Random thoughts have been piling up in my head the past few days and I had to put them down somewhere.
I am pissed off with our piece of shit congressmen/congresswomen that a seem to be in line for sucking the "Johnson" of 44, at least jockeying to get the most brown on their noses.
From the American Revolution to President Jimmy Carter, the United States of America had not "borrowed" 800 billion dollars from its citizens. Now "Our Great Leader" is trying to steal this from our pockets Trillions of dollars before we have had a chance to earn them.
I bet this Bozo is just as smart as John "D-student" Kerry, to quote The Great One. That is probably why he doesn't release his school transcripts. "The Dumbass" as I have affectionately have called him for the past 2 years, appears he may just get his "wet dream" of a spending bill.
Have you written down 800 billion (800,000,000,000)? How about I set an example of how much each citizen could have for that amount of "stimulus" that's what the Democrats ALWAYS do when Republicans propose to spend ANYTHING. 800 Billion dollars could be passed out as one check to ALL 303,824,640 citizens working or not from Uncle Sam in the amount of $2633.10. Only one problem remains...inflation.
I believe if we all had this money we could really stimulate the goods and services market, pay down debt, and use this a lot better than Washington can. I don't think congress should have limousines and leases on vehicles for themselves and their staff with gas cards and insurance all paid for by us.
How can hundreds of "intelligent" people in public service be so stupid? The answer is greed and greed alone. I have come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING that a DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN accuses a Republican of is exactly what they are doing themselves and pointing the finger the other way to relieve their inner guilt of thievery at tax payer expense. HORSESHIT, BULLSHIT, IT IS ALL JUST SHIT.
I don't know anybody who doesn't want to see history being made, but I am sure that not many folks care to see the U.S. go the way of Italy, France, and Germany. Thanks a bunch to all you Marxists or drones that have chosen welfare over liberty. Apparently a government check is worth more than freedom. It has always been a veritable communist dream to take over our free and sovereign nation of the U.S.A. seems like it is creeping forward everyday.
Spending this much money has never worked and will never work. Here is an excerpt from "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Burton Folsom quoting the then 52nd Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. :
But in May 1939, Morgenthau had a problem. The Great Depression—the most devastating economic catastrophe in American history—was not only persisting, in some ways it was getting worse. Unemployment, for example, the previous month had again passed the 20 percent mark. Here was Morgenthau, the secretary of the treasury, an expert on finance, a fount of statistics on the American economy during the 1930s; his best friend was the president of the United States and the author of the New Deal; key public policy decisions had to go through Morgenthau to get a hearing. And yet, with all this power, Morgenthau felt helpless. After almost two full terms of Roosevelt and the New Deal, here are Morgenthau's startling words—his confession—spoken candidly before his fellow Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee:
We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong...somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started....And an enormous debt to boot!
In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover. Fully 17.2 percent of Americans, or 9,480,000, remained unemployed in 1939, up from 16.3 percent or 8,020,000 in 1931. On the positive side, 1939 was better than 1932 and 1933, when the Great Depression was at its nadir, but 1939 was still worse than 1931, which at that time was almost the worst unemployment year in U.S. history. No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long.
Slavery pre-21st century was tyranny that consisted of force and cruelty. Nowadays, slavery beyond the 21st century has tyranny packaged with new names...ignorance and apathy.
For all of America's faults her greatness has always far outweighed the blemishes, somebody please tell me that America has not died and gone the way of tyrants and dictators of the world.
I wonder now if the 22nd amendment will be "temporarily eliminated" and we will have to see this stammering idiot for 12 years just as my Grandfather saw FDR in his time at my age. I can barely listen to this buffoon speak for more than 4 minutes, and now have to hear him speak for 4 years and possibly more.
May God help us save and preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For without the preservation of life we can't have liberty and without liberty none of us shall have happiness.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Barack Obama is a Fraud!
Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office
The Tribune examines allegations about president-elect's 'natural born citizen' status
By Sara Olkon and James Janega | Tribune reporters
December 3, 2008
Barack Obama birth certificate
The Obama campaign provided this birth certificate, showing Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
An anti-tax activist from upstate New York who is questioning whether President-elect Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the nation's top job said Tuesday that his non-profit group spent "tens of thousands of dollars" to get his message across in ads in the Chicago Tribune this week.
Robert L. Schulz, 69, chairman of We The People Foundation, took out ads Monday and Wednesday to raise questions about whether Obama's Hawaii certificate of live birth is authentic.
The ads echo accusations circulated online by some Obama opponents before the election. Cases challenging Obama's citizenship have been tossed out of courts in several states, and Hawaiian officials have vouched for the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, which is locked in a state vault. The Obama campaign likewise has always dismissed the accusations.
Nevertheless, some critics remain dubious.
Related links
*
Group's founder on WGN-AM: It's not about Obama Audio
*
See the group's ad
*
Bill Clinton: Obama's offer 'shocked' Hillary
Here are the allegations raised in Schulz's ad, and some relevant facts:
•The birth form released by Obama was "an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited" live birth form, Schulz says.
Last summer, Obama's campaign presented a digital copy of his certificate of live birth. After critics questioned its authenticity, staff at FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said they had seen, held and examined the actual birth certificate.
•"Hawaiian officials will not confirm" that Obama was born in their state, Schulz says.
Initially, Hawaiian officials said that privacy laws prevented them from releasing a copy or confirming that Obama's copy was authentic. But in late October as questions persisted, Hawaii's health director and head of vital statistics reviewed Obama's birth certificate in the department's vault and vouched for its authenticity.
•Schulz says that legal affidavits state Obama was born in Kenya.
The affidavits that Schulz refers to are filings by the Obama critics themselves in the court cases challenging Obama's citizenship.
•Obama's paternal grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended Obama's birth in Kenya, Schulz says.
The group's Web site posted what it says is a transcript of a long-distance phone conversation in Swahili and English from late October between a questioner in the United States and Sarah Hussein Obama, in her Kenyan home. The translator said he was one of two interpreters conducting the interview in a crowded hut during a celebration, over a speaker phone that dropped the call three times. A copy of the recording was not provided by Schulz.
• Schulz says that "U.S. law in effect in 1961 [the year of Obama's birth] denied citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age."
If a child is born in the United States—as Hawaiian officials state that Obama was—that child is a U.S. citizen regardless of his or her parents' nationalities. If born to an American parent outside the U.S., the law at the time would require the U.S. citizen parent to be at least 19, which Obama's mother was not. The provisions of this law were subsequently loosened and made retroactive for government employees serving abroad and their families. It appears that this would not apply to Obama's mother. The matter would seem to be academic: Hawaiian officials vouch for Obama's birth certificate.
•Schulz says that in 1965, Obama's mother relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and Obama had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.
U.S. law lists the specific acts and formal procedures necessary to relinquish U.S. nationality. The statute requires the acts be performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing one's nationality. In many instances, one must be 18 to renounce one's citizenship. Obama moved to Indonesia in 1968 and moved back to Hawaii while still in grade school. There is no indication that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship.
Schulz supports his argument with a reproduced Indonesian school document that states Obama's citizenship at that time as "Indonesian." But the same document also lists Obama's birthplace as " Honolulu, Hawaii."
Schulz, interviewed by the Tribune on Tuesday, said his concern about Obama's citizenship is not partisan.
