08 August 2008
"We said in the referendum that we didn't want that, and now he's put it in the decrees," said protester Josefina Bravo, a 59-year-old who wore a sticker reading "No means no" on her baseball cap. "That's the problem we have: All the powers are concentrated in the president."
One decree establishes a civilian militia that critics warn could emulate the citizen groups that control many aspects of community life in Cuba. Another gives Chavez the ability to designate regional authorities who critics say could undermine the power of locally elected officials.
Other decrees empower Chavez to expropriate goods from private businesses and increase state control over food, punishing business owners who fail to comply with price controls or other regulations with fines, closure and even 10-year prison terms.
A concentration of power within the federal government, the ability of the government to set price controls, redistribution of wealth, a gigantic bureaucracy, cracking down on the power of local governments which allows for greater control by the people, these are all things the left endears. The American left has different means to this end, such as eliminating the right to a secret ballot in order to force workers to form unions, who have pledged to fuel the Liberal machine with newly enforced and collected union dues. If workers want to unionize, that's fine, but the right a secret ballot is paramount to a democracy. This sort of thuggery and intimidation has no place in America.
Let me conclude by commending the people of Venezuela for standing up for the rights. We ought to stand tall with them, American foreign policy needs to strongly stand for freedom and condemn actions by nations that suppress the rights of people and continue to oppress them. One of the questions you should ask yourself as we head into a new round of elections is whether the person you intent to cast your vote for will actually stand up and speak loudly against the actions of these types of offenders.
Do some Google searches, check Daily Kos (the moonbat lunatics who you can practially see pulling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's strings), look at all the idiot liberals in Hollywood who love Hugo Chavez. Don't fool yourself, Obama is no centrist, he's a hardened leftwing politician who has already pledged to go after private industries and have the government seize their profits, like Chavez. You really ought to read up on his plan to pay off other thugs and corrupt nations through his global tax plan that puts to focus on giving away our tax dollars to the United Nations to help "rebuild" America's image. This is the man's politics. That's why, even today, he bad mouthed America to a young child.
Freedom is our greatest asset in our daily lives, it's time we stop pissing it away by handing power to socialist style big government politicians. About six months ago I thought Hillary Clinton was extremely to left in American politics. Thanks to Barack Obama, I now know that she was centrist in her party as evidenced by just how far to left Barack Obama's political views are. Obama can go through the motions and give his little speeches all he wants, but when it comes down to it, when you compare his views , voting record, and ideas to what Chavez's views and ideas are, they are not too far apart. Hell, he's even talked about a "civilian national security force". Oh he stands for a change alright, much like the Bolsheviks stood for change in Russia.
07 August 2008
"We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama,' " says Husong.
"We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm."
I'd make a wise ass crack about how it could be easily compared to a gang sign, but then I'd be accused of being a racist, I'm sure. I'll settle by Godwin-ing and remind you....you know who else liked seeing people raise their hands and chant as a symbol of support?
31 July 2008
Who's the real racist here? Everyone who criticizes Obama and doesn't intent to support him is a racist, regardless of how horrible they think his ideas are? When he was out bashing people from my Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as bitter, gun-clingers, who believe in God, who do you think he was taking a shot at? Who was the one talking about Hillary Clinton's "claws" and mocked her as "Annie Oakley" when she talked about her support of the Second Amendment (which, of course, was a lie)? Who's the one whose surrogates throw racial bombs at everyone? Are we really to believe that Rev. Wright was correct and that if Bill would have dropped an N-bomb on Hillary that Obama's candidacy would have been for not?
What this really shows is that Obama is extremely insecure and has a terribly, terribly weak glass jaw. One of these days his cockiness is going to make him stick it out there and someone is going to shatter it. Let's hope its before the election and McCain does it, lest it be Iran or some terrorist organization.
30 July 2008
Notice the uneasy laughter by one person in the crowd. He's not serious, he's got to be making a joke, he has to be. If his answer to the energy crisis is to inflate tires and change spark plugs he must have stopped learning about the oil market right about the time he got his driver's license. He can't honestly think that:
1. Inflating your tires and changing spark plugs is a true solution. What's he doing reading the "Lifestyle" section of his newspaper under the tips column for his briefings?
2. That the 3% efficiency increase from properly inflated tires is the same as getting a slew of new oil to the market place. Domestically produced oil that will help get us off of foreign oil, reduce our deficit, and strengthen our dollar, which in turn will increase the buying power of all Americans.
3. Shale oil is myth. He has to know we have enough shale oil to run our nation at our current consumption levels to supply us for 100 years.
4. That people are really that stupid that they never check their tire pressure at all.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. That is honestly one of the stupidest statements I've heard a politician make in years. But alas, when you've got the media as your groupies, no one is going to press the issue, and hey, if his highly complex, tire inflating solution fails, there's always his Plan B, so simply a child could do it:
Which brings me to a larger point, there obviously can't be any more room under Obama's bus, what with Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, the entire nation of Israel, Muslims, etc, etc. Not that he has anything to worry about, after all he's like the old man who throws bread crumbs at the pigeons and the pigeons of course, represent the media. Hell, he could karate chop a baby and his minions in the press would cover for him. But alas, back to my greater point. No, this isn't a bus people are getting thrown under....it's a Monster Truck. Here we see the metaphorical representation of Team Socialism's campaign celebrating with the bodies of all his closest friends and allies from days past firmly stomped under his wheels:
Since I'm on the topic of videos, I've managed to dig up this clip from a few weeks ago where we can see Rep. Jeff Flake fighting off all types of under handed attacks from Nancy Pelosi on the floor in the House of Representatives. I think she needs a refund on the latest botox injection, though. Good stuff.
