Why Barney Frank Can Stick His ‘Republicans With Hurt Feelings’ Remark

Yesterday, just before the House vote on the $700 billion bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech in which she essentially called Republicans corrupt and stupid, laid the entire blame for the financial disaster at Bush’s and Republicans’ feet, and told Republicans that they would get all the blame and Democrats would take all the credit.  And then she asked Republicans to join her in a bipartisan vote.

In an outcome that was apparently astonishing only to Democrats, Pelosi’s ridiculously partisan approach backfired.

If Nancy Pelosi were a homeless bag lady (one can only dream), her marketing approach would be to slap you in the face, call you a stupid pig, and then ask you for money.

Democrats, partisan ideologues to the core as they are, simply could not admit that “Madam Speaker” said anything that was in any way inappropriate.  Barney Frank said:

“We don’t believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that’s hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I’ll make an offer: Give me those twelve people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

Well, let me just say this:they were 12 votes away from passing this thing, and if there actually were 12 Republicans who WOULD have voted for it if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t opened her big damn mouth – and passing the bill really was a really such a vital thing for the country – then maybe, just maybe, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have opened her big damn mouth.  Maybe a good leader doesn’t attack the people she needs to come through for her right before a huge vote.  I’m just sayin’.

But there’s something else.  It turns out that 12 Democrats on Barney Frank’s own Housing Financial Services Committee – of which he is chairman – voted against the bill he chided Republicans for voting against.  So I have an idea: maybe, just maybe, if Barney Frank had spent less time being a fat, arrogant, condescending, smarmy-mouthed little pervert ridiculing 12 Republicans after the vote; and more time getting his own damn Democrats on his own damn committee in order before the vote, he would have got his bill passed.

So if someone brings up the “Republicans with hurt feelings” retort, all you need to do – after pointing out the fact that Nancy Pelosi is the worst Speaker in history for smack talking Republicans immediately before a vote she wanted when she knew she needed heavy Republican support – you just bring it back home to Barney Frank and the fact that he really needs to shut his fat mouth about any lack of 12 votes.

Children Sing Praises To Dear Leader Obama

In North Korea, Kim Jung Il has led his nation to disaster.  Two million have starved to death during the past ten years.  Preschool children in North Korea were up to 5 inches shorter and up to 14 pounds lighter than children who were brought up in South Korea, and adults in the North are 3 inches shorter than adults in South Korea.  prisoners.  And flying over North Korea at night is like flying over a country in the Dark Ages.

There is a spirit of fear and paranoia.  There are as many as a million North Koreans are being held in gulags for political prisoners.

But none of that matters.  North Koreans still live under the yoke of propaganda devoted entirely to the personality cult of Kim Jung Il.  He is revered as “Dear Leader” among his people, who can know nothing but what they are taught to know.  A picture of Dear Leader is prominently displayed in every building and every home.  Some even worship him.

I remember when the last real famine hit North Korea.  Dianne Sawyer was able to visit this black hole of human misery.  The world – and particularly the United States – provided food aid.  But the packages of food were swiftly re-labeled, and guess who the people gratefully bowed their heads to and humbly thanked for their sustenance?

I imagine that many North Korean children sing praises to their Dear Leader.

And many children are singing the praises of our Dear Leader, as well.

“We’re gonna spread happiness! We’re gonna spread freeeeedom! Obama’s gonna change it, Obama’s gonna lead ’em…”

There are whole choirs of exploited five and six year olds singing Obama’s praises.

We used to view government as providing for the common defense, building infrastructure, and staying out of the peoples’ way as much as possible.  Not any more.  Now government’s job – as epitomized in the person of our Dear Leader Barack Obama – is to bring us happiness.

Our children used to be taught that it was the Truth – as epitomized by Jesus Christ the Son of God – that gave us freedom (John 8:31-36).  Now children sing the praises of a new and very different messiah.