"We never get involved in politics," he said of We The People. "We avoid it like the plague."
Tax debate is fair game, however. The Queensbury, N.Y., man has been active on tax issues for nearly 30 years. Last year, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York ordered Schulz to shut down a Web site that sold advice on avoiding taxes.
Asked about the case, Schulz said the government has tried to silence him.
He hopes the Tribune ads bring his group prominence.
Schulz said his group also considered a similar ad in USA Today, but said the cost was prohibitive. He said his group considered both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune, but said his group settled on the Tribune because of the size of its pages and its larger circulation. He would not specify how much his group spent on two days of full-page ads except to say they cost tens of thousands of dollars and were paid for by donations from supporters.
A Tribune advertising spokesman said the newspaper has standards for what ads it will accept and that the ad met those standards.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO
What must our enemies be thinking?
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
APAccording to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace to be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.
What must our enemies be thinking?
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
APAccording to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace to be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Change Means Never Having To Face Facts
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.
Some of Sen. Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change." But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to.
For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.
Some of Sen. Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change." But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to.
For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Democrats are to Blame for this Crisis!!!
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT
Friday, September 5, 2008
Pick your President
If this is what Obama plans to do.....we are really in trouble.
> Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
>
> CAPITAL GAINS TAX
>
> MCCAIN
> 0% on home sales up to $500,000
> per home (couples) McCain does not
> propose any change in existing
> home sales income tax.
>
> OBAMA
> 28% on profit from ALL home sales
>
> How does this affect you?
> If you sell your home and make a profit, you
> will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
> If you are heading toward retirement
> and would like to down-size your
> home or move into a retirement
> community, 28% of the money you
> make from your home will go to taxes. This
> proposal will adversely affect the
> elderly who are counting on the income
> from their homes as part of their retirement income.
>
> DIVIDEND TAX
>
> MCCAIN 15% (no change)
>
> OBAMA 39.6%
>
> How will this affect you?
> If you have any money invested in stock
> market, IRA, mutual funds,
> college funds, life insurance, retirement
> accounts, or anything that pays
> or reinvests dividends, you will now
> be paying nearly 4 0% of the money
> earned on taxes if Obama become president.
> The experts predict that 'higher
> tax rates on dividends and capital gains
> would crash the stock market yet
> do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
>
> INCOME TAX
>
> MCCAIN (no changes)
>
> Single making 30K - tax $4,500
> Single making 50K - tax $12,500
> Single making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married ma king 60K- tax $9,000
> Married making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 125K - tax $31,250
>
> OBAMA
> (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
> Single making 30K - tax $8,400
> Single making 50K - tax $14,000
> Single making 75K - tax $23,250
> Married making 60K - tax $16,800
> Married making 75K - tax $21,000
> Married making 125K - tax $38,750
>
> Under Obama your taxes will
> more than double!
> How does this affect you? No explanation
> needed. This is pretty
> straight forward.
>
> INHERITANCE TAX
>
> MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
>
> OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
>
> How does this affect you? Many families
> have lost businesses,
> farms and ranches, and homes
> that have
> been in their families
> for generations because they could not
> afford the inheritance tax.
&g t; Th ose willing their assets to loved
> ones will not only lose them to< BR>these taxes.
>
> NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
>
> * New government taxes proposed on
> homes that are more than
> 2400 square feet
>
> * New gasoline taxes (as if
> gas weren't high enough already)
>
> * New taxes on natural resources
> consumption (heating
> gas, water, electricity)
>
> * New taxes on retirement accounts
> and last but not least....
>
> * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
> so we can receive the same
> level of medical care as other
> third-world countries!!!
> Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
>
> CAPITAL GAINS TAX
>
> MCCAIN
> 0% on home sales up to $500,000
> per home (couples) McCain does not
> propose any change in existing
> home sales income tax.
>
> OBAMA
> 28% on profit from ALL home sales
>
> How does this affect you?
> If you sell your home and make a profit, you
> will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
> If you are heading toward retirement
> and would like to down-size your
> home or move into a retirement
> community, 28% of the money you
> make from your home will go to taxes. This
> proposal will adversely affect the
> elderly who are counting on the income
> from their homes as part of their retirement income.
>
> DIVIDEND TAX
>
> MCCAIN 15% (no change)
>
> OBAMA 39.6%
>
> How will this affect you?
> If you have any money invested in stock
> market, IRA, mutual funds,
> college funds, life insurance, retirement
> accounts, or anything that pays
> or reinvests dividends, you will now
> be paying nearly 4 0% of the money
> earned on taxes if Obama become president.
> The experts predict that 'higher
> tax rates on dividends and capital gains
> would crash the stock market yet
> do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
>
> INCOME TAX
>
> MCCAIN (no changes)
>
> Single making 30K - tax $4,500
> Single making 50K - tax $12,500
> Single making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married ma king 60K- tax $9,000
> Married making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 125K - tax $31,250
>
> OBAMA
> (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
> Single making 30K - tax $8,400
> Single making 50K - tax $14,000
> Single making 75K - tax $23,250
> Married making 60K - tax $16,800
> Married making 75K - tax $21,000
> Married making 125K - tax $38,750
>
> Under Obama your taxes will
> more than double!
> How does this affect you? No explanation
> needed. This is pretty
> straight forward.
>
> INHERITANCE TAX
>
> MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
>
> OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
>
> How does this affect you? Many families
> have lost businesses,
> farms and ranches, and homes
> that have
> been in their families
> for generations because they could not
> afford the inheritance tax.
&g t; Th ose willing their assets to loved
> ones will not only lose them to< BR>these taxes.
>
> NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
>
> * New government taxes proposed on
> homes that are more than
> 2400 square feet
>
> * New gasoline taxes (as if
> gas weren't high enough already)
>
> * New taxes on natural resources
> consumption (heating
> gas, water, electricity)
>
> * New taxes on retirement accounts
> and last but not least....
>
> * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine
> so we can receive the same
> level of medical care as other
> third-world countries!!!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN: AMERICA'S MOST DANGEROUS POLITICIAN
David R. Usher
January 20, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
If you believe that Jews caused the holocaust, then Senator Joe Biden is your prophet on the issue of domestic violence. America’s most dangerous bully is out to destroy every man in America on the vitriolic feminist notion that domestic violence is caused only by men; and secondly, to export America’s insanity to the rest of the world.
Biden’s plan is to create a “legal brigade” – an army in excess of 100,000 lawyers trained (and some federally endowed) to act as clones of the infamous Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong.
Biden would also spend millions of federal dollars on I-VAWA, exporting radical feminism to many foreign countries via the World Health Organization and various U.N. feminist NGO’s. I-VAWA is admittedly just another scheme by the Women’s Edge Coalition to create global-feminist socialism: “A major goal of the campaign is to educate the U.S. public and policymakers about the inextricable link between violence against women and the biggest global development and human rights challenges of our time: poverty, war and conflict, HIV/AIDS, and public health.”
Are we so stupid as to let feminist globallists abuse the “A” word to take over the world?
America: where self-proclaimed victims power predatory government
Senator Biden likes to compare the federal government to a lawnmower --- in his vision an army of over 100,000 entitled lawnmowers --- chopping down men with billions of federal entitlements, on nothing more than an allegation that domestic violence by men is globally endemic. Entitling violence by women in the name of building a safer world has been the screed of the fascist insurgency in Congress and state legislatures for many years.