21 July 2008
Before I proceed from here, you should really see the highlights of Al Gore's "major" speak on the dangers of losing his cash cow, er, I mean carbon based energy. Here it is, presented by Americans For Prosperity:
Al Gore is completely off his rocker and has been for quite some time. Why, he's even compared offshore drilling to the Iraq invasion. Which of course is nothing like the invasion of Iraq. In fact, you'd think if the point he was trying to make was to be more responsible in international affairs and leave nations to their own accord, the our energy self sufficiency would include us drilling here at home. Or maybe he's referencing the point that nations like Iran are much better stewards of the environment and have better and more cleaner technologies to pump oil than we do here in America. Oh right, he's completely and utterly insane and wrong.
Democrats and Liberals have no regard for the common man. Rather than being sensible and recognizing that we will need oil and natural gas supplies for at least 25 years (at absolute minimum) to be able to move away from using gas in our cars, etc, and seeking to blend energy forms as we do journey down that path, they could care less if you could afford to do so. They could care less if you couldn't afford to buy a new car that ran on hydrogen and we had no gas tomorrow. They could care less if you got to work and if you could afford to do so, well then they would just raise your taxes up to the point where you couldn't anymore.
Sounds like an exaggeration right? Well re-visit that clip where the guy in the AFP video is completely happy about gas going up to about $8 a gallon for the "common good." But that's OK, right, my green comrades? That's the Democrats energy policy in a nutshell. Don't think arugula lover Barack Obama has a problem with this. He just wishes it was a slower rise in the price of gas, but the price? Completely cool with it. So don't act so shocked when the Congressional Democrats are crowing about high energy prices and aren't doing jack to raise the supplies are focused on raising one thing....your gasoline tax by 50%, and they're moving to do it quickly.
John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, deserves a great amount of credit for calling for Rumsfeld's ouster after he did not initiate a build up of troops after the amount of violence greatly increased upon our taking of Baghdad. Rumsfeld, though, orchestrated a incredible ground invasion that was lighting quick, however, his dealings with the insurgency were his downfall, as he did not listen to the commanders on the ground. Upon the implementation of the surge we have seen the utter demolition of al Qaeda in Iraq, the build up of the Iraqi security forces, deals on oil contracts and economic policies, a dramatic reduction in violence with lower American and Iraqi casualties, the Mahdi Army's disembowelment, etc. The surge has worked greatly.
The question, then, is where do we go from here? Certainly not to withdrawal and leave Iraq to fall back into chaos. The way leave Iraq victorious is clear. We must continue to train Iraqi security forces in order to become even more capable of defending themselves and provide for the security of the Iraqi people. The American ground forces can be withdrawn as the Iraqi forces are built up. Certainly, Iraq will need our logistical and air support as those networks are built up, but as American casualties continue to fall, the swell in support here at home will continue to draw. As Iraq develops these capabilities, we continue to withdrawal our troops until Iraq is completely self sufficient or until they ask us to leave completely.
Political solutions are entirely left to the Iraqis. We cannot force Iraq to implement laws and rule that we are forcing upon them, this is not our mission, nor should it. The Iraqis have their own unique needs and wants, and we must leave it up to them to decide their own fate. The way to ensure that they do is to provide security in the interim while they choose their policies. This is the mission that we are seeking to complete.
Despite what Obama is currently saying, he completely opposed the surge of forces in Iraq that created the current situation. His current visit to Iraq is a disgusting way to try to score cheap political points. In the years between his first and now current visit, Obama lacked the courage to go to Iraq when things were looking bleak and his own personal security may have been at risk. That utter lack of courage is highlighted even more so when you consider the number of Republicans and Democrats who went to Iraq during the times of extreme violence regardless of their opinions on the war. Obama's lack of leadership and courage are on full display, this is not a man who should be leading our nation.
Finally, I just want to touch on the irony of the situation. The Liberals refused to support Iraq when thing were bleak and made much of the fact that we essentially went into Iraq as the leaders of a small coalition. Fast forward to present day and our path to victory is clear and no longer deniable, even to the most ardent of Liberals and even after some of allies left Iraq. It was under our leadership, our forces, that a conflict that started out so bleak turned the corner. On the other hand, the Afghan conflict, led by NATO, which started out so well and now falters under NATO's lead and internal positioning, is the conflict supported by the Left. They constantly labeled this conflict as "the good conflict," and is now the more dangerous of the two missions. I commend those calling for a similar surge in Afghanistan, but even as they do so, they highlight with even greater emphasis the success Gen. Petraeus and President Bush have secured in Iraq. We can not lose either of these conflicts, and for as great as an importance as it is to America, it is of an even more, exponential importance to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that we finish the mission and leave these nations with the necessary, domestic security forces, for them to protect themselves.