Watching children sing the praises of Barack Obama just creeps me out on a viceral level.  Because I remember when I was a child.  Somehow, I was never encouraged – even once – to ever sing the praises of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, or even the great Ronald Reagan.  Somehow that’s different now.  Something frightening has happened.

I look at this glassy-eyed little girl singing about how happiness and freedom are somehow bound up in the person of Barack Hussein Obama, and I wonder: what if he loses the election?  Is happiness and freedom dead?

May God protect us as the same sort of Stalinist media that dominates North Korea begins to dominate our culture as well, and as the same cult of personality that has taken over there begins to take over here, as well.

Supreme Court LIBERALS Blocked States From Regulating Financial System

We have literally been deluged with claims that it was the Republicans who prevented effective regulations that would have prevented the Housing Finance tsunami.  It is a bald-faced lie: it was Democrats who refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to continue to mandate foolish loans to low income and minority families who didn’t have sufficient collateral to pay their debts under the mantra of “affordable housing” (that dates back to a 1992 Clinton-era act).  I hope you read my article, “Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami,” which documents the Democrats’ astonishing lies.

But the Democrats’ abject refusal to regulate the housing finance industry extends all the way to the highest reaches of the temple of liberalism: the United States Supreme Court.  Liberal justices banned the states from having any voice in the regulatory process.  And they are directly responsible for the crisis that ensued:

Supreme Court Says Federal Government Is Sole Regulator of Bank Subsidiaries

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
April 18, 2007

National banks won a major victory Tuesday when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, not states, has the pre-eminent role in regulating banks’ mortgage business, even if conducted by subsidiaries.

By a 5-3 vote in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, the Court found that the National Banking Act pre-empts state regulation of banks — and that the pre-emption extends to their subsidiaries, which the Court said are “equivalent” to the national banks themselves.

Banks fought hard for federal regulation under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, rather than subjecting themselves to differing — and more aggressive — rules and enforcement at the state level.

In the case before the Court, Wachovia Mortgage had been licensed in Michigan, but in January 2003 it notified the state that it had become a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Wachovia Bank, and as such no longer was subject to Michigan’s registration requirements. State banking regulator Linda Watters responded by barring the company from doing business in Michigan. Wachovia went to court to challenge her decision, and the bank won in the lower courts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, ruled for Wachovia, stating that “State regulators cannot interfere with the ‘business of banking’ by subjecting OCC-licensed operating subsidiaries to multiple audits and surveillance under rival oversight regimes.”

Ginsburg also rejected states’ argument that the Bill of Right’ 10th Amendment justified a state role. The amendment, which reserves some powers to the states, does not apply in Ginsburg’s view, because the Constitution assigns banking regulation to the federal government as part of its power over interstate commerce.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – archliberal priestess of the Supreme Court intelligentsia – wrote the majority opinion for the 5-3 decision.

And who was in the majority, and who was in the minority?

In an unusual lineup, joining Ginsburg in the majority were Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito Jr. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a stinging dissent, accusing the majority of upsetting the federal-state balance and improperly expanding federal pre-emption doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia joined Stevens’ dissent.

Without explanation, Justice Clarence Thomas recused in the case, though his financial disclosure forms do not reflect a connection to Wachovia.

John Roberts, Antonin Scalia were in the minority, with Clarence Thomas recusing himself, voted against this move to kill the states’ right to have any power to regulate the financial industry.  And a gang of liberals (with the exception of Alito and Stevens – a Republican Nixon appointee who has too often sided with liberals – switching roles and cancelling one another out) imposed their will in yet another example of liberal stupidity and their unconstitutional lust for power.

Blame Democrats.  Blame liberals.  They are all over this mess.  While Democrats in Congress prevented any Republican-led efforts to federally regulate out-of-control Democrat-run GSEs, Supreme Court liberals were killing any chance the states had to have any regulatory oversight of their own.

