The passion that is felt for this election is unprecedented. We have the first black nominee for president ever, and the other ticket has the first woman VP pick for that party, second overall. This comes after the after a primary that almost produced the first female nominee for president ever. In addition, there is the dynamic of having a candidate that can win with a party that can't and the other party that can't lose with a candidate that can. To say this is a historical election is an understatement of gigantic proportions. Either way, a glass ceiling will be broken.
When emotions run this high, people do stupid things and lines are crossed. This past halloween season has brought up two good examples of this. In West Hollywood, California, a mannequin, with a Gov. Palin likeness, is found hanging from a rope attached to a chimney that has John McCain burning in it. In retaliation of the Palin effigy, two University of Kentucky students set up a halloween display featuring a dummy with an Obama mask hanging from a tree by a rope in Lexington. Both displays are reprehensible, yet only the Kentucky pinheads have been arrested or charged with anything. The UK student and resident were arrested for disorderly conduct in reaction to the display earlier today. These two need to have repercussions for their stupidity. However, where is the same outrage and consequences for the pinheads in Hollywood?
If Palin would've been black, the Hollywood men who put up the Palin display would have been charged with a hate crime. Instead, the authorities can't do anything to them. It is considered part of their right to free speech.
What about her race makes the act any different? Nothing should make it any different. It doesn't matter about which race or gender one is. Hate is hate. I understand that there is more of a sensitive history with lynching and black males, but the hatred for Gov. Palin is just as real and strong.
Why is it criminal to have a display of Obama hanging and not Palin? If there is a hate crime law enacted, why does it only apply to certain segments of society? If hate crime legislation is passed, it needs to cover everyone or none at all. "Separate but equal" laws are what got us into the problem of segregation in the first place.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be equally as appalled by both effigies. He taught us to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but that is exactly what the law is doing. They are treating one act worse than the other just because one is black and the other is white. We will never be post-racial until we make the law equal to all of Americans.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama's Six Month Exam
"Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. He's going to have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you that it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen." Joe Biden-10/19/08-Seattle
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
Friday, October 17, 2008
"The Great Depression II" Brought to You by the Letter O
From the same people that brought you this past fall's blockbuster "Financial Crisis", brought to you by the letter D, comes "The Great Depression II", the exciting sequel to the 1929 hit - a thriller that topped the charts for 15 years. Everyone loved "Financial Crisis". The ensemble cast included superstars both young and old: Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, ACORN, and last but not least, a cameo by Barack Obama.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama's Nuttiest Radical Association Yet
A lot of attention as been on Obama's long list of questionable at best radical associations. Enough has been said of how can he fight terrorists, if he is "friendly" with Bill Ayres, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Questions have also arisen about how he can be "post-racial", if his "spiritual advisors" are Rev. Wright or Father Fleiger, two outspoken racists. One could also wonder how can he champion "bipartisanship" when he votes with the democratic leadership about 97% of the time. The only time he can cite that he worked with the republicans was with the nuclear proliferation bill, which helped keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. That is not exactly a huge leap to get the GOP to go along with that. It is like getting both sides to agree that murderers should be in jail. Instead, I'm going to focus on the little talked about his partnership with ACORN.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Benedict Lieberman
Sen. Joe Lieberman spoke at the RNC. He gave not just an endorsement of Sen McCain but also chastised Sen Obama for his record and lack thereof. Not since Judas Iscariot kissed Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane for 30 pieces of silver has there been such outrage and hatred of one man for "betraying" his people. The way the Democrats are acting you would think that Joe stabbed Obama in the back with Obama saying "Et tu, Joe".
Why is that the party that champions free speech for people like Ward Churchill and Rev Wright don't like it if someone speaks about something they don't like? They act like a bunch of teenage girls getting revenge on another when someone says something derogatory about them. There were Republicans that spoke at the DNC, but there isn't so much outrage among the GOP. Granted Sen Lieberman is more notable than Jim Leach, but that doesn't make it ok for the democrats to right to kick him out of their club. They have threatened him with taking away his committee positions and a censure.
Sen Lieberman didn't abandon the Dems just because he disagreed with them on this one issue. They are abandoning him. The democrats wouldn't nominate him for his seat in the senate. So, he had to run as an independent in Connecticut to win his senate seat back. If it wasn't for him, the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate. Harry Reid should be grateful instead of mad. This just goes to show that many on the left think that the right is evil. Why else would they act like Joe just committed treason? Those who champion the free speech of racists and America-bashers should champion those that disagree with them too.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy of many on the left. The harder left don't really believe in freedom of speech. If they did, they wouldn't try to stop freedom of speech when it comes to religion and prayer, right to life, and other conservative principles.
Why is that the party that champions free speech for people like Ward Churchill and Rev Wright don't like it if someone speaks about something they don't like? They act like a bunch of teenage girls getting revenge on another when someone says something derogatory about them. There were Republicans that spoke at the DNC, but there isn't so much outrage among the GOP. Granted Sen Lieberman is more notable than Jim Leach, but that doesn't make it ok for the democrats to right to kick him out of their club. They have threatened him with taking away his committee positions and a censure.
Sen Lieberman didn't abandon the Dems just because he disagreed with them on this one issue. They are abandoning him. The democrats wouldn't nominate him for his seat in the senate. So, he had to run as an independent in Connecticut to win his senate seat back. If it wasn't for him, the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate. Harry Reid should be grateful instead of mad. This just goes to show that many on the left think that the right is evil. Why else would they act like Joe just committed treason? Those who champion the free speech of racists and America-bashers should champion those that disagree with them too.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy of many on the left. The harder left don't really believe in freedom of speech. If they did, they wouldn't try to stop freedom of speech when it comes to religion and prayer, right to life, and other conservative principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