16 July 2008
First of all, I don't know why these ideas always seem to be coming home to roost on left when they talk about equality and change, which they obviously don't truly believe in. Now don't get me wrong, I think smear against Obama are horrible, especially when it comes to religion. I have no doubt that Obama believes strongly in God, so strongly that he may even pray three times a day, at sunrise and sunset I'm sure. Perhaps out of his love for the environment he may even pray towards the direction the sun is currently sitting in when he prays.
Now, he talks about confusion but there is no confusion about Bill Ayers and his cohorts. No, he has no regrets against bombing the government and wishing he could have done more, and he wouldn't even bat an eye to do so. We've also heard the hurtful things that Jesse Jackson has threatened to do to Obama, and really, that's not cool at all. Bill Clinton even has called for Obama to "kiss his ass" and that's wrong. Why these three are so hateful, some sort of vengeful Trinity, if you will, is beyond me.
In conclusion let me just say that a total lack of experience of understanding of the issues is not Obama's fault. He's simply been campaigning since he first won an elected office, so learning about the issues and hearing things that he doesn't know, and doesn't recall being what he knew, is simply a distraction. He's not flip flopping when he says one thing and does another. In fact, his judgement to lead has been so exceptional that he has the foresight to see that the green policies he enacts will be so environmentally friendly that it precipitates a withdrawal from Iraq before the Democratic Congress can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And that...is change he can believe in.
15 July 2008
We will not be "off of oil" within the next 15 years. It won't happen. We need oil for homes, automobiles, plastics, and many other vitally important things. As we move to other sources, we will need to have oil, and we should be producing it here at home, be it for national security, strengthening the dollar, stopping interruption flows (be it from foreign strikes or terrorist attacks), etc. In fact, the public is fully behind the efforts to begin drilling here at home. Please reference this article. The rise in support for domestic drilling is growing exponentially.
A fact sheet that was recently brought to my attention is an excellent source of information and shoots down the concerns of the average environmentalist, who basically has no idea what they are talking about nor the facts to back up their outrageous claims. Congress, of course, under the direction of uber Left Wingers Reid and Pelosi are trying to stop this effort to become self sufficient and more secure in our energy needs. Contrary to Reid's belief that Oil "makes us sick" or the Dems policy of "drive small cars and wait for the wind" Americans know the reality that they do not. To Harry Reid's point, it's not Global Warming that's making us sick, it is him and his cronies in Congress. Even as we develop more sources of energy and increase efficiency, energy supplies such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are abundant, can be clean, and begin to hit the market place much faster and have a much more dramatic impact as sources such as wind, solar, etc are developed and brought into the fold as well.
Energy solutions should be regionally based. Pennsylvania, Alaska, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Colorado, North Dakota, and Utah have abundant sources of natural gas that can be tapped and begin to be used. Louisiana and Florida, for example can safely extract oil offshore. These are real solutions which can impact us now, and if we move on it NOW, then we will see results. It is not coincidence that as President Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling, prices dropped nearly $9. Let's see if the morons in Congress actually care about the people of America and hold up their end of the deal.
Jan 4, 2007 Jul 14, 2008
Unemployment 4.6% 5.5%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 12,488.69 11,055.19
Price per barrel of oil 58.32 137.85
Gallon of Gasoline 2.33 4.11
Home Heating Oil Per Gallon 2.42 4.53
Unemployment is up because of the rise in the minimum wage rate and excessive panic that the Democrats have pushed for political purposes as well as constantly pursing policies that devalue the American dollar. The DJIA is down for that exact same reason, and we can all thank Chuck "The Sheister" Schumer for causing IndyMac to shut down. The Democrats reckless policies concerning ethanol and thier refusal to allow for more domestic drilling of the last decade, and even now, have caused a gigantic leap in oil prices. Anyone up for giving these hacks another shot a congress and giving them the presidency on top of it? If so, please research Jimmy Carter's term a bit more and prepare for the pain.
09 July 2008
However, the protection from civil lawsuits going forward should have been stripped from this bill. That may sound like it runs counter from the information in the preceding paragraph, but there is a distinction that needs to me made. Originally, when the program was run in secrecy, corporations were told that they would not face civil or criminal repercussions for their assistance with the program. If that is what they were told and had operated under that philosophy, with assurances from the White House, then they should have been granted immunity as this bill did provide. However, going forward, the implications can be grave.
Monitoring suspected terrorists’ communications is essential to national defense; there is no arguing that point. However, the text of the bill does not limit the scope to suspected terrorists, rather, that the government simply needs to have reasonable belief that one party is overseas. One can easily see how this could lead to far reaching abuses and lead to a domestic spying program to be utilized for political purposes as opposed to national defense reasons. Whether or not you trust the current Administration should not factor into the evaluation when determining the validity of granted future immunity to the companies involved. Subsequent administrations and political operatives who one day will run the nation will also have authorization to utilize this program.
