Posts Tagged ‘Democrat’

Democrats’ Pseudo-Demonization Again On Display

August 27, 2009

1 suspect in custody following Dem HQ vandalism in Denver
By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post

Posted: 08/25/2009 11:53:20 AM MDT
A volunteer cleans up glass at the Colorado Democratic Party Headquarters after someone smashed nearly all the windows of the office early Tuesday morning, on August 25, 2009. (THE DENVER POST

A 24-year-old arrested this morning on suspicion of smashing 11 windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters tried to conceal his identity while allegedly committing the crime, according to police descriptions.

Maurice Schwenkler wore a shirt over his face, a hooded sweat shirt and latex gloves before he and another man fled the scene on bicycles, police said. Schwenkler was apprehended after a short chase. The other suspect remains at large.

While Schwenkler does not appear in the state’s voter registration database, a person by that name in November 2008 received $500 from a political 527 committee called Colorado Citizens Coalition for “communications,” according to campaign finance disclosures.

The accountant for the 527 appears to be the same woman who handles the books for many other Democratic-leaning political committees.

A Maurice Schwenkler also signed an online 2005 petition to free anti-war Christian protesters who were captured in Iraq.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak initially blamed the vandalism on animosity surrounding the health care debate, though Denver police declined to comment on possible motives.

The shattered windows were emblazoned with posters touting President Barack Obama and the Democratic position on health care reform.

The other storefronts surrounding the building on West Eighth Avenue and Santa Fe Drive in downtown Denver’s art district were untouched. But the Democratic posters are scuffed from hammer blows, Waak said.

“We ought to be having a serious, conscientious debate about what’s best for the country,” Waak said. “Clearly there’s been an effort on the other side to stir up hate. I think this is the consequence of it.”

She estimates the damage at $11,000.

An officer on patrol spotted vandals in the act around 2:20 a.m. and took Schwenkler into custody after a short chase, Denver police spokeswoman Vicki Ferrari said.

And, lo and behold, the police arrested the 2nd person – a transgender anarchist.  Pretty clearly, “she” is not a Republican:

Ariel Attack, a Denver-based anarchist, was arrested at 2:27am Tues, 24 here in Denver for allegedly smashing 11 windows of the Democratic Party headquaters at 777 Santa Fe Drive.

***PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY***

Ariel Attack, a Denver-based anarchist, was arrested at 2:27am Tues, 24 here in Denver for allegedly smashing 11 windows of the Democratic Party headquaters at 777 Santa Fe Drive.

Right now we are trying to raise the bail money for her to get out of jail; her bail hearing will be tomorrow at 10am Denver time. Several lawyers have told us to expect anywhere from between $3,000 to $10,000 in bail, and due to the high publicity of the case here in Denver, we are expecting higher (lead story for most all local news outlets, and being picked up by national news networks).

At this moment, we do not know Ariel’s status within the jail, especially regarding her gender classification. We have been unable to talk with Ariel since she went in. She is listed in the jail records and media under her birth name. We also do not know what plans, if any, she had made for this situation.

So you see, when you hear about the “stirring up of hate,” think Democrats.

When you see a swastika and hear a Democrat talking about the vileness of Republicans, realize that a Democrat almost certainly put it there.

When you see Democrats blaming Republicans for something that is truly awful, realize that in all probability, a Democrat did it.

This has been going on at least since the 1960s, when radical black students burned a cross in a black women’s dorm to justify their violent riots.

The episode gives Kyle-Ann Shiver’s article, “Obama’s Nazi Straw Man: An Old Alinsky Trick,” a whole lot more credibility:

When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president’s own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone’s book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”

Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start.  His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

Democrats are increasingly becoming truly vile people.  They don’t believe in God, they don’t believe in objective truth, they believe in the same postmodern and existentialist principles that led to Marxism and Nazism, and their philosophy of “will to power” permits them to say anything or do anything that will advance their agenda – no holds barred, and no consequences beyond their ideological objective ever once considered.

Is Obama Closing Dealerships As Political Punishment?

May 28, 2009

I’ve been trying to sort out why it would be beneficial to shut down car dealerships when the auto industry is facing bankruptcy.  After all, more dealerships means more car sales.  And it would very much seem that more sales would be a good thing for a struggling industry.