If America had not personally witnessed a large number of men being publicly bullied and tortured by predatory feminist pimps, if our brains were turned to sludge and hearts hued from flamed granite, if men were not created equal and the Constitution was interred in the National Cemetery in an unmarked grave, and if all of science were reduced to feminist ideations; we still could not believe Mr. Biden.
Dorothy Rabinowitz, who spent years debunking the false child abuse industry, essentially agrees with my long-held view that false domestic violence charges became the feminist favorite because they do not require the programming of a child. In the Wall Street Journal she writes, “there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the '90s.”
The structural parallels between the false child-abuse allegation industry, and VAWA -- which is powered by any allegation of violence made by women, are striking. Both programs are structured to endlessly research and elicit allegations of abuse from a special class of pre-assigned victims, to act as the “validator” of abuse, to entitle hyper-aggressive prosecution and treatment of it, to seize large amounts of money from the alleged perpetrator, and to absolve anyone who abuses the system. We should not be surprised at the soporific efficacy of this arrangement: what dog won’t bark if you offer it a bone, or eventually bite to get what it wants?
Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong taught America invaluable lessons in the Duke Scandal. Women do lie – repetitively -- for money and power. Police, prosecutors, the Bar Association, psychologists, and testing agencies do lie for them – because it is thought to be politically correct, is an entitled activity, and conveniently profitable.
*
New Jersey Nets player Jason Kidd had to file for divorce to avoid continuing entitled violence at the hands of his wife.
*
David Letterman was dragged through an outrageous and expensive false allegation of stalking.
*
Tawana Brawley orchestrated a hideous false rape case against six innocent men.
*
Actor Phil Hartman was shot to death by his drug-infested wife. Hartman had been walking on eggshells around her violence for some time.
*
After a brief marriage to Heather Mills, Beatle Paul McCartney discovered that his wife was a former call-girl, a violent wife, gold-digger, and a professional at making false abuse accusations. We are to believe that Paul somehow became a monster after having a long and wonderful marriage to his first wife, Linda, who passed away from cancer. Paul was not the only person Heather physically attacked. She is currently demanding $50-million from Sir Paul, her latest and greatest trick.
*
There are thousands of innocent men who spent much of their lives in prison, who since the advent of DNA evidence, are being acquitted of their crimes. There are countless others for which DNA evidence is not available, or who were too poor to fight the system -- convicted purely on the feminist-instilled assumption that men are guilty even if they can prove themselves innocent. I have hundreds of gut-wrenching letters from good men, sitting in prison, for this very reason. Their truths will never be seen on CNN or a feminist U.N. Report.
Exporting the Scourge of Radical Feminism
Biden mistakenly hopes to broaden his Presidential possibilities by pulling a “Nifong” on the world. His plan would spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to export the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) around the world. Biden’s plan is based on the WHO study, “Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Biden, the WHO study is integrally cross-referenced to Kofi Annan’s Report on Violence Against Women, which was unanimously rejected by the U.N. Third Committee this past November after an international brouhaha revealed that intentional sex bias and tremendous methodological errors rendered the report little more than an exercise in brute sexism.
The WHO report is built on the same preceptual, methodogical and scientific errors as the Secretary General’s report. It starts with a monumental feminist lie “the perpetrators of violence are almost exclusively men.” The questioning methodology was similar to that of the Conflict Tactical Scales (CTS), asking forthright questions such as “whether a current or former spouse has ever (fill in the blank). Unlike the CTS, which questioned both men and women, the W.H.O. study carefully avoids asking what feminists do not wish to report (just like Mike Nifong). Only women pre-selected by feminist-operated NGO’s an operatives were interviewed.
Perhaps Mr. Biden would do better spending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars asking Democrats meaningful questions like “has a Republican ever voted against one of your bills?”
The bottom line: Exporting radical feminist terrorism is a very dangerous thing. The vast majority of Muslims know exactly what radical feminism is, and they are not about to let America ram it down their throats under the guise of “Democracy.” As we found out: some are willing to strap a bomb on their back to prove their point.
If Senator Biden wants to stop terrorism, which he claims to desire, he can start by shelving this horrid piece of legislation. He should follow through by undertaking what he forcefully quashed last year: reform of the Violence Against Women Act to become a truly gender-neutral Family Violence Act. When we stop terrorizing America and globalizing radical feminism, we will be well on the way to ending the global war on terror.
© 2007 David Usher - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition and is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
E-Mail: drusher@swbell.net
January 20, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
If you believe that Jews caused the holocaust, then Senator Joe Biden is your prophet on the issue of domestic violence. America’s most dangerous bully is out to destroy every man in America on the vitriolic feminist notion that domestic violence is caused only by men; and secondly, to export America’s insanity to the rest of the world.
Biden’s plan is to create a “legal brigade” – an army in excess of 100,000 lawyers trained (and some federally endowed) to act as clones of the infamous Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong.
Biden would also spend millions of federal dollars on I-VAWA, exporting radical feminism to many foreign countries via the World Health Organization and various U.N. feminist NGO’s. I-VAWA is admittedly just another scheme by the Women’s Edge Coalition to create global-feminist socialism: “A major goal of the campaign is to educate the U.S. public and policymakers about the inextricable link between violence against women and the biggest global development and human rights challenges of our time: poverty, war and conflict, HIV/AIDS, and public health.”
Are we so stupid as to let feminist globallists abuse the “A” word to take over the world?
America: where self-proclaimed victims power predatory government
Senator Biden likes to compare the federal government to a lawnmower --- in his vision an army of over 100,000 entitled lawnmowers --- chopping down men with billions of federal entitlements, on nothing more than an allegation that domestic violence by men is globally endemic. Entitling violence by women in the name of building a safer world has been the screed of the fascist insurgency in Congress and state legislatures for many years.
If America had not personally witnessed a large number of men being publicly bullied and tortured by predatory feminist pimps, if our brains were turned to sludge and hearts hued from flamed granite, if men were not created equal and the Constitution was interred in the National Cemetery in an unmarked grave, and if all of science were reduced to feminist ideations; we still could not believe Mr. Biden.
Dorothy Rabinowitz, who spent years debunking the false child abuse industry, essentially agrees with my long-held view that false domestic violence charges became the feminist favorite because they do not require the programming of a child. In the Wall Street Journal she writes, “there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the '90s.”
The structural parallels between the false child-abuse allegation industry, and VAWA -- which is powered by any allegation of violence made by women, are striking. Both programs are structured to endlessly research and elicit allegations of abuse from a special class of pre-assigned victims, to act as the “validator” of abuse, to entitle hyper-aggressive prosecution and treatment of it, to seize large amounts of money from the alleged perpetrator, and to absolve anyone who abuses the system. We should not be surprised at the soporific efficacy of this arrangement: what dog won’t bark if you offer it a bone, or eventually bite to get what it wants?
Duke prosecutor Mike Nifong taught America invaluable lessons in the Duke Scandal. Women do lie – repetitively -- for money and power. Police, prosecutors, the Bar Association, psychologists, and testing agencies do lie for them – because it is thought to be politically correct, is an entitled activity, and conveniently profitable.
*
New Jersey Nets player Jason Kidd had to file for divorce to avoid continuing entitled violence at the hands of his wife.
