farmers starving; there aren't over-burdened cars queuing up for a space at the govenment camps; there aren't thousands of people flocking to California to look for work picking peaches.

It is time for our leaders in Washington to slow down and think this think through.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said "leading Democrats on Capitol Hill were shocked by the level of divisiveness that surfaced at Thursday's extraordinary White House meeting."

Imagine someone not wanting to sign-on to the plan without comment or question. Imagine not wanting to hand $700 billion dollars and more to the people who got us into this mess to begin with.

Imagine everyone not jumping on board with the first idea floated out there; especially with a large majority of the American populace opposed to the plan.

If the Democrats are to be believed, John McCain may have saved the American people from this plan. And despite what they claim, "key congressional players of both parties" are not on board with the Dems.

There is no consensus that the plan put forth by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is the right thing to do -- or that it will even work!

"Obama vice presidential running mate, Joe Biden, suggested that the deal was close to finished until McCain arrived in D.C. on Thursday, one day after he suspended his political campaign to work on negotiations and called for such a high-level meeting of candidates and officials in Washington, D.C."

“He’s slowed it down,” Frank said of McCain’s impact on the negotiations.

Well, thank you John McCain.

McCain Suspends Campaign to Help With Bailout

McCain Suspends Campaign to Help With Bailout

John McCain will depart the campaign trail and head to Washington to work on a solution to the country's financial crisis.

Brilliant!

A bold, decisive move by McCain to prove that he is a man of action, not just words.

It could be simply a political move to grab the campaign momentum back, but then again, it may be not.

McCain has always been unconventional, and this may be further evidence of that.

One thing for sure, the mainstream media will hammer McCain for this, telling you that he is politicizing the fiscal crisis, this move is merely for show and not sincere.

Well, Obama; what are YOU going to do?

Let's Play Liberal or Conservative!!

Are you ready to play Liberal or Conservative??

Here we go:

Some fella uttered the statement below at the recent "Freedom Rally" in Boston.

The Freedom Rally is an annual event to support the cause of legalizing marijuana. This year is especially celebratory for these folks, as there is a question on the November ballot to decriminalize small amounts of pot.

So, with that in mind, is the person who stated the following a Liberal or Conservative?

“We’re close to winning the first major battle with Question 2, and MassCann won’t stop until (marijuana is) legal, regulated and taxed,” said Steven Epstein, co-founder of (The Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition).

Well, is Mr. Epstein a C or an L?

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! Times Up!

If you said "Liberal" you might be right.

Check out his goal: (We) won’t stop until (marijuana is) legal, regulated and taxed.

A conservative who wants pot legalized would never urge the government to regulate and tax the stuff.

If you guessed Libertarian because of the fight for killing drug laws, you would be wrong too, for the very same reasons.

This is just one way to know that someone is a good liberal -- an urgent demand to pay more and more taxes and to have the government issue more and more regulation.

Anyone want to volunteer to work for The Commonwealth Office of Marijuana Oversight and Revenue? Line up after me!

A Leader With B***s

I know nothing about Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

However, I must respect his stance on "strengthen(ing) Georgia's democracy" in the face of Russian aggression and invasion.

In a letter published in the Washington Post, instead of caving to cowardice and giving into Russia's violent attempts to "roll back democracy," Saakashvili declared his resolve to continue the reforms that he feels are converting Georgia from a "corrupt, failing country" into a "beacon" of democracy in the region.

In a speech last week before the Georgian parliament, Saakashvili insisted on continuing the path towards democracy.

"In 2008 there is no place for the Kremlin imperialistic adventurism. No dictator will be able to redraw the political map of free and democratic Europe."

It is refreshing and reassuring to hear a world leader stand for what is right in spite of external aggression from a more powerful nation.

I can only hope that the winner of the presidential race in this country will show this level of testicular fortitude in the face of radical Islamist aggression.

No Media Bias Here -- Part I

Ready to Play America's Newest Game Show?

It's Spot the Media Bias!

Here, we examine a news article to see if we can find the blatant liberal bias!

The first one might be a bit tricky. See if you can tell what is wrong with this statement, the opening paragraph on an article about Sarah Palin's speech in Florida over the weekend:

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin told wildly cheering, flag-waving, chanting supporters that John McCain is "the only great man in this race" and promised Sunday he will fix the nation's economy if voters give the GOP four more years in the White House.

Catch it?

But, Red, you say; the article describes a cheering, flag-waving, chanting crowd! How can there be any liberal bias here? Maybe some conservative bias..

Need a hint?

The problem lies in this key phrase:

...if voters give the GOP four more years in the White House.