The bill, does however, provide for an emergency tap to be utilized and then give the government up to one week to get a court order in order to use the information. This is a very careful dance on civil liberties. Shielding the telecoms from lawsuits from violations of this law going forward presents and opportunity for them to do corporate spying as well, as rest assured, they will be monitoring communications as well. It also makes them somewhat “bullet-proof” and will provide a temptation for them and the government to commit violations of the provisions within the bill.
Will that happen? The likelihood not severe, but it is a possibility and one that should be in the front of people’s minds when discussing these issues and formulating opinions. In the digital age, striking a balance between national defense and protecting civil liberties is a difficult task. This is especially true when battling an enemy which has time and again shown no regard for civil liberties, freedom, democracy, or human life. It is paramount that we protect ourselves. Giving blanket protection to the telecom industries and the political parties charged with safekeeping the program and our personal data and communications going forward may well prove to be a costly mistake. Time and close observation of the program will the only means of evaluating this bill. America will win the War on Terror, but this bill will remain long after we have achieved victory.
Besides the obvious problem of punishing private, innocent citizens for the actions of others (i.e. most guns that are “lost” are actually stolen), this comes on the heels of the Heller decision which upholds the rights on an individual’s right to bear arms. Mayor Nutter has been briefed by the DA that this law, as well as others that Philadelphia is seeking to institute, are in violation of the Constitution. Additionally, this also poses an issue in determining when a gun is lost. If one does not report the gun lost within 30 days of knowing it is lost, how exactly does the city go about proving that the owner knew for more than 30 days that the gun was lost at all? There is no way of proving that time frame except for the word of the owner in the first place. So in addition to being a violation of the Second Amendment, the law is going to enforced arbitrarily and result in an excess fine.
Additionally, one must also consider the fact that if a gun is stolen during a break in; one must reasonably assume that the gun was secondary in the theft. Identity theft is a complete nightmare, unfortunately a reality for many, and is a difficult problem in which to find a resolution. It should not be a punishable offense if the victim of break-in were to focus on securing their financial accounts, credit, social security number, etc, and place the emphasis on those issues rather than focusing on material items, which of course, can be replaced through private insurance. Dealing with crimes of this nature is extremely traumatic and takes considerable time. To further exacerbate the after effects of being the victim of crime through unconstitutional laws is wholly irresponsible and reckless.
There is no disputing that Philadelphia has many problems and that violent crime has been on the rise. The failings of former Mayor John Street are just a part of the root cause of this increase in violence. The criminals are the problem in Philadelphia and rather than combating the criminal element, the city is seeking to scapegoat law abiding citizens and blame the people and the not the failings of the politicians who run the city for the woes that they face. Rather than going after citizens who are not breaking the law for exercising their Constitutional rights to bear arms, they ought to look in the mirror and begin to enact and enforce laws that will confront the criminal element directly.
04 July 2008
We should take time today to be with friends and family, to remember all the sacrifices that our ancestors have given so that we may have a chance to chase the American dream. We should recollect on the spirit of freedom that blossomed into the American Revolution, the likes of which the world had never seen before. We should honor and thank our veterans for fighting for our rights and giving the ultimate sacrifice for every one of us, remembering they gave voluntary service in order protect the masses that did not have the privilege of knowing them personally. We should remember that the fireworks are an illustration in that they provide a representation of Francis Scott Key’s work, our National Anthem, that even through the horrors of war, the lights of the explosions gave hope and inspiration that our Flag was still waving, and that we were still free. I wish you all the best today, I give thanks to those that came before me and reaffirm my beliefs in freedom and liberty. God Bless.
19 June 2008
Two cases in point. Buried a ways down in this story from CNN about Americans driving a little bit less is this gem:
Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.
Therein lays the real problem for Liberals everywhere. They’re not getting enough TAXES. Not to worry though, keep in mind that John Conyers (D…..of course) has already greased the wheels for 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX HIKE, on undoubtedly the Dems will push should they take Congress and the White House in the Fall. Not be outdone is point #2. Local and state governments are now slapping “fuel surcharges” on traffic fines and tickets, even as they use those insidious cameras to track down the real criminals in society, the people who go 5 mph over the speed limit or go through a yellow light. It’s all about that tax money for Democrats, never about cutting the budget or pork or unnecessary programs. They can’t even fathom the notion. They can’t even fathom the notion that it’s the citizens who are paying for these revenues.
What’s scary about this is that this is really what most Democrats feel, and I’m sure Obama does as well, yet the media is so far in the tank for these guys that they won’t even call them out for it. In what sense does a promotion of nationalization of industries such as oil and health care not scream “SOCIALISM!” as it is the same path that Hugo Chavez took Venezuela down. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too upset when that happened and they STILL insist Chavez is some sort of good guy. They refuse to allow for increased domestic drilling and supply concerns when even today we see the dangers that we face by being forced to import our oil as Shell had to shut down one of their off shore operations due to rebel attacks. It is simply insane to forgo domestic increases in supply and refining capacity in the private sector.
Besides overall cost benefits, think of how dramatically this would impact our economy. How many jobs would be created, how far would the trade deficit shrink and re-strengthen our dollar, etc? Critics say that it will take at least 7 years for the oil to hit the market place, but even at 7 years, had we gone ahead and started producing oil from ANWR and other sources back when first considered, then we’d have about 1 million extra barrels of domestic oil in the market place today. There are many sources we can tap into but can’t because the Democrats have consistently blocked the attempts to develop American industry.