*
David Letterman was dragged through an outrageous and expensive false allegation of stalking.
*
Tawana Brawley orchestrated a hideous false rape case against six innocent men.
*
Actor Phil Hartman was shot to death by his drug-infested wife. Hartman had been walking on eggshells around her violence for some time.
*
After a brief marriage to Heather Mills, Beatle Paul McCartney discovered that his wife was a former call-girl, a violent wife, gold-digger, and a professional at making false abuse accusations. We are to believe that Paul somehow became a monster after having a long and wonderful marriage to his first wife, Linda, who passed away from cancer. Paul was not the only person Heather physically attacked. She is currently demanding $50-million from Sir Paul, her latest and greatest trick.
*
There are thousands of innocent men who spent much of their lives in prison, who since the advent of DNA evidence, are being acquitted of their crimes. There are countless others for which DNA evidence is not available, or who were too poor to fight the system -- convicted purely on the feminist-instilled assumption that men are guilty even if they can prove themselves innocent. I have hundreds of gut-wrenching letters from good men, sitting in prison, for this very reason. Their truths will never be seen on CNN or a feminist U.N. Report.
Exporting the Scourge of Radical Feminism
Biden mistakenly hopes to broaden his Presidential possibilities by pulling a “Nifong” on the world. His plan would spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to export the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) around the world. Biden’s plan is based on the WHO study, “Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Biden, the WHO study is integrally cross-referenced to Kofi Annan’s Report on Violence Against Women, which was unanimously rejected by the U.N. Third Committee this past November after an international brouhaha revealed that intentional sex bias and tremendous methodological errors rendered the report little more than an exercise in brute sexism.
The WHO report is built on the same preceptual, methodogical and scientific errors as the Secretary General’s report. It starts with a monumental feminist lie “the perpetrators of violence are almost exclusively men.” The questioning methodology was similar to that of the Conflict Tactical Scales (CTS), asking forthright questions such as “whether a current or former spouse has ever (fill in the blank). Unlike the CTS, which questioned both men and women, the W.H.O. study carefully avoids asking what feminists do not wish to report (just like Mike Nifong). Only women pre-selected by feminist-operated NGO’s an operatives were interviewed.
Perhaps Mr. Biden would do better spending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars asking Democrats meaningful questions like “has a Republican ever voted against one of your bills?”
The bottom line: Exporting radical feminist terrorism is a very dangerous thing. The vast majority of Muslims know exactly what radical feminism is, and they are not about to let America ram it down their throats under the guise of “Democracy.” As we found out: some are willing to strap a bomb on their back to prove their point.
If Senator Biden wants to stop terrorism, which he claims to desire, he can start by shelving this horrid piece of legislation. He should follow through by undertaking what he forcefully quashed last year: reform of the Violence Against Women Act to become a truly gender-neutral Family Violence Act. When we stop terrorizing America and globalizing radical feminism, we will be well on the way to ending the global war on terror.
© 2007 David Usher - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition and is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
E-Mail: drusher@swbell.net
Media Class = MSM
Two conservative commentators expose the new Media Class
"Radical: Naturally inherent, essential, fundamental; going to the root"
"Right: Correct, true, proper; just and fair"
Denver - Media Class Circling The Wagons Around Obama
28 August 2008
On this website we argue that a powerful new Class now dominates the USA and several other Western Nations. We call it the Media Class and besides those directly owning and working in the Media, we include in this Class those in industries that have become inextricably linked with the Media such as professional sport, Fashion, Advertising, the Arts and Entertainment. We maintain that in the USA this Class has turned the Democrat Party into its political creature by bestowing its favors on some politicians and causes and demonizing others. We maintain that it was in Hollywood, the birthplace of this Class, that rich and powerful Media insiders decided to drop the Clintons and promote Obama for the Presidency. Eventually, the whole Class fell into line and Mrs. Clinton, once the anointed one was discarded. In past articles we point out why Obama appealed to the Hollywood activists and why their choice was so superficially made.
Now, in Denver, the Media Class is stuck with a candidate of very limited abilities. Never properly vetted about his past and assumed to be able to win by speaking the lines written for him, Obama finds himself trailing the pedestrian and underfunded John McCain in the opinion polls. His choice of a running mate, whilst pleasing to his masters in the Media for whom abortion and homosexual liberation are litmus test issues, has revealed his complete lack of imagination and insight into Presidential politics. We have long argued that the Media Class sponsors and controls Leftist politicians (and intimidates conservatives) and uses them to promote its own revolutionary social agenda. It is this process that has given rise to what many call the ‘culture war’.
On 20th August, Jim Meyers wrote an article on Newsmax.com in which he drew attention to the fact that the Media had selected Obama and he quoted from Brent Bozell’s findings for a Media Research Center study. It seems that more and more conservative commentators are realizing that the mainstream media is controlling the Democrat Party and not vice-versa. Perhaps they should start asking how and why this is happening though they could save intellectual energy by reading our website, for all would be revealed!
Rush Limbaugh mentioned this week that there are about 4,000 Democrat delegates at Denver this week and some 20,000 media people. It seems to us very appropriate that the Media people are dominant at this event. The delegates cannot be relied upon to perform well and neither can the candidates. The Clinton supporters and their leader are understandably bitter about the way that she was abandoned despite a better showing than Obama in the primaries. Even the Clintons, long used to Media cosseting, now realize that they have been discarded and are expected to fall into line unless they wish to risk being ‘outed’ by their erstwhile sponsors. Will they do so? The massed Media is at Denver to make sure that no matter how events unfold in the Conference hall the public will be informed that Obama, his running mate and all the delegates are united and euphoric.
The Media Class often acts impulsively and shows poor judgment, as the selection of Obama demonstrates, but we have to admire its speed, skill and boldness when redressing a mistake. On this website, we mostly track the Wall Street Journal because although it has the reputation of being a conservative voice and providing authentic news, it is, like all MSM (Mainstream Media) organs a propaganda machine for the Media Class agenda. Only in its opinion pages can any conservative views be found (already under the Murdoch influence more and more Leftist opinion writers are being featured) and the rest of its many pages are written by ‘reporters’ who believe that their job is to rewrite the news to advance a revolutionary social agenda. After the debacle this weekend of the Biden selection and its linkage to the unwelcome issue of abortion the WSJ had as its Monday top front-page news story a headline “Democrats Begin Their Final Assault” and beside it a picture of Biden with a young girl over his shoulder who was waving to the camera man. Underneath was the caption “Sen. Joe Biden with his granddaughter Natalie Biden following Catholic church services in Greenville, Del. Sunday”. This is the Joe Biden who completely rejects the Catholic teaching on abortion and has voted to ensure that babies who survive the grisly process of abortion are left to starve to death. One has to admire a Media that can move so quickly to mislead Catholic voters. Media people love abortion and are united on the issue with their Leftist foot-soldiers and Feminazi activists, but they know that it is not a vote-getter in (still-overwhelmingly) Christian America.
On Tuesday the same space was occupied with a photo of Michelle Obama and her daughter and the caption “ONSTAGE: Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha at the podium before the convention opened Monday”. We are being reminded that these people (who actually approve the killing of countless babies for the abstract right of a woman’s convenience) are really family people surrounded by children.