It would be one thing if the dealerships were corporate-owned.  Corporations shut down underperforming locations all the time in order to consolidate cash and improve profitability.  But the dealerships that are being closed are NOT corporate-owned; they are private.  So you kind of have to wonder what is going on.

On possible reason is that fewer dealerships will be able to create more sales and therefore create more “buzz” by improving facilities and having more potential customers.  Call it the “wow” factor.

In any event, the real question is why some dealerships are closed and others are allowed to remain open.

One big example in my own local area is Dodge City Chrysler in La Quinta, the management of which was stunned to find the dealership on the closure list.  They are appealing the decision, but intend to remain open even if they are “closed” by Chrysler as a service department and as a pre-owned dealership.  The only thing that stands in the way of that plan would be that the current zoning laws don’t allow used car sales.  But the city promises to work with Dodge City if the appeal fails.

Why close down Dodge City?  It’s turning a profit.  It’s successful.

The answer, it turns out, may be “an enemies list.”

We find out the decision to close dealerships was made by the Obama administration’s task force, and NOT by Chrysler.  And we begin to find out a great deal more about the dealerships that were closed, and what political contributions they made to which political causes, as well as dealerships that are being allowed to remain open, and what political contributions they made to which political causes.

ChryslerDealershipShutdown examines the political donations of dealerships scheduled to close versus those that are being allowed to remain open and leads to a frightening conclusion: it very much appears that dealerships are being closed down because of their political contributions, rather than because of purely business considerations.

What follows is an article by Doug Ross dated May 27, 2009:

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

This work builds upon the research done by numerous parties, most notably Joey Smith. It is a follow-up to my original post, entitled “Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?” The odds that these closings occurred without partisan bias are roughly equivalent to the odds that Jean Claude Van-Damme will grab a Best Supporting Actor Oscar next year for a remake of Terms of Endearment.

How did the U.S. government’s “car czar” decide which Chrysler dealers to close and which would remain open? No one appears to know, not even the President of Chrysler:

…Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan…

It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers,” Bellavia said. “It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

Follow the evidence trail, below, and judge for yourself.

Dealers on the closing list donated millions to Republicans, $200 for Obama

The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.

In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.

Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.”

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto he can’t comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.

Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren’t forthcoming. “They won’t tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won’t give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense… This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they’re telling me there’s nothing I can do about it… There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, ‘Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.’ They didn’t do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with.”

The odds of a non-partisan process being employed can best be illustrated by RLJ.

The Mysterious Case of RLJ

In Smith’s research, one company kept popping up on the list of dealerships remaining open. The company is RLJ-McLarty-Landers, which owns six Chrysler dealerships. All six dealerships are on “the safe list.”

RLJ’s owners “are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas “Mack” McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats)… McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years.

Smith examined RLJ’s markets, which I’ve illustrated below.

Bentonville, AR Market

1. Bentonville, AR Landers-McLarty (RLJ owned)
2. Springdale, AR Springdale Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Harold Schwartz)
3. Springdale, AR Steve Smith Country

Springdale is about 15 miles south of Bentonville.

The 2 Springdale dealerships gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. The 2 dealership will close in June while the RLJ-owned dealership in Bentonville will remain open.

The Landers-McLarty dealership will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 20-mile radius of the dealership.

The closest competitors will be in Pineville, MO (22 miles away) and Fayetteville, AR (27 miles away).

Huntsville, AL Market

1. Huntsville, AL Landers McCarty D-C-J (RLJ Owned)
2. Athens, AL Champion Chrysler Dodge (owned by Jeffrey Hamm)
3. Decatur, AL Cloverleaf C-D-J (owned by Kevin Morris)

The dealerships in Athens and Decatur gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. Landers-McCarty and the Athens dealership will remain open while the Decatur dealership will close in June.

Here is a link to the document containing the information gathered on RJL-McLarty-Landers. It appears that the company will benefit greatly from the reduced competition in their markets. For the most part, the dealerships that are forced to shut down in the 5 markets have either given no money to candidates or have donated to GOP candidates in the past

Branson, MO

There are 4 dealerships within 30 miles of Branson, MO.