Recognizing the need for alternative sources of energy, even under optimum circumstances we will not be completely oil free for at least 30 years and probably never. Why? Because we will always have need for oil for older automobiles (not everyone can simply afford to buy new cars) and for things like plastics, etc. Sure the demand will be lower, but in what way is it bad that if our demand keeps dropping as we develop more energy sources that at some point with the start of increased domestic capacity that we could be self sufficient in this realm? Face reality Dems.
In the first place, he sought out and received an improper loan from a corporation by using his political office as leverage, something for which he should be booted from office for in the first place. This is a man whom the hard left hailed as a hero during his short lived presidential campaign and it’s not surprising. In addition to unethical actions, he is now seeking to force responsible Americans to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers alike. This has nothing to do with fixing the housing market and has everything to do with a CYOA approach employed by Dodd. Read the whole aforementioned story by the Wall Street Journal, it’s sure to raise eyebrows.
How deep are the Democrats in the pockets and how dirty are they on this? Please reference the stories here and here, via Hot Air about Obama’s ties to Countrywide and his demonizing rhetoric on the company while at the same basking in their undying support, so much so that Dodd and the head of Obama’s VP search time both have filthy hands with regard to this scandal. A new type of politician indeed.
10 June 2008
1. Market Manipulation. True, Morgan Stanley did the entire free market dirty on Friday by purposely saying they believed oil would go to 150 after getting jittery when the price per barrel went down to about 122 last Thursday. It shot up to nearly 140, surely something that needs to investigated. However, their proposal to transfer oil company profits to the industries that are funding the Democratic Party's election bids is nothing more than a kick back and artificial inflation of the stock prices of many solar, wind, and geothermal companies. A clear market manipulating tactic and obvious kick back.
2. Free Market Violation. In every regard. The oil companies should not be forced to invest their profits into the companies that Congress picks. This is not Venezuela. That's pure Marxist tactics. It also does not allow for further drilling and oil exploration of domestic sources to expand supply. It's true that we do not operate under a free market system and we are subject to a cartel in the form of OPEC. It should also be noted that because of this any drops in demand as the Dems and radical greens are promoting can simply be met by a drop in supply by the oil cartel in order to keep prices high. A short term increase in supply would be more effective, but only if demand also lowers. Hence, domestic expansion and releasing us from OPEC's clutches while developing more fuel efficient technologies is the best way forward while simultaneously developing alternative sources in the free market. Just look at car lots. The market is working, there are more SUVs on the lots, car sales defeated truck sales for the first time in a very long time, and that was the free market.
3. The Cost of the Tax Will Be Shifted To the Consumer. We already know that production will fall in the US and that oil companies will be less apt to develop more sources, but it's also painfully obvious that an increase in taxes will simply be shifted to the consumer. History holds this to be true.
4. No Long Term Solution. Politicians from both parties like to go out and talk of breaking our dependence on foreign sources, yet we still refuse to develop more sources here at home, which are vast and numerous. Between oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, we have many sources that would be able to be utilized in the short term (say 20 years) as the market moves to increases in nuclear, solar, hydrogen, etc. Many politicians throw out a five-year plan type of deal, but that's a lie, and they know it. We will have demand for oil forever, albeit much lower in the future. People will still want to utilize their vintage cars, many cars 20 years old are still operational, etc. Even assuming that we were to be "oil-free" in five years, at what cost would the government shell out to replace every single oil consuming vehicle. Do you really think middle and low income families can afford to replace all the vehicles to buy new, expensive technology? Of course not. Of course, I could make a very strong case that the Greens are using fear tactics and market manipulation in order to make profits for themselves while further their political agenda and create a new sort of serf class that will be unable to pay to receive the benefits that the ultra rich can afford. But hey, it's OK because they can afford to pay astronomical "carbon" fees but if the lower or middle class can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
I could go on forever here, but you get the drift. The GOP really got one right today.
The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.
So to reiterate, the government backed agencies decided to take higher risks with tax payer dollars, seeking to increase their own revenue, and now, not only have we lost the tax dollars used to purchase these loans, subsequently, liberal members of Congress are looking to take even more tax dollars from us to "fix" the problem. You can see where this is going. How are these lessons lost on our so called leaders? Despite the intentions of central planners to assist people, it was greed on the government level and the lack of accountability that lead the vast majorities in the first place, and instead of helping a small percentage of the population, they hurt the vast majority of the population instead.
15 May 2008
Well, ABC has a nice story about how Obama diverted Millions upon Millions of dollars to his political allies. His wife also benefited as you already know, from his political activities. In fact, everyone around Obama who was willing to do his dirty work or was a special interest he agreed with, got some money thrown at them, while he hurls disingenuous promises of somehow being "different" than anyone else. In terms of egotistical, he's right on that point.
Worse yet, it's now almost legendary how far MSNBC and the AP as well as other media organizations are in the tank for the guy. An unquestioning media who serves as a propaganda wing is what gets most dictatorships moving along rapidly. Even worse is the whole Messianic idea behind his candidacy, and the photos taken by the media and the presentation of such are extremely disturbing. See here and here. Feel free to Google Chris Matthews and Obama and see the results. You'll also note that many older style Democrats (Clinton, Leiberman, etc) have started to go on record as saying that Fox News really is the only fair network left. That is, the only network where the political analysts aren't fellating Obama.