Today (Wednesday) in the same spot is a picture of Hillary Clinton prior to her speech and a caption forecasting that she will be urging Party unity. The whole news MSM is currently doing everything it can to promote Democrat unity, to advise Obama on how to win and to portray the Party as united behind Obama and in buoyant mood. We can forecast that in stark contrast the MSM will be doing the exact opposite at the Republican conference.
For those who swallow the MSM propaganda, the Presidential contest is partly about personality and partly about issues like taxation, foreign policy, trade, health care and jobs. Whilst all these things do matter to many American voters, they are secondary to the underlying struggle which the Media Class would prefer to camouflage, and that is the culture war. For this new dominant Class, the election is seen as the opportunity to gain sufficient political power to impose legislation that will consign old-fashioned morality to the dustbin of history. In California, Prop 8 will be on the ballot, thanks to those old-fashioned religious people that the Media Class and its Leftist foot-soldiers hate with a ferocity that can only be appeased with complete victory. Prop 8, if passed, will restore marriage to its traditional definition as being between a man and a woman. I think Prop 8 will lose this time because all the big money is pouring in to defeat it and thus open the floodgates of same-sex marriage in every other State. Business people and individuals who donate money to support Prop 8 are being ‘outed’ by the militant homosexuals and subjected to threats of boycott. Meanwhile, big companies are donating large sums of stockholders money to the homosexual campaign to defeat the Proposition and added to their contributions are the millions from the rich and famous of Hollywood and San Francisco. Here is the real frontline of the culture war and I am afraid that the masses are being kept in the dark by the Media.
I wrote in my previous article that a reader was forwarding newspaper clippings of the Media-orchestrated furore in the UK’s tiny village of Broadclyst, Devon. Here are the headlines from the local rag. “Residents left furious after secret BNP rally is held in village hall”. “Residents angered by secret party meeting”. “Police called by pair who felt threatened by BNP canvassers”. “Mum takes kids out of village youth club led by BNP member”. All the outraged complainers are anonymous and one is led to assume that the intrepid reporter, Miss Liz Taverner, had to search diligently to find a handful of them and that they were not likely to be very credible with their neighbors, hence the anonymity. Still, this is the way that the Media in the UK always reports on the BNP. The event in the village hall was a meeting and not a rally and it was not advertised by the BNP because Leftist thugs, usually with a nod and wink from the police hierarchy, ensure that BNP meetings are disrupted or prevented. The reporter knows this, of course, but the meeting secrecy is portrayed as sinister. What was surprising was the printed response from the newspaper’s website, for many local people who unashamedly revealed their names, complained that they would have attended the meeting if they had known about it, for they liked the BNP’s message. Others defended free speech and free association.
One writer drew attention to the BNP’s reality behind its appealing public message. Sadly, he has a point for the Party’s organization and core beliefs are rooted not just in economic Socialism and the notion of racial purity but also in the Leninist doctrine of ‘democratic centralism’. This latter means that the Party leadership promotes Party members to Party posts instead of allowing them to be elected by the rank-and-file membership. The rationale for this is that as a Party that is heavily persecuted it cannot allow infiltrators to gain control. It is an argument that has validity but the consequence is a Party that is ruled by a clique that has to carry out frequent purges of any who show independent thought. It seems that the Party is now having another purge and I suspect that Nick Griffin is ensuring that no-one takes advantage of the Party’s claim to allow an annual challenge to his leadership. The Party never reveals the policy disagreements that result in expulsions. Is Griffin a reformer battling veteran racial extremists or is he battling reformers? There is no way of knowing for all internal disputes seem to be about personalities and alleged plots. Since the BNP is the UK’s natives’ only hope of survival, it is disastrous if its activists are continually being purged and no impressive independent-minded personalities are allowed to emerge. Worse still is that Party dogmas cannot be challenged. If Nick Griffin or one of his close supporters would like to deny our conclusions, we would welcome their contribution on this website.
Copyright Mr Radical and Mr Right Radical and Right ©2008
"Radical: Naturally inherent, essential, fundamental; going to the root"
"Right: Correct, true, proper; just and fair"
Denver - Media Class Circling The Wagons Around Obama
28 August 2008
On this website we argue that a powerful new Class now dominates the USA and several other Western Nations. We call it the Media Class and besides those directly owning and working in the Media, we include in this Class those in industries that have become inextricably linked with the Media such as professional sport, Fashion, Advertising, the Arts and Entertainment. We maintain that in the USA this Class has turned the Democrat Party into its political creature by bestowing its favors on some politicians and causes and demonizing others. We maintain that it was in Hollywood, the birthplace of this Class, that rich and powerful Media insiders decided to drop the Clintons and promote Obama for the Presidency. Eventually, the whole Class fell into line and Mrs. Clinton, once the anointed one was discarded. In past articles we point out why Obama appealed to the Hollywood activists and why their choice was so superficially made.
Now, in Denver, the Media Class is stuck with a candidate of very limited abilities. Never properly vetted about his past and assumed to be able to win by speaking the lines written for him, Obama finds himself trailing the pedestrian and underfunded John McCain in the opinion polls. His choice of a running mate, whilst pleasing to his masters in the Media for whom abortion and homosexual liberation are litmus test issues, has revealed his complete lack of imagination and insight into Presidential politics. We have long argued that the Media Class sponsors and controls Leftist politicians (and intimidates conservatives) and uses them to promote its own revolutionary social agenda. It is this process that has given rise to what many call the ‘culture war’.
On 20th August, Jim Meyers wrote an article on Newsmax.com in which he drew attention to the fact that the Media had selected Obama and he quoted from Brent Bozell’s findings for a Media Research Center study. It seems that more and more conservative commentators are realizing that the mainstream media is controlling the Democrat Party and not vice-versa. Perhaps they should start asking how and why this is happening though they could save intellectual energy by reading our website, for all would be revealed!
Rush Limbaugh mentioned this week that there are about 4,000 Democrat delegates at Denver this week and some 20,000 media people. It seems to us very appropriate that the Media people are dominant at this event. The delegates cannot be relied upon to perform well and neither can the candidates. The Clinton supporters and their leader are understandably bitter about the way that she was abandoned despite a better showing than Obama in the primaries. Even the Clintons, long used to Media cosseting, now realize that they have been discarded and are expected to fall into line unless they wish to risk being ‘outed’ by their erstwhile sponsors. Will they do so? The massed Media is at Denver to make sure that no matter how events unfold in the Conference hall the public will be informed that Obama, his running mate and all the delegates are united and euphoric.
The Media Class often acts impulsively and shows poor judgment, as the selection of Obama demonstrates, but we have to admire its speed, skill and boldness when redressing a mistake. On this website, we mostly track the Wall Street Journal because although it has the reputation of being a conservative voice and providing authentic news, it is, like all MSM (Mainstream Media) organs a propaganda machine for the Media Class agenda. Only in its opinion pages can any conservative views be found (already under the Murdoch influence more and more Leftist opinion writers are being featured) and the rest of its many pages are written by ‘reporters’ who believe that their job is to rewrite the news to advance a revolutionary social agenda. After the debacle this weekend of the Biden selection and its linkage to the unwelcome issue of abortion the WSJ had as its Monday top front-page news story a headline “Democrats Begin Their Final Assault” and beside it a picture of Biden with a young girl over his shoulder who was waving to the camera man. Underneath was the caption “Sen. Joe Biden with his granddaughter Natalie Biden following Catholic church services in Greenville, Del. Sunday”. This is the Joe Biden who completely rejects the Catholic teaching on abortion and has voted to ensure that babies who survive the grisly process of abortion are left to starve to death. One has to admire a Media that can move so quickly to mislead Catholic voters. Media people love abortion and are united on the issue with their Leftist foot-soldiers and Feminazi activists, but they know that it is not a vote-getter in (still-overwhelmingly) Christian America.