Sarah Palin never told the crowd to "give the GOP four more years." She told the assembled throng to "elect John McCain the next president of USA."

See the difference? Subtle, but the bias is certainly there.

The four more years of GOP leadership phrasing is a calling card of the Democratic Party this election season. Obama's entire campaign is based on the notion of tying McCain to Bush and the GOP. And, remember Hillary's line from the DNC: we don't need "four more years of the last eight years"?

According to this paragraph, the crowd was cheering Palin's call for four more years of GOP/Bush policy.

I heard this story read on the radio news this morning over a bowl of raisin bran. I nearly choked on the bran flakes. Palin would never draw that connection between McCain and four years of the GOP in the White House. It would be politically fooish. This line was added by a reporter, using his own words and his own BIASED opinion.

This was no mistake.

Need further evidence of the liberal slant using the reporting around this event? Good luck trying to figure out how many people were in the crowd. The Associated Press story, as evidenced by this report on ABCNews.com and repeated in many newspapers and broadcast outlets, doesn't even mention the number of people in the crowd.

More than 60,000 turn out for a VP candidate in the 90-degree heat, and AP can't be bothered to post that number!

This Orlando Sentinel piece describes the crowd as low as 25,000. A local television station had the crowd at 70,000. The Orlando Sentinel writer must have left early!

But, no media bias here!

That is, assuming you can find this story on the major media websites. It ain't there. When it is, it calls the campaign stop safe.

Thought for the day

Hey, Joe Biden, raising taxes during a recession -- or near recession -- is not patriotic, it is idiotic.

To quote the super-smart people at the Cato Institute: "If history is any guide, the states that raise taxes will be the states that remain mired in recession as the higher taxes continue to depress economic activity inside their borders."

"States can't possibly tax their way back to prosperity. Hopefully, the governors will be smart enough not to try to."

The same applies to the president and the nation.

To quote Sarah Palin, raising taxes now will make today's bad economy "seem like the good ol' days..."

Please listen to the woman, Joe. She's got it right here...

Robin Hood For President or is it Karl Marx?

One man's "patriotism" is another man's "neighborliness."

How do these terms correlate? They mean the same thing when both men are talking about higher taxes.

"Wealthy people who will pay higher income taxes under an Obama-Biden administration should consider it their patriotic duty," Sen. Joe Biden said on Good Morning America this morning.

Joe Biden thinks it the "duty" of "wealthy" people to "jump in," "be part of the deal," and it is time for them "to help get America out of the rut."

Sorry Joe, but the "rich" already paying the lion's share of the taxes in this country. Haven't they "jumped in -- rather, been pushed -- already? That 5% of Americans you want to burden with more taxes already pay nearly 60% of the income tax taken in by the government. That's not helping America?

Biden is not lobbying for a just tax increase, he is pushing for unabashed and undisguised income redistribution. And he seems quite proud to be!

Biden told GMA that he wants to “take money (from the rich) and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." Sounds dangerously close to Robin Hood's mission statement: Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor.

That would make a great bumpersitcker, no?



This sentiment was echoed by Barack Obama in a recent interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, "Wealthy people can afford to pay more." Obama said. "It’s the neighborly thing to do."

Barack, a "neighborly" thing to do is when the guy next door is on vacation, collect the newspaper for him. The government forcing you to pay more money in taxes in order to give that money to others is not neighborly; it is welfare.

Or worse, communism.

Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Barack Obama: “If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t -- what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness,” Obama said.

If I have more money, quoth to Obama; I should give that money to someone who doesn't have as much as I.

"From each according to his ability," quoth Marx, "to each according to his need."

Voting for Robin Hood for president is one thing; voting for Karl Marx is another.

A Summary of Obama's solution to the Current Fiscal Crisis

In the face of the recent fiscal crisis on Wall Street, Obama talked tough:

"The events of the last few days have made it clear that we must take further bold and decisive action to shore up confidence in our financial markets and avoid a deepening economic crisis..."

Then he swept into action by offering a bold vision and true leadership to help the country through this rough period.








Well, not exactly....







"Given the gravity of this situation... I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal."

Truly a heroic stand. What Leadership.

To summarize Obama's revolutionary stance:

"What he said!"


Is this the change he wants to bring to Washington: let someone else make the tough decisions?


Just another case of Obama voting "Present" yet again.

Obama's foreign Accenture Kerfuffle

Is Obama a hypocrite when it comes to support for companies that outsource jobs?

On Monday, at a rally in Colorado, Obama told the audience: “Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.”