When Republicans were spearheading efforts to launch regulatory reform, Barney Frank was testifying against the regulators and against regulation:

You seem to be saying, well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems. I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.

But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue. I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as a kind of a general shibboleth, when it does not seem to me to be an issue.

Even President Bill Clinton attributes the lack of regulation to Democrats:

Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

If you elect Democrats, you will be putting the very people who created this economic tsunami in power.  And mark my words: with our markets already in crisis, you will come to rue the day you put these foxes in charge of the federal hen house.

Nancy Pelosi Partisan Attack Caused Republican Bailout Revolt

Nancy Pelosi is a partisan ideologue shrew to her very core.  She just can’t help herself.

Even as she demanded that 100 Republicans in the House join her in a bipartisan effort, she viciously attacked Republicans and blamed them for pretty much everything.  She’s out saying, “The — what we have now is a manmade disaster, a disaster that sprang — comes from the Bush failed policies, the failure of the Bush administrations to steward our economy in a responsible way.”  And she’s ostensibly calling for bipartisan cooperation?  I don’t know any other way to put it: Screw her.

The GOP House leaders just had a press conference.  House Minority leader John Boehner pointedly stated that Nancy Pelosis’s partisan speech poisoned the Republican conference.  And House Minority WHIP Eric Cantor – holding a copy of Pelosi’s prissy little tirade – flat out stated that the reason the bipartisan effort failed was due entirely to Pelosi’s partisan rant.  You just don’t do that when you need the other side.

Republicans said they were on the verge of having the votes to pass the thing.  And then Nancy Pelosi opened her poisonous mouth and put political ideology ahead of the interests of the nation.

Some 93 Democrats – 40% of the Democrats in the House – voted against the bill.  This is a clear failure of Nancy Pelosi’s leadership.  She is the most failed House Majority Leader of the most failed Congress in History.

what are you going to do the next time you need Republicans’ cooperation to pass important legislation, Nancy?  Insult their mommas?

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

Over the past several days, the airwaves have been flooded with statements by Democrats and by the media “intelligentsia” that the financial crisis was created due to the atmosphere of deregulation that dominated during the last 8 years of the Bush administration and Republican rule.  It sounds right – Republicans generally DO favor fewer regulations which all too often stagnate business and reduce our competitiveness in a global marketplace – but in this case it is simply false.  And Democrats who point the finger of blame at Republicans over deregulation of the finance industry are lying to you.

We can begin by looking at leading Democrat Charles Schumers’ incredibly disingenuous and patently demagogic statements blaming Republicans for “a lack of regulation”:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

We can go back to 2003 to see just how fallacious the Democrats charge against Republicans are.  In 2003, President Bush tried to implement regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the epicenter of the current housing financial crisis.  In the words of a New York Times story:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Notice that Barney Frank – in an effort to stave off Republican efforts to regulate the housing finance industry, claimed that there was no problem.

And Barney Frank, the Chairman of the powerful House Finance Committee, and a key player in the Democrats’ effort to shape the bailout package now, represented the Democrats’ philosophical opposition to reform or regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the “arrangement” with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing.” The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

The effort failed with Democrats in lock-step effort against the Republicans efforts to implement regulatory reform of the Housing Finance industry.

Again, in 2005, there was yet another Republican-led effort: the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Four Republicans’ names were on the Senate version of the bill, and twenty Republicans’ names were on the House version.  The bill was killed because Democrats in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs unanimously voted against the bill, and Senate Democrats signaled their intent to filibuster its passage.

John McCain, in vigorous support of the 2005 effort to regulate an increasingly out-of-control industry, said in part:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Franklin Raines, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, misrepresented $11 billion in Fannie Mae’s accounting system in order to game the system so that he and other senior executives could collect multi-million dollar bonuses.  Fannie Mae was fined some $500 million for the violations.  Raines paid a $25 million fine for his role in the corruption.   Leland Brendsel – yet another Democrat – had earlier been forced out as Chairman of Freddie Mac under a similar cloud of suspicion.