On Tuesday the same space was occupied with a photo of Michelle Obama and her daughter and the caption “ONSTAGE: Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha at the podium before the convention opened Monday”. We are being reminded that these people (who actually approve the killing of countless babies for the abstract right of a woman’s convenience) are really family people surrounded by children.
Today (Wednesday) in the same spot is a picture of Hillary Clinton prior to her speech and a caption forecasting that she will be urging Party unity. The whole news MSM is currently doing everything it can to promote Democrat unity, to advise Obama on how to win and to portray the Party as united behind Obama and in buoyant mood. We can forecast that in stark contrast the MSM will be doing the exact opposite at the Republican conference.
For those who swallow the MSM propaganda, the Presidential contest is partly about personality and partly about issues like taxation, foreign policy, trade, health care and jobs. Whilst all these things do matter to many American voters, they are secondary to the underlying struggle which the Media Class would prefer to camouflage, and that is the culture war. For this new dominant Class, the election is seen as the opportunity to gain sufficient political power to impose legislation that will consign old-fashioned morality to the dustbin of history. In California, Prop 8 will be on the ballot, thanks to those old-fashioned religious people that the Media Class and its Leftist foot-soldiers hate with a ferocity that can only be appeased with complete victory. Prop 8, if passed, will restore marriage to its traditional definition as being between a man and a woman. I think Prop 8 will lose this time because all the big money is pouring in to defeat it and thus open the floodgates of same-sex marriage in every other State. Business people and individuals who donate money to support Prop 8 are being ‘outed’ by the militant homosexuals and subjected to threats of boycott. Meanwhile, big companies are donating large sums of stockholders money to the homosexual campaign to defeat the Proposition and added to their contributions are the millions from the rich and famous of Hollywood and San Francisco. Here is the real frontline of the culture war and I am afraid that the masses are being kept in the dark by the Media.
I wrote in my previous article that a reader was forwarding newspaper clippings of the Media-orchestrated furore in the UK’s tiny village of Broadclyst, Devon. Here are the headlines from the local rag. “Residents left furious after secret BNP rally is held in village hall”. “Residents angered by secret party meeting”. “Police called by pair who felt threatened by BNP canvassers”. “Mum takes kids out of village youth club led by BNP member”. All the outraged complainers are anonymous and one is led to assume that the intrepid reporter, Miss Liz Taverner, had to search diligently to find a handful of them and that they were not likely to be very credible with their neighbors, hence the anonymity. Still, this is the way that the Media in the UK always reports on the BNP. The event in the village hall was a meeting and not a rally and it was not advertised by the BNP because Leftist thugs, usually with a nod and wink from the police hierarchy, ensure that BNP meetings are disrupted or prevented. The reporter knows this, of course, but the meeting secrecy is portrayed as sinister. What was surprising was the printed response from the newspaper’s website, for many local people who unashamedly revealed their names, complained that they would have attended the meeting if they had known about it, for they liked the BNP’s message. Others defended free speech and free association.
One writer drew attention to the BNP’s reality behind its appealing public message. Sadly, he has a point for the Party’s organization and core beliefs are rooted not just in economic Socialism and the notion of racial purity but also in the Leninist doctrine of ‘democratic centralism’. This latter means that the Party leadership promotes Party members to Party posts instead of allowing them to be elected by the rank-and-file membership. The rationale for this is that as a Party that is heavily persecuted it cannot allow infiltrators to gain control. It is an argument that has validity but the consequence is a Party that is ruled by a clique that has to carry out frequent purges of any who show independent thought. It seems that the Party is now having another purge and I suspect that Nick Griffin is ensuring that no-one takes advantage of the Party’s claim to allow an annual challenge to his leadership. The Party never reveals the policy disagreements that result in expulsions. Is Griffin a reformer battling veteran racial extremists or is he battling reformers? There is no way of knowing for all internal disputes seem to be about personalities and alleged plots. Since the BNP is the UK’s natives’ only hope of survival, it is disastrous if its activists are continually being purged and no impressive independent-minded personalities are allowed to emerge. Worse still is that Party dogmas cannot be challenged. If Nick Griffin or one of his close supporters would like to deny our conclusions, we would welcome their contribution on this website.
Copyright Mr Radical and Mr Right Radical and Right ©2008
Obama's Radical Roots And Rules
Saul Alinsky, circa 1946: Like Obama, he wanted "change."
Obama's Radical Roots And Rules
Investors Business Daily
by Editorial
Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.
One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."
>>>
Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, "Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."
Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity."
Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
>>>
Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House.
SOURCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. ( Our Forefathers new all about Saul Alinsky's type, and long before the creep was born.
--------------------
The 'green revolution' is actually the 'red revolution' in disguise ...
If there is no energy development, you have poverty with a view
Obama's Radical Roots And Rules
Investors Business Daily
by Editorial
Most Americans revile socialism, yet Barack Obama's poll numbers remain competitive. One explanation: He's a longtime disciple of a man whose mission was to teach radicals to disguise their ideology.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's choice of the word "change" as his campaign's central slogan is not the product of focus-group studies, or the brainstorming sessions of his political consultants.
One of Obama's main inspirations was a man dedicated to revolutionary change that he was convinced "must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."
>>>
Obama calls his years as an Alinskyesque community organizer in Chicago "the best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of my Christian faith." But as radicalism expert Richard Lawrence Poe has noted, "Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. In organizing coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."
Indeed, Alinsky believed in sacrificing ethics and morals for the great cause. "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times," Alinsky wrote in his last book, "Rules for Radicals," adding that "all values are relative in a world of political relativity."
Published a year before Alinsky's death in 1972, "Rules for Radicals" includes a dedication in which he gives "an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."
>>>
Barack Obama's "Change We Can Believe In" is simply socialism — imposed by stratagem because Americans have never believed in Marxist economics. Saul Alinsky understood this, and his ghost is alive and well — and threatening to haunt the White House.
SOURCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. ( Our Forefathers new all about Saul Alinsky's type, and long before the creep was born.
--------------------
The 'green revolution' is actually the 'red revolution' in disguise ...
If there is no energy development, you have poverty with a view
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama's Posters: Message in the Image
April 15, 2008
Peggy Shapiro
There is something unsettling and very familiar in the Obama poster campaign which has plastered his image over the country. The posters depict the same graphic closeup of the candidate with one block word either "Hope," "Change" or "Progress" at the bottom. I knew that I had seen this before, and then it came to me that this image appropriates the graphic style of totalitarian Soviet propaganda. It recalls the idealzed portraits and personality cult of Obama changethe "Beloved Leader" such as Stalin and Lenin. The leader, face illuminated by a "holy" light, looks off to the horizon and sees the truth that is not available to his mere mortal followers, who must look up to his image.