But, John McCain's camp found out that Obama is leasing office space from a company that describes itself as a “a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company.”
From the company website: Accenture has the broadest outsourcing services offering in the market, unmatched in scope, scale and depth.

Is Obama's leasing from a company that won an "Outsourcing Excellence Award" tacit support for outsourcing?

The charge is lost on me; I see no issue here.

As long as the Obama campaign is not using Windows-based PCs...

I'll let you be the judge.

Thank you, Barack. It was so kind of you to say that...

Fret, not, fellow Americans, Barack Obama likes us. In the end, he thinks the American people are "basically decent and sound people."

And, just because you are a "typical white person," who drives the wrong car, eats too much food, keeps your home too warm, "clings to your guns and religion," and may listen to the "wrong" radio and TV shows. Despite the fact that we have an "antipathy to people who aren't like (us)," and an "anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment...", Obama thinks we are OK.

Thanks, Barack. It's nice to hear that you like us, right now, you like us.

This came as a surprise, as it was just a few months ago, that Barack told the German people, we are an imperfect, flawed nation.

He actually didn't like us -- before he did like us...

Unlike that mean old McCain, who has the audacity to say we are the "strength of our economy": "No one can match an American worker. Our workers sell more goods to more markets than any other on Earth. Our workers have always been the strength of our economy, and they remain the strength of our economy today." The nerve of that man!

He even had the gall to refer to the hardworking men and women of Ohio. Who does this guy think he is? Such pandering!

As for Obama, doesn't it feel good that someone who may be president has a list of "wrong" radio and TV programs? Is that anything like Nixon's enemies list?

But, if we are really lucky, Obama will help to protect us from those "wrong" programs.

Have no fear, dear reader, if Barack wins, the rest of the world will like us once again. Look at all the Germans that turned out to hear him speak; and there was that British comedian(?) at the MTV video awards show who urged us to vote for Barack to make "the rest of the world" happy. I know that I am concerned about casting a vote to curry European approval; I care deeply who the Europeans want us to elect. Why, how about just letting Europens elect our presidents from now on?

If Obama wins, the world will follow. Look, he hasn't even won the thing, and yet six Brazillian politicians have changed their name to Barack Obama. I wonder if they will change it back after the real Obama loses.

It just keeps getting stupider.

I guess we are just not as enlightened as he. While we want to keep our 5-year old ignorant of sexual issues, Barack Obama wants our schools to teach sex education to kindergarteners, because "it is the right thing to do." In fact, he worked to change the law in Illinois to institute HIV education for 5-year-olds. I guess I am just not enlightened enough to see the importance of teaching about HIV to kids who don't know what sex is. Maybe I just get "confused sometimes."

But, He will save us, says wife Michelle; Barack will "not let us go back to our lives an usual: uninvolved and uninformed." And He will fix our souls, because as we all know our souls "are broken."

Barack, I want so much for you to like us. Towards that end, I have to apologize that you are so "embarrased" because of our inability to speak a foreign language, unlike your more esteemed European friends.

Truth be told, America, Obama doesn't much like us, and he doesn't harbor much fancy for the country he wants to run, either. Unless, of course, you can afford to pay $28,500 to dine with him.







Watch His Eminence grace us with his approval. (It comes way at the end)

EXCUSE ME??? An update

Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM

EXCUSE ME??!!??

I have been saying for months that Barack Obama is unelectable. I have just found Exhibit A in my argument:

From the NY Post:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
"While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Let me see if I have this right:

Barack Obama, private citizen, attempted to negotiate US troop movements with the head of a foreign country? Excuse me?

And he wants any troop withdrawals delayed until AFTER the next president takes over (I presume he envisions himself in that role). He is willing to trade American lives for his own narcissistic political visions????

He went on to challenge that "Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops." Have you read the US Constitution lately, Mr. Obama? The deployment of US troops is at the direction of the president only. Congress does not have the power to order the deployment or withdrawal of US troops. Period.

Then, to tell an ally at a time of war that President Bush is in a "state of weakness and political confusion."

This action of Obama goes beyond description.

No wait, I have the word to describe Obama's actions here: TREASON!

That’s what we could be doing instead of fighting this war.

OK, I am confused.

One day Obama tells us to "invest at home" and use the money being spent on the Iraq war on domestic initiatives.

Then, he gripes that "we’re having to pay for this war with loans from China."

So, Barack, which is it? Are we diverting our own money to pay for Iraq or do you want to borrow money from China to pay for your domestic "investments?"