You'll also be pleased to know he's lied, and blatantly so, on many occasions. One such is his idea of appeasements towards terrorists and dictators, which President Bush called him out on today. He says that's a lie, but check out the video and screen cap that was captured by Hot Air's Allahpundit, taken straight from Obama's website (side note: if you put it on the web, you can't just take it down and say it was never there, moron). The media's reaction? He never said that. Somewhere in the distance I can hear goosestepping from the liberal minions circa 1939 Germany.
Let's look at each aspect briefly. First, it is utterly inappropriate to attach amendments to the Iraq funding bill to try to revive the horrendous amnesty act that the Senate tried to push upon our nation. Such issues should, and only should, be considered as separate bills.
Secondly, advocating an open borders policy is a terrible idea in the first place. While individual liberty allows for individuals to move freely, that must be balanced with protecting the liberties and rights of others. For example, we should absolutely allow for legal immigration into this nation, but there is a responsibility now to check to make sure those entering the nation are free from communicable diseases, are clear of a criminal background, etc. This would ensure security for our citizens and allow for a responsible policy of immigration with a secure border. This also is essential to homeland security.
Economic implications include the depression of wages. One argument that you hear is that illegal immigrants took jobs from Americans. In one sense, that is true. It is true in that an artificially large workforce amounts to an oversupply of labor. An oversupply leads to lower prices, essentially a competition to the bottom. People will accept markedly lower wage rates for jobs that normally would pay much higher rates. Secondly, we have the abuse of the social security system, health care benefits, etc and increases in identity theft occurrences (as illegals will undoubtedly look for ways to circumvent the system). You also have a system where employers who break the law by employing people they know to be illegal are much more likely to abuse their workers and provide unsafe work conditions as the illegals are many times less likely to report the violations as they themselves are in violation of the law.
For any elected member of the United States Congress to delay and stall funds from reaching our troops is simply inexcusable. Democrats have long said they supported the troops, while their minions have gone forth and accused them of being murderous thugs for the Bush Administration on one hand, and being victims of underfunded and under armored patsies on the other, both outrageous charges. Democrats themselves have continually held up the funding that the troops rely on to provide them with the ammunition, support, and armor needed to successfully fight the war. They are in no way, shape, or form supporting the troops by accusing them of atrocities and withholding funding from the battlefield. They are attempting to score the cheapest, and most insidious, of political points.
Finally, in terms of economics (which I briefly touched on earlier) any "wage freeze" is a terrible idea that flies in the face of capitalism (not that has ever stopped the Dems before). Any worker that is providing a service is deserving of the highest wage that the market deems to be proper for that particular position, be it higher, or lower. At a lower wage, the workers have an incentive to shift to different, more lucrative position where their compensation given is more agreeable to them. At higher wages, you will see more workers shift into that field, and eventually prices will level off at equilibrium. To deny the free market to work is to punish the workers and the community as a whole.
This whole little scheme Senate Democrats cooked up is indicative of their whole means of operation. They will do anything they can to score cheap political points, to highlight a small segment of the electorate in order to gain some votes, all the while holding everything that has made America successful since its inception in contempt. The free market, national security, rule of law, ability to compete in a free system, the right to earn a wage equal to your talent, etc. Worse, to hold a completely VOLUNTARY Armed Services hostage in order to get some political agenda pushed forward is down right unforgivable.
07 May 2008
Is it really fair to allow this bail out to assist only those who were irresponsible enough to engage in bad loan behavior in the first place while charging responsible entities extra tax dollars to “correct” the problem? Bad decisions were made both on the part of lenders as well as borrowers and the lessons learned will undoubtedly self correct in short order, that is, of course, if the government does interfere. Additionally, as we see ballooning deficit spending, the government would be extremely irresponsible by exposing itself and the tax payers to high risk loans.
If individuals wish to engage in high risk loans they should rightfully be compensated, the higher the risk, the higher the interest paid and this “investment” would be much riskier than junk bonds. It is the not government’s role to fulfill the type of function they are dangerously close to undertaking. As they pour tax dollars into this program they will widen the deficit. An agency as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government has become has no logical reason to get involved in this situation without further damaging itself. If this were even a case of a simple shift in tax dollars in one area to another, I would still oppose this measure. Worse, it will create yet expenditure without a corresponding cut in spending. All for votes. Are we left with no statesmen or even rational politicians?
I will admit that I am not in total lock step with John McCain; I think he is wrong on immigration and that his affinity for the global warming non-sense bothers me a bit. However, Sen. McCain has made his mission in the Senate to seek out common ground on common sense issues in order to reduce corruption and curtail wasteful spending, and he has been successful in doing so. He has irked many within his party for working with hard leftists like Feingold and Kennedy but he has been successful in doing so and has always conducted himself in a professional manner, a man of great leadership ability.