We learn that, in the fall of 2004:

At a dramatic hearing in Richard Baker’s subcommittee, Fannie’s chair, Franklin Raines, stood by the company’s accounting, claiming that Fannie was being victimized by an overzealous regulator.

Notice that Raines – who as already shown was later proven to have committed fraud – blamed Republican regulators for misrepresenting the health of GSEs that we now known were on the verge of a disaster.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, supporting the Republican-led effort to place the very sort of regulations that Democrats now claim that Republicans prevented, said:

“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 added, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size–and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes–we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Peter Wallison wrote in a May 2005 article describing Democrats’ opposition at the time:

The sudden appearance of this new threat changed the attitude of the GSEs toward the legislation. Although they had begun 2005 offering conciliatory statements and suggesting that they had no serious problems with the regulatory proposals that Congress was then contemplating, the GSEs were clearly alarmed by the idea that their portfolios might be limited or reduced. Fannie and Freddie and their constituent support groups–the homebuilders and the realtors, among others–made clear that they would fight limitations on GSE portfolios, and Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats made clear that they, too, would oppose any effort to limit this aspect of the GSEs’ operations.

Wallison also stated:

Under these circumstances, allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. 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.

A Bloomberg article describes how the lack of timely reform created an economic tsunami:

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.

Keven Hasset concludes an article titled, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“, concludes by saying:

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.

Democrats’ Idea Of Bipartisanship Is HARD CORE Partisanship

We are in the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression, and Democratic leadership is playing the same hard core ideological political games that got us into this mess to begin with.  You’ve heard the phrase, “fighting like rats on a sinking ship”?  Well, the Democrats are the rats in this story (which really isn’t much of a metaphor).

First you have the fact that House Republicans were largely excluded from the negotiating process.  And then, surprise: they weren’t happy about it.

Then we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling upon John McCain to become directly involved in the negotiation process – only to viciously attack him when he actually tried to become directly involved.  A whole bunch of Democrats then dove onto the pile, falsely claiming that a bipartisan deal had been struck when none actually had, and that McCain had thrown a monkey wrench into it – even though he had said very little at the explosive and divisive meeting which Democrats had Obama chair.  Democrats – in an obvious act of presidential politics – were out claiming that John McCain was playing “presidential politics.”

Then we get to look at the actual bill that the Democrats have been working on – and expect Republicans to agree to – only to find that it is a clear pork-laden giveaway to traditional Democratic allies such as ACORN, Big Labor, and the trial lawyer lobby.  ACORN has been involved in more cases of documented voter fraud than any organization in history; yet STILL receives federal money thanks to Democrats’ efforts.

And, of course, when Democrats came back this morning for more “bipartisan” negotiations, the two Republicans were shocked to find not two Democrats joining them, but NINE:

Pelosi made her remarks as the negotiators streamed into her office, and that group is much bigger than expected; instead of just the four principals, a number of other prominent Democrats, including Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (Mont.), Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.) and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer also entered the meeting.

This leaves House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg severely outnumbered as the only Republicans in the room. Oh yeah, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. But he’s been at loggerheads with the House GOP for the last week, so he they might not be singing from the same songbook on this one.

The ship is sinking, and Democrats are determined to cynically use every ideological play in their playbook, apparently counting upon a biased media and an ignorant population to set up their next play.

And what is their next play?  When the Republicans refuse to accept the crap the Democrats are trying to feed them, Democrats will flood the airwaves to proclaim that Republicans are refusing to play ball and stave off a meltdown.

Save The Ridicule For Katie Couric, Not Sarah Palin

I have read the transcripts, and really can’t for the life of me understand why liberals gleefully proclaim that Sarah Palin embarassed herself.  I think we should be ridiculing Katie Couric rather than Sarah Palin.