If Obama is going to borrow money from the Chinese, I hope they have mighty deep pockets. A few of the items on Obama's shopping list:

protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever

offering relief to struggling homeowners

giving tax breaks to working families

fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American

making universal health care a reality in this country.

giving every American a quality education.

giving our teachers more pay and more support,

rebuilding our crumbling schools,

offering a tax credit to put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one.

rebuilding our roads and bridges.

freeing ourselves from the tyranny of oil,

saving this planet for our children.

investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology,

creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs.


Those all might be nice things, but it doesn't sound to me to be any "bargain." Where is the money going to come from. He wants us to believe that he will fund all these missions by stopping (aka losing) the Iraq war; but he also wants us to believe that the country is drowning in Chinese debt in order to pay for the war.

Like most times after I hear Obama speak, I am confused. Maybe he's just that much smarter than me. Or maybe he's engaging in political double-speak.

So, in the spirit of Barack Obama, we should be borrowing from the Chinese and spending money like a drunken sailor on domestic initiatives -- I mean investments; instead of borrowing from the Chinese and spending money like a drunken sailor on the Iraq War.

Do I have that right?

Yeah, I am confused. You?

Racial Profiling is a Bigger Threat than Terrorism

If this article from Reuters can be believed, racial profiling is a bigger threat to the United States than is terrorism. Does anybody agree with this statement?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does.

Reportedly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Department of Justice want to use a set of existing guidelines in their hunt for terrorists. The FBI already use the rules when going after "domestic" criminals, and simply want to apply these rules in cases involving national security.

And, not surprisingly, the ACLU is shrieking that if these guidelines are adopted for terror cases, "a person's race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation," leading to racial profiling.

The DoJ believes these rules will help find and arrest terrorists, preventing terrorist attacks on US soil. If they get their way, the ACLU would prevent the FBI from implementing these rules, denying a tool that the FBI would use to prevent a terrorist from killing hundreds, thousands, or millions of innocent Americans.

The ACLU is willing to sacrifice your life to avoid the possibility that a dark-skinned person with a funny name* might be inconvenienced. The ACLU wants your child to risk being the victim of a subway bomber or a car bomb outside their workplace or shopping mall on their "concern" someone "could" be racially profiled.

The ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said, "Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of a historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes."

Wrong, Tony. Issuing these guidelines the day after 9/11 should serve as a reminder how dangerous is this world we live in, and that we should spare no effort to prevent the next 9/11.

According to a typically hysterical ACLU press release, "[t]hese techniques would allow agents to conduct pre-textual (undercover) interviews, use informants and conduct physical surveillance in connection with First Amendment protected activities."

Egad! The FBI wants to use undercover officers, informants and surveillance to nab suspected terrorists! The horrors. I have news for you Tony, the terrorists want to do more than just survey you, they want to kill you.

And then, there is this canard: "After eight years of historic civil liberties abuses (during the Bush years), the American people know better. " If anyone at the ACLU has had a single civil liberty denied or even infringed upon, please name it.

You know a moonbat when he has a bumper sticker on his car announcing that his freedom of speech is being restricted. Or, when you see a rally on the public square decrying their inability to speak out on the issues. Huh?

This is one of my new favorite red-herrings, from the tellingly-named CommonDreams.org: "in order to bring a complaint about abuses under the PATRIOT Act, a person had to..know that his or her rights had been violated".Well, yeah, I should think that a basic hurdle to showing that you were aggrived would be knowing you were aggrieved.

I wanted to report my house was broken into, but I couldn't tell if there was a break-in and nothing was missing. Say it ain't so!

I think we should send these ACLU whack-jobs to Iran, North Korea, China, or their beloved Cuba to see what true repression is. I have my doubts that a Civil Liberties Union would exist in Pyongyang.

It is especially galling for these lefties to whine about losing their freedoms when, in the crushing dictatorship in Italy, a comedian may be prosecuted for making a joke about the Pope. But, we in the US are being repressed.

But, the ALCU knows what the real problem is: According to the ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson, "Handing this kind of latitude (the new guidelines) to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake."

Actually, allowing the ACLU to place any restiction on the goverment's efforts to prevent terrorism is the true mistake.



*"They'll tell you he has a funny name..." -- Barack Obama

Son gets same dorm room as dad -- And I care why??

This has nothing to do with anything, but I heard this story on the radio newscast this morning:

Following in your father's footsteps by attending the same university is one thing. But moving into the same dorm room as your dad?

Mike Robell has found himself in B310 in Emmons Hall at Michigan State University _ the very same room occupied by his father in 1978.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep09/0,4670,ODDFatherSonDorm,00.html

Whenever I hear pointless news stories like these, I wonder: Who the Hell told the media?