This election is very unique in many ways. Undoubtedly America is fed up with the current state of affairs. Among the major candidates left, however, John McCain is the only one with a proven track record of reconciling major differences between hardened partisans. He is the only candidate who is committed to free market principles as solutions to health care, finance, and the economy as a whole. He is the only candidate who has not made raising taxes a banner of his campaign, in fact, he is the only candidate committed to cutting government spending among the major candidates.
That, my friends, is why we should be supporting John McCain. He may not give electrifying speeches, but he harbors no inner distrust and disgust for First Amendment rights. He does not rebuke a person who has made asinine statements for 20 years only for politically expedient reasons. He has, however, rebuked those who he works closely with every time they have gone off the deep end, and he does so without hesitation. He too is fed up with the corruption and craziness in Washington. He’s the only one will be successful in doing so. He is the only candidate left among the major parties that is not Fascist in nature, a hardened leftist determined to grow the government, punish successful corporations, and take economically suicidal positions against free trade that only benefit certain Union (special interest groups) at the cost of American consumers and taxpayers. That, among many reasons, is why John McCain must win this election.
01 May 2008
I know that some people reading this will essentially say that I'm something of a "flat Earther" as Al Gore would say, but let's for a moment pause to consider some of the tenets of Global Warming:
1. The world is overpopulated (i.e. abortion as a means of population control is a good thing)
2. Scientists who have produced evidence to the contrary of global warming hysteria or expressed doubts with regard to the theory are silenced (suppress opposing speech)
3. World governments need to pass binding resolutions in order to reach common laws regarding carbon and greenhouse emissions (surrender national sovereignty to an international body)
4. Through these international organizations and restrictions control the means of production and determine what levels are acceptable to be manufactured (the destruction of capitalism)
5. Limit the use of carbon to those who can pay high taxes or "carbon credits" (a type of restoration of creating a class of serfs)
I could make list that goes on and on, but again, I realize that many of you are thinking that I am some nutjob for precisely some of the reasons I touched on earlier. I urge you to consider the destructive ethanol bill and it's impact on the world. When our Congress passes the ethanol mandate and produced huge subsidies for corn, they did so with the best of intentions, but intentions don't make for good policy, as we have seen. In the short time since this bill passed, world food prices have surged, famine and malnutrition are on the rise, and there has been no reduction in our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can not even be transported with our current pipeline system, meanwhile, we have largely hampered the free market to develop the technologies that are readily available and clean, such as nuclear, solar, etc. Additionally, in the short term expanded drilling and oil production domestically would have a huge impact both on our economy and on our energy supply. The government's intervention, however, has hampered the development and implementation of what many fair minded people would agree would be the fastest and best solution to our energy problems. No one would agree that depending on foreign sources for our energy is a good thing. Meanwhile, you have to give John McCain credit for not pandering to Iowans today when he told them flat out, he's against the destructive farm subsidies.
There are many economic friendly things that can be done to preserve the economy including recycling, using a water filter instead of using tons of bottled water, not littering, using a mulching lawn mower, etc.
Global Warming and they hysterics behind it, however, are nothing more than a political ploy by the left to get individuals to surrender their rights to people who "know better" than they do, and that is a very, very dangerous idea.
27 March 2008
On Wednesday, Colombian military officials said that they recovered 66 pounds of uranium that, they say, was acquired by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Colombian Gen. Freddy Padilla tied the uranium to the seized laptops, saying one of the computer files mentions attempts by the FARC to buy uranium, apparently to resell. Earlier this month, Colombian officials claimed the rebels were seeking uranium to make a "dirty bomb."
That information should set off alarm bells, but rest assured the media and the American Left, who have already shown an affinity for Hugo Chavez, seem for whatever reason, to be ignoring what is most likely damning evidence against the Venezuelan dictator.
The laptops reportedly detail meetings between FARC leaders and members of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa's government – and a possible $20,000 rebel contribution to Mr. Correa's campaign. Another document, say Colombian officials, indicates Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez planned to make his own contribution to the FARC of $300 million and several hundred used rifles. Based on that information, Mr. Uribe threatened to have Mr. Chávez prosecuted in international courts for sponsoring "genocide."
After sending troops to the Colombian border, suddenly a week later Chávez called for reconciliation and Correa accepted Colombia's apology for violating its territory.
Laura Gil, an international relations consultant in Bogotá, says it was the computer files rather than their "vocation for peace," that led Chávez and Correa to stand down from the conflict.
"Chávez and Uribe checkmated each other," agrees Mr. Shifter explaining the lightning fast reestablishing of ties. Ecuador has been slower to send its ambassador back to Bogotá, wary that Colombia may still plan to use the information to its advantage.
Both Chávez and Correa are now warning that tensions in the Andes will not fully ease unless Colombia agrees to keep quiet about what's on the computers.
So, why do you suppose that Chavez and his puppet Correa would suddenly and rapidly back off Colombia, who acquired an incredible amount of intel, paper trails, and most importantly, enough uranium to make a dirty bomb from the FARC terrorists? Is there any question what's on those laptops that is even more damning than a direct link to Chavez and Correra helping FARC acquire and supply materials for a dirty bomb? Think Iran is somehow connected given their new "economic" ties with Chavez?