Case in point: Couric’s “gotcha” question regarding Henry Kissinger:

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can’t just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That’s beyond naïve. And it’s beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …

Palin: It’s dangerous.

Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, “Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.” Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren’t gonna go right. That’s part of diplomacy.

Okay, let’s do the fact check.  Was Couric right?

No.  The first “perky” anchor in major network history got it wrong.

Henry Kissinger has never called for direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions:

ABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday’s presidential debate saying he “would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.”

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality,” Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.

If Couric wanted to ask Sarah Palin whether it would be appropriate to send a high level US official other than the President of the United States, it was her duty as the one asking the questions to make her question clear.  Given the obvious fact that it is a PRESIDENTIAL precondition-free negotiation with rogue regime leaders (thanks to Barack Obama’s idiotic position), Sarah Palin had every reason to assume that was what Couric was talking about.

So if anyone should be ridiculed, it should be Katie Couric – who was so eager to catch Palin in a “gotcha” question she botched her own trap – instead of Sarah Palin.

Democrats Rush To Embrace Trickle Down Theory

You have probably heard the concept of “trickle down economics” get ridiculed by Democrats.  They’re not ridiculing it now; in fact, they are embracing it.

Why are we “bailing out” so many financial entities dealing in bad mortgage debts?

Because – as is widely recognized – if we don’t, capital will stall as investors play it safe and protect their money.  Loans will dry up, interests will go up, and people will start losing jobs.

In other words, if we don’t help the big money players, the effect will soon “trickle down” to the average Joe.

Why aren’t Democrats talking about “bottom up” economics – in which we give the $700 billion bailout dollars to the American people instead of the finance markets?  Do you notice that no one in a position of actual responsibility is talking about that?

It appears that the wisdom of Republican trickle down economics has been officially confirmed – by Democrats.

Obama WILL Raise Your Taxes And Your Living Costs

There was an interesting exchange during the debate last night:

“He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year,” McCain said.

“That’s not true, John. That’s not true,” Obama said, interrupting him.

But it IS true.

“Barack Obama has voted in support of higher taxes 94 times in just 3 years, including higher taxes for Americans making just $42,000 a year. If voters consider Barack Obama’s record of opposing tax cuts and his outspoken proposals to raise taxes on family savings, Social Security and small businesses — this latest campaign promise lacks a single shred of credibility.”

Despite Claiming He’d Lower Taxes For Middle Income Americans, Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ Budget – Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning $42,000 Or More:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

In Obama’s new version of an economic plan (he’s had so many my eyeballs start rolling), Obama claims to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans (the actual figure is only 81% by Obama’s own figures).  And over 40% of Obama’s “95%” figure actually already don’t pay federal income taxes – which means that it is merely a welfare-like transfer payment.

The result of reducing the rax rate paid by the rich has both increased federal revenues and even raised the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned.  Lowering taxes has provided an incentive to invest and build wealth, which has in turn raised revenues and increased the percentage of taxes paid by the rich relative to other income classes.

Barack Obama – who IS last years’ winner of “Most liberal US Senator” award – is a tax and spend liberal.  He has $800 billion in new spending projects.  When the wealthy react to his tax increases by sheltering their money, who is he going to come after next?  He’s going to come after you.  He’s already come after you before -94 times in just 3 years, in fact.

When you tax the rich, they find it profitable to shelter their assets.  Not only will the rich pursue tax sheltering activity, but their very focus will shift from making money to avoiding taxes.  That means less investment; which means less investment capital; which means less jobs.  When the housing finance crisis is already freezing investment capital, do you really want Obama in charge of the economy?

Furthermore, Obama will raise your costs.  He has repeatedly attacked John McCain for wanting to lower taxes on corporations.  Obama has promised to raise taxes on corporations – which already pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world.  He will raise taxes on small businesses, as well.