The one-word message offers a simple (simple-minded) promise of a utopian existence. These stenciled words bring to mind They Live, a 1988 film, in which secret alien gods take over Los Angeles and control the inhabitants by subliminal billboard messages which display the word "Obey." Coincidentally or not, the website for the artist, Shepard Fairey, who designed Obama's posters is called Obey and boasts on its homepage, "Manufacturing quality dissent since 1989," and the artist bills himself as an agent of "worldwide propaganda delivery."
LeninPerhaps the common ground between Obama and Fairy is not only technique, but message. Fairy's other work romanticizes revolutionary/terrorist figures. Obama's association with figures such William Ayers, who boasted of a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974, has been reported often. Obama was among only 22 Senators who opposed an amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps a foreign terrorist organization. (Unlike the other 21,however, Obama missed the vote.) Fairy's art also reflects a common theme of the Obama campaign: America is a nation that oppresses. It is the America in which Obama's wife Michelle can take no pride and that Obama's spiritual advisor damns. It is the vision of America and its place in the world by one who is unfamiliar with history and who has the luxury of American freedom to express his distain for the country.
What is then unsettling about the Obama poster campaign is that it may be perfectly suited for a man whose candidacy is based on a personality cult, who promises overly simplistic Cheremedies for complex issues, and who seems to have more respect for America's critics than for the nation he hopes to lead.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
2008 Olympics
I have been had doubts about the Olympics being in China. I read this quote tonight, I guess I'm not alone.
=====================
For only the third time in 72 years (Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980), the games are being hosted by a tyrannical regime, the mind of which was displayed in the opening ceremony featuring thousands of drummers, each face contorted with the same grotesquely frozen grin. It was a tableau of the miniaturization of the individual and the subordination of individuality to the collective. Not since the Nazi's 1934 Nuremberg rally, which Leni Riefenstahl turned into the film "Triumph of the Will," has tyranny been so brazenly tarted up as art.
--- George Will, Aug. 12, 2008
=====================
For only the third time in 72 years (Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980), the games are being hosted by a tyrannical regime, the mind of which was displayed in the opening ceremony featuring thousands of drummers, each face contorted with the same grotesquely frozen grin. It was a tableau of the miniaturization of the individual and the subordination of individuality to the collective. Not since the Nazi's 1934 Nuremberg rally, which Leni Riefenstahl turned into the film "Triumph of the Will," has tyranny been so brazenly tarted up as art.
--- George Will, Aug. 12, 2008
President Bush's Mistake
Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the Mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq . Bush’s Mistake came In his belief that this country is the same one his father Fought for in WWII. It is not!!! Back then they had just come out of a vicious depression. The Country Was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still Believed Fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected Their Leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders. Therefore, When the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, And Stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not Or Whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as Distasteful..... And the anguish just as great then as it is Today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have Had in The entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck With the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put Aside their Differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched In .Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal For the War effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy Stamps for War bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically4F lied About their age or condition trying their best to join the Military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh Rationing Of everything from gasoline, to soap, to butter, was imposed, Yet there Was very little complaining. You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors And Entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of Hostile Countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, They made Upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops 'Morale. And a bunch even enlisted. And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day Off with A Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our Troops!!! Back then, no newspaper would have dared to point out certain Weak spots In our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum Damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing To catch Spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if It had Complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by Being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to Interrogation by A woman, or being scared by a dog. There were a lot of things different back then. We were not Subjected to A constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and Promiscuity in Movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope Pushers And armed gangs roaming our streets. No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of Terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage And Fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the Country That our fathers fought so dearly to preserve!! It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah And the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11,But our Attitude changed when we found out that defending our country Would Require some sacrifices. We are in great danger!! The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They Believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who Will not Convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third, or over three Hundred Million Muslims, are sympathetic to the terrorists cause ...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like Losing!!! Today, for many folks, America is not at war...the military is At War...................... America is at the mall!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Caplis Report - Barack Obama
Follow the lik above to a great research report on Liberal Democrat Barack Obama.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Imitators - By Thomas Sowell
If anyone suggested that Tiger Woods should try to be more like other golfers, people would question the sanity of whoever made that suggestion.
Why should Tiger Woods try to be more like Phil Mickelson? If Tiger turned around and tried to golf left-handed, like Mickelson, he probably wouldn't be as good as Mickelson, much less as good as he is golfing the way he does right-handed.
Yet there are those who think that the United States should follow policies more like those in Europe, often with no stronger reason than the fact that Europeans follow such policies. For some Americans, it is considered chic to be like Europeans.
If Europeans have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, then we should have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, according to such people. If Europeans restrict pharmaceutical companies' patents and profits, then we should do the same.
Some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court even seem to think that they should incorporate ideas from European laws in interpreting American laws.
Before we start imitating someone, we should first find out whether the results that they get are better than the results that we get. Across a very wide spectrum, the United States has been doing better than Europe for a very long time.
By comparison with most of the rest of the world, Europe is doing fine. But they are like Phil Mickelson, not Tiger Woods.
Minimum wage laws have the same effects in Europe as they have had in other places around the world. They price many low-skilled and inexperienced workers out of a job.
Because minimum wage laws are more generous in Europe than in the United States, they lead to chronically higher rates of unemployment in general and longer periods of unemployment than in the United States-- but especially among younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
Unemployment rates of 20 percent or more for young workers are common in a number of European countries. Among workers who are both younger and minority workers, such as young Muslims in France, unemployment rates are estimated at about 40 percent.
The American minimum wage laws do enough damage without our imitating European minimum wage laws. The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930.
The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites.
No one says things like that any more-- which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe.
Those Americans who are pushing us toward the kinds of policies that Europeans impose on pharmaceutical companies show not the slightest interest in what the consequences of such laws have been.
One consequence is that even European pharmaceutical companies do much of their research and development of new medications in the United States, in order to take advantage of American patent protections and freedom from price controls.
These are the very policies that the European imitators want us to change.
It is not a coincidence that such a high proportion of the major pharmaceutical drugs are developed in the United States. If we kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as the Europeans have done, both we and the Europeans-- as well as the rest of the world -- will be worse off, because there are few other places for such medications to be developed.
There are a lot of diseases still waiting for a cure, or even for relief for those suffering from those diseases. People stricken with these diseases will pay the price for blind imitation of Europe.
The United States leads the world in too many areas for us to start imitating those who are trailing behind.
Why should Tiger Woods try to be more like Phil Mickelson? If Tiger turned around and tried to golf left-handed, like Mickelson, he probably wouldn't be as good as Mickelson, much less as good as he is golfing the way he does right-handed.
Yet there are those who think that the United States should follow policies more like those in Europe, often with no stronger reason than the fact that Europeans follow such policies. For some Americans, it is considered chic to be like Europeans.
If Europeans have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, then we should have higher minimum wage laws and more welfare state benefits, according to such people. If Europeans restrict pharmaceutical companies' patents and profits, then we should do the same.
Some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court even seem to think that they should incorporate ideas from European laws in interpreting American laws.
Before we start imitating someone, we should first find out whether the results that they get are better than the results that we get. Across a very wide spectrum, the United States has been doing better than Europe for a very long time.
By comparison with most of the rest of the world, Europe is doing fine. But they are like Phil Mickelson, not Tiger Woods.
Minimum wage laws have the same effects in Europe as they have had in other places around the world. They price many low-skilled and inexperienced workers out of a job.