18 March 2008
The Supreme Court took up the Heller case and it's sparked a debate. With the typical Leftwing nuts and the MSM on one side and level headed Americans on the other side. Here's the Liberal argument:
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that Congress and all but two states had focused the "right to keep and bear arms" on the militia, not on personal self-defense. It was seen "as the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense," he said.
But the court's liberal bloc did not appear to have the votes to uphold the law.
Uh-huh. So in Liberal's minds the right to bear arms to defend from an over reaching Federal Government (the same kind, ironically, that they seek to create) is a right of a militia in an effort to fight off or overthrow said government. Say....that was done once before....I think that militia was for...the Confederacy. Interesting view, moonbats.
So besides the handgun ban in D.C., the lawyers for the city said, "hey, people can still OWN a gun" but......
He said the Washington law should be upheld because it allows homeowners to have a disassembled rifle or shotgun at home, even while it bans small handguns.
Ah yes, a disassembled rife will come in very handy during a home invasion. I mean, should a criminal bust in your home, with an illegally owned handgun, and is pointing a gun at you, rest assured, in that brief moment, you move with Superman-like quickness to assemble said rifle, load it, and defend yourself.
Utterly ridiculous. It looks like the non-retarded members of the SCOTUS will prevail though:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.
Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.
The left always goes off about how our rights are being taken from us when a Conservative movement in in control of any of the branches of government, but really, who assails our rights? The leftists are attempting to strip away the Second Amendment and the individual right that it grants us that is on equal footing to the First Amendment, as are the other components of the Constitution. I'm not going to make any bones about it, one area that was grossly abused by the Bush Administration was the illegal surveillance of American citizens on our own soil. The FISA argument is slightly different, as if we have a known terrorist calling into or out of the US, yes, we should be all over that. However, for intelligence gathering on US citizens, it is our right to have to have search warrants be granted before such action. The same can be said here.
The Second Amendment is an individual right that is granted to us by our Constitution, and here, we see the liberals once again assailing it. Think of their proposal for national health care. Does anyone not thing that giving the government full access to our medical records and telling us how and by what means we will receive care is not an erosion of our right? The government has no right to know our medical history and be able to dissect it. What then if a person had ever had mental health care administered? The government could easily strip them of their right to vote even if it was temporary or minor condition. We can not allow our individual rights to be usurped by a liberal populist movement who clouds their oppressive and Constitution eroding desires to be cloaked under the guise of "public good." We must recognize our rights, cherish them, and protect them at all costs.
On a lighter note, I was on the Communist News Network's (CNN) website and read a brief little update on the case much earlier in the day. Well, as always the morons at CNN didn't disappoint, and even brought a little ray of sunshine into my day:
Thirty-one states along with groups like the powerful National Rifle Association -- a gun rights lobby group -- support the gun owners. A handful of states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Chicago, and San Francisco support Washington.
Classic leftist writings write there. First, they try to make the NRA seem like the boogeymen, which is entirely not true. Second, CNN makes sure that we know that the STATES OF CHICAGO AND SAN FRANCISCO are firmly against this. Proof read much? Or if they do, I wonder what it feels like knowing that the average first grader would have caught that major mistake. Gotta love the liberal media.
He noted, though, that the Iraqis still managed to establish a government and ratify a constitution after regaining sovereignty in June 2004, and that Iraqis enjoy freedoms that were absent under nearly three decades of Saddam's brutal rule.
"These past five years, I think, were full of hopes and promises but also of tears and blood ... and we've gone through a very, very difficult transformation," Zebari said. "What we the Iraqis have achieved over the last five years since liberation has been remarkable."
He was optimistic that the threats to pull out were empty campaign rhetoric.
"We are in an election season, and many candidates will say things that appeal to the public. But when the real national interests of the United States, of the nation, confront them, I think they have to make hard decisions," Zebari said of the candidates.
"I think now American interests in this part of the world are as important as they were in during the World War so it will not be easy for any administration, Republican or Democrat, just to wash off their hands and walk away," he said. "There is a certain responsibility, an international and moral responsibility, to help the people of Iraq to reach a stable form of governance."
He's completely right of course. In fact, he acknowledges that all sides, including the US, made mistakes but that in order to achieve stability and save the lives of scores, as well as for both nation's foreign policies and national securities, success is vital. He's absolutely right. It's a shame the left can't acknowledge this or even listen to the Iraqi government's wish. Even now, Hillary is out trying to score more cheap leftist points by attacking Blackwater and private contractors who provide the security for the highest level ambassadors and political visitors to Iraq. It's important to note that not a single person under the protection of Blackwater has died while under their guard. The left always neglects that fact and constantly attacks them. The fact is Blackwater has made some mistakes, but really, who hasn't. They have provided security in areas which has allowed the military to shift forces elsewhere, which has had a positive effect as well. The fact is, it is of the utmost importance that we succeed in Iraq, for the interests of this nation and the interests of the Iraqis. It's funny how the media fails to use Japan as the model for what we are trying to do in Iraq, but that's exactly how this should be approached. We owe it to the Iraqis to get them on their own feet, and that takes time. We committed to go to war, and we must be committed to helping rebuild that nation and care for the people of Iraq in the interim.-Caomhin