The fact that he has forced to acknowledge that raising taxes might be a bad idea in a recession means nothing.  He won’t be able to help himself once he’s in office, with a Democratic Congress pushing him.  He won’t stand up against them for the simple reason that he’s never stood up against Democrats.  Obama makes a big deal about the fact that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time.  But Obama votes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  A Barack Obama presidency would look little different from a Nancy Pelosi presidency.

What will happen when businesses find themselves paying taxes?  Does anyone seriously think that prices won’t increase to keep up with their increased operating costs?  Does anyone seriously think that jobs won’t be cut in order to reduce costs?

John McCain mentioned Ireland, whose economy has boomed since they reduced their corporate tax rate to 11%.  The U.S. rate is 35%.  Which would you rather pay?  Can you seriously blame businesses for relocating or “outsourcing” given such disparities?

If Barack Obama is elected President, he will try to tax the rich.  But as the rich shelter their money, and as corporations cut back their operations, relocate, or outsource to recover their desired profit margins, the American people will see their Faustian bargain go south on them very quickly.

Democrat Bailout Package: 20% Would Go To Partisan And Corrupt Fund

As Democrats and their media lackeys create a fictional narrative of an agreed-upon bailout deal gone bad because John McCain came into town, it is important to look at why this package has REALLY failed.  In short, the answer is an acronym: A.C.O.R.N.

Ed Morrissey has the story:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:

Morrissey then provides the relevant portion of the Senate Democrat proposa which Democrats claim that the Republicans ‘agreed to’:

TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.

1. DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
2. USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
   1. 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
   2. 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

Of this clearly poison pill, Morrissey goes on to say:

Profits? We’ll be lucky not to take a bath on the purchase of these toxic assets. If we get 70 cents on the dollar, that would be a success.

That being said, this section proves that the Democrats in Congress have learned nothing from this financial collapse.  They still want to game the market to pick winners and losers by funding programs for unqualified and marginally-qualified borrowers to buy houses they may not be able to afford — and that’s the innocent explanation for this clause.

The real purpose of section D is to send more funds to La Raza and ACORN through housing welfare, via the slush fund of the HTF.  They want to float their political efforts on behalf of Democrats with public money, which was always the purpose behind the HTF.  They did the same thing in April in the first bailout bill, setting aside $100 million in “counseling” that went in large part to ACORN and La Raza, and at least in the former case, providing taxpayer funding for a group facing criminal charges in more than a dozen states for fraud.

It’s bad enough that taxpayers have to pay the price for Congress’ decade-long distortions of the lending and investment markets.  If we realize a profit from the bailout, that money should go to pay down the debt or get returned to taxpayers as dividends from their investment — not to organizations committing voter fraud, and not to restarting the entire cycle of government meddling in lending markets.  I’d support a rational bailout package, but anything that funds the HTF needs to get stopped.

The American people need to become aware that the Democratic leadership are liars without shame.  They literally closed the House Republicans out of the loop in participating in the proposal that they then falsely claim the Republicans agreed to.  They make a full fifth of the total bailout package dedicated to a fund that has historically been a naked partisan tool that has participated in outright pro-Democratic voter fraud.  They claim that John McCain has not done enough to bring about an agreement on the bailout package, and then attack him the moment he shoes up to devote himself to helping come to an agreement.  And they engage in naked “Presidential politics” even as they claim that John McCain’s participation was an act of “Presidential politics.”

In chapter 10 of His Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick — a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in the world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

Hitler claimed that it was the Jews that employed the strategy of “the big lie.”  But the clear verdict of history is that it was he who did so.  And it was he who named Joseph Goebbels as his “Minister of Propaganda.”  It was the accuser who was the biggest liar of all.  Just like what the Democrats are doing now in their attacks.

Sadly, this is where the United States of America is today.  We are at a point where a major political party can use the strategy of “the big lie” to advance their political position.  And we are to a point where a liberal-dominated media will do everything it can to publish and perpetuate the big lie to the American people.