You drop your son off for his first day at college and find he got the same dorm room as you had 30 years ago; I can't imagine my first thought would be: "Quick son, hand me your cell phone. I have just got to call the newspaper!"

The hubris to think that anyone would care about your dorm room duplicity. Obviously, someone cares, as this foolishness is a national news story.

Are we that self-centered a society that our every quirky story has to be blasted to the world?

Apparently so, or I wouldn't be maintaining this blog!

Just a thought for what it is worthless...

Unfit to Stand So Close to Journalism

I must respond to the outrageous and insensitive column by Dan Payne in the Boston Globe on September 11.

Unfit to stand so close to presidency

Did you catch that date?

In what is one of the most insensitive comments I have read in a political column, Payne had the audacity to compare Republican Vice President Sarah Palin to the Taliban on the seventh anniversary of 9/11. Very classy indeed.

Not to mention the pathetic irony in that the Taliban are not known for allowing women much freedom and independence, it was the Taliban who helped and harbored Al Qaeda as they planned the 9/11 attacks.. Surely, you could have spent a moment or two to find another -- any other -- analogy.

Payne launches his screed by declaring with an almost transparent glee that McCain could pass away while in office. It almost sounds to me that he is wishing for that "one heart attack, one stroke, one metastasized melanoma" to strike "72-year-old hot head," Senator McCain. Another paragraph rife with decorum, dignity and compassion.

Beyond the crass, tasteless commentary, Payne's column is rife with outright lies, distortions, and blatant omissions. Who needs facts, right?

Payne brilliantly suggests that Palin's claim to the commander-in-chief of the Alaska Army National Guard is "preposterous." Sorry, Dan, she is.

According to the Army National Guard web site, the National Guard is "under the jurisdiction of both state and federal governments, so Guard Soldiers can be deployed by either the governor of their resident state, or the president of the United States." Sounds like Palin is a C-in-C to me.

Palin's a "pipeline to pork," says the columnist. She swung $197.8 million in earmarks to Alaska in 2008 and $27 million to tiny Wasila. Clearly, she is not one to criticize earmarks, the column implies.

But then, neither is Obama.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a "government watchdog group", Obama secured $91 million in earmarks in 2007 (Boston Globe 2/14/08). Apparently, Payne doesn't read his own newspaper.

Further, according to the Republican National Committee, Obama has requested 330 earmark projects Totaling Almost $1 Billion ($935.7 million) since being sworn in as a senator from Illinois in January 2005, including 112 projects totaling $399.8 million for the 2008 federal fiscal year. A new kind of politician, indeed.

Let's see, the RNC states that Obama requested 139 Projects totaling $334 million For FY 2007, but received only $91 million. Not a very good percentage, is it? Is Palin a better salesperson?

Let us contrast that with John McCain. "McCain has led the fight against special interests in Washington, never asked for a single earmark..." said a McCain spokesman, as quoted in the Boston Globe.

One billion in requests from Obama in 4 years compared to zero requests in 24 years. You be the judge,

Payne, it seems is good at keeping those pesky details out of his column.

He tries to suggest Palin sought to have a state trooper fired because he "went through a messy divorce" from Palin's sister. He forgot the tiny detail that the trooper used a taser on his 10 year old son and threatened to kill Palin's father (the governor's father). I am uncomfortable thinking that Payne would leave a trooper with this unstable a personality on the state police force. Alaskans should be glad that Palin has better judgment than he.

Finally, Dan reveals where he spends time researching his columns be quoting David Letterman. I can't recall a more astute political mind than Dave, can you?

In case anyone is wondering why the sales of newspapers is plummeting in this country, this column is Exhibit A. He dredges up a pile of lies and distortions and contorts them into an incoherent and babbling column that one might expect to find in a high school newspaper.

He claims Palin unfit to be vice president; until he can do some basic research and tell the truth, I call him -- and far too many of his colleagues -- unfit to be a columnist.

On second thought, keep it up, Dan. The more the liberal media trashes this woman, the better McCain/Palin does in the polls.

Enough Already!

OK, you women-hating Liberals; ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Sarah Palin is a true feminist, the true Super Woman that you have advocated for all these years, and now you are angry because she is a Republican, a conservative.

Such Hypocrisy is unflattering.

This poster was found on the wall at Harvard University! The same institution that fired it's president for having the audacity to suggest that men and women were different. Egad!

Please drop this garbage and stop insulting Sarah Palin and women throughout this country. Disgraceful and diminishing of us all.

Image stolen from the Natural Truth blog by Michael Graham.