Because minimum wage laws are more generous in Europe than in the United States, they lead to chronically higher rates of unemployment in general and longer periods of unemployment than in the United States-- but especially among younger, less experienced and less skilled workers.
Unemployment rates of 20 percent or more for young workers are common in a number of European countries. Among workers who are both younger and minority workers, such as young Muslims in France, unemployment rates are estimated at about 40 percent.
The American minimum wage laws do enough damage without our imitating European minimum wage laws. The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930.
The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites.
No one says things like that any more-- which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe.
Those Americans who are pushing us toward the kinds of policies that Europeans impose on pharmaceutical companies show not the slightest interest in what the consequences of such laws have been.
One consequence is that even European pharmaceutical companies do much of their research and development of new medications in the United States, in order to take advantage of American patent protections and freedom from price controls.
These are the very policies that the European imitators want us to change.
It is not a coincidence that such a high proportion of the major pharmaceutical drugs are developed in the United States. If we kill the goose that lays the golden egg, as the Europeans have done, both we and the Europeans-- as well as the rest of the world -- will be worse off, because there are few other places for such medications to be developed.
There are a lot of diseases still waiting for a cure, or even for relief for those suffering from those diseases. People stricken with these diseases will pay the price for blind imitation of Europe.
The United States leads the world in too many areas for us to start imitating those who are trailing behind.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
North American Union
Just a reminder as to whom we are bowing to...
Old Story but same ole song!
Just remember as we sleep our rights will be driven over and most will wonder what hit them!
Old Story but same ole song!
Just remember as we sleep our rights will be driven over and most will wonder what hit them!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
T.F.O.I.
Project Objective
Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy fuel that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.
We promote those companies that acquire their fuel supply from nations outside the Middle East and expose those companies that do not.
We educate the American public about the oil-terrorism connection and press those in power to take the necessary steps to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy fuel that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.
We promote those companies that acquire their fuel supply from nations outside the Middle East and expose those companies that do not.
We educate the American public about the oil-terrorism connection and press those in power to take the necessary steps to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Again I hear the notion of penalizing gas companies for their 10-15 profit margin that they have always had.....SUPPLY AND DEMAND DAMN IT!
It gets really old hearing people wanting to hit up the Oil companies and steal their profits....supply....demand....I guess nobody has heard of this, or conveniently forgets.
Last I checked Nelson D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) helped build our country to what it is today by means of capitalism spawning the industrial revolution. Vaulting us to the top of the world economies.
Here are some consumption numbers from 1980-2006...
I don't know about you...but I would be really pissed if I put in thousands of dollars of investments into a company for the government to take away my share profits...HORSESHIT!
FYI...
The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply.
Quantity supplied equals quantity demanded, that is, equilibrium.
Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there.
If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium.
If the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.
Last I checked Nelson D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) helped build our country to what it is today by means of capitalism spawning the industrial revolution. Vaulting us to the top of the world economies.
Here are some consumption numbers from 1980-2006...
I don't know about you...but I would be really pissed if I put in thousands of dollars of investments into a company for the government to take away my share profits...HORSESHIT!
FYI...
The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply.
Quantity supplied equals quantity demanded, that is, equilibrium.
Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there.
If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium.
If the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement
My favorite quote from the article is from press secretary Dana Perino. ----- Mark
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.
The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush's words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
The debate over whether the president should directly negotiate with rogue leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels.
As Obama inches closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, he's spent far more time assailing Republicans and the GOP's nominee-in- waiting, John McCain, than he has going after Clinton. By assailing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's strong enough to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party—and counter the notion fueled by Clinton that she would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate.
Bush, for his part, mostly refrained from directly injecting himself into the presidential race through the Republican primary. When McCain clinched the nomination in March, however, the two appeared together in the White House Rose Garden. Since then, he has talked up McCain frequently.
When it comes to the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners.
He has, for example, strongly disagreed with Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of U.S. adversaries such as Cuba and Iran. And, McCain has criticized Obama directly and repeatedly for saying that he would meet with Cuba's leader, Raul Castro, without preconditions.
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing terrorists and radicals.
The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush's words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
In a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush's remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.
"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
The debate over whether the president should directly negotiate with rogue leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels.
As Obama inches closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, he's spent far more time assailing Republicans and the GOP's nominee-in- waiting, John McCain, than he has going after Clinton. By assailing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's strong enough to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party—and counter the notion fueled by Clinton that she would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate.
Bush, for his part, mostly refrained from directly injecting himself into the presidential race through the Republican primary. When McCain clinched the nomination in March, however, the two appeared together in the White House Rose Garden. Since then, he has talked up McCain frequently.
When it comes to the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners.
He has, for example, strongly disagreed with Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of U.S. adversaries such as Cuba and Iran. And, McCain has criticized Obama directly and repeatedly for saying that he would meet with Cuba's leader, Raul Castro, without preconditions.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Defending Big Oil
With gas prices topping four dollars a gallon in some regions of the country, now may not be the best time to say something positive about "big oil," but here goes anyway.
Where is it written that the cost for a product or service should be frozen in place and in time, never to rise again, or to rise at a pace commensurate with our incomes? People who think this way know little to nothing about supply and demand and less than nothing about the profit motive. That's because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.
Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Robertson said President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is "highly embarrassing" because he is "calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves." The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason. That's how unserious we are about our energy "crisis."
Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
No, we can't "drill our way out" of our addiction to oil, but we can make the transition to other energy sources easier while lessening our dependence on foreign oil and propping up dictators who use our money to subsidize terrorists. A slow transition will also give us time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day, saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs.
The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don't allow women to drive cars.
Where is it written that the cost for a product or service should be frozen in place and in time, never to rise again, or to rise at a pace commensurate with our incomes? People who think this way know little to nothing about supply and demand and less than nothing about the profit motive. That's because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.
Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Robertson said President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is "highly embarrassing" because he is "calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves." The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason. That's how unserious we are about our energy "crisis."
Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
No, we can't "drill our way out" of our addiction to oil, but we can make the transition to other energy sources easier while lessening our dependence on foreign oil and propping up dictators who use our money to subsidize terrorists. A slow transition will also give us time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day, saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs.
The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don't allow women to drive cars.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Energy and the future
State to study economic implications of overhaul of oil and gas regulations
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/04/28/042908_1b_DNR_analysis.html
Less reliance on coal could be costly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/25/less-reliance-coal-could-be-costly/
Start Drilling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/04/28/042908_1b_DNR_analysis.html
Less reliance on coal could be costly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/25/less-reliance-coal-could-be-costly/
Start Drilling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Who we elect is important
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Part 1:
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen: 1) Consumer confidence plummet;2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes law, taxes and spends, not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/sho w/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.Verify at http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.Verify at http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the USVerify at: http://transcri pts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
Tell all of your friends, and if you know any, the Democrats that will listen!
Part 1:
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen: 1) Consumer confidence plummet;2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. America voted for change in 2006, and we got it! Remember it's Congress that makes law, taxes and spends, not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2:
Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing. www.taxfoundation.org/publications/sho w/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999
Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates.
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.Verify at http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.Verify at http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the USVerify at: http://transcri pts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in Washington, D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.
Tell all of your friends, and if you know any, the Democrats that will listen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)