1. Branson, MO Tri-Lakes Motors (RLJ owned)
2. Ava, MO Davis Dodge (owned by Larry Davis)
3. Ozark, MO Heritage Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Kay Church)
4. Ozark, MO Ozark Dodge (owned by Kay Church)

Mr. Davis and Ms, Church gave no money to any political candidates since 2004.

The RLJ owned dealership in Branson will remain open while the other 3 dealerships will be forced to close in June.

Tri-Lakes Motors in Branson (RLJ owned) will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 30-mile radius of its dealership…

Lee’s Summit, MO

There are 5 Chrysler dealerships near Lee’s Summit:

1. Lee’s Summit Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep (Lee’s Summit, MO)
2. Crawford’s Raytown (Jeep) (Raytown, MO)
3. Mitch Crawford’s Holiday Motors (Chrysler) (Raytown, MO)
4. Raytown Dodge Company (Dodge) (Raytown, MO)
5. Milner-O’Quinn Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep (all 4 brands) (Harrisonville, MO)

#1 is located in Lee’s Summit and is owned by RLJ-McCarty-Landers.

#2, #3, and #4 are located 9 miles northwest in Raytown, MO and is owned by Michael Crawford.

#5 is located 19 miles south in Harrisonville, MO and is owned by Charles O’Quinn.

The Lee’s Summit dealership will remain open while the other 4 in Raytown and Harrisonville will close. The Lee’s Summit dealership will have no other Chrysler dealerships located within at least a 20 mile radius. All of the local competition will be wiped out due to the Chrysler closings.

Bossier City/Shreveport, LA Market

There are 3 dealerships in this market:

1. Bossier City, LA Landers DCJ (RLJ owned)
2. Shreveport, LA Roundtree Automotive Group
3. Shreveport, LA Bob Post/Hebert’s Town and Country

Marshall Hebert (owner of Hebert’s Town and country) gave $4,250 to GOP candidates, $2,500 to Dem candidates, and $1,300 to the NRCC since 2004. Mr. Hebert is also on the National Auto Dealers Association Board of Directors representing Louisiana.

Frank Stinson (owner of Roundtree) gave $24,000 to GOP candidates and $3,400 to Demcocratic candidates since 2004.

The Bossier City dealership owned by RLJ-McCarty-Landers and the Shreveport dealership owned by Marshall Hebert will stay open. The Shreveport dealership owned by Stinson will be forced to close.

But that’s not all

Smith and various tipsters also point to Lithia Motors. Sidney Deboer will “come out a winner” due to the shutdown of various competitive dealerships.

Of 29 existing dealerships, Smith reports that Lithia will likely have a net gain of three new dealers after the dust settles (they lose just two and may gain five). Debeor has donated nearly $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and approximately $8,250 to four GOP individuals.

What are the Odds?

All other factors being equal, what are the odds that RLJ’s dealerships would remain open while all other area dealerships would be shuttered? The approximate odds of such an occurrence can be calculated. 789 of the Chrysler’s dealerships are closing, which represents 25% of the total (according to MSNBC).

Recall that Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.”

Thus, the odds that any, randomly selected, single dealership would remain open is roughly 75%. The odds that a single dealership would close is roughly 25%.

In the Bentonville, AR territory, the odds that RLJ would remain while its competition gets axed is .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875 (4.6%).

In Huntsville, AL, the odds are .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875.

In Branson, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 = .01171875.

In Lee’s Summit, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 *.25 = .0029296875.

In Shreveport, LA, .75 * .25 *.75 = .140625.

What are the odds of all of these RLJ dealerships remaining open while their competitors are wiped out? Maybe 1/10,000,000 of 1%. Yes, that’s one ten-millionth of one percent.

Approximately the odds that I’ll win American Idol. Or that you’ll land two frisbees, simultaneously, on each of Barack Obama’s teleprompters during one of his televised speeches.

Hello, mainstream media: anyone listening? How about you, class-action lawyers?

What we find is that RLJ dealerships whose ownership has close ties to the Democratic Party remain open in teritory after teritory, while competitors who gave to Republicans are closed down again and again.

Something isn’t right.

Red State has more, offering links to stories of dealerships that are closed, and clearly shouldn’t have been, as well as describing the Republican connections to dealerships that ended up on the closure list.

Richard Nixon created an enemies list of major political oppoenents in order to “screw” political enemies, by means of tax audits from the IRS, and by manipulating grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, and by other means.

If the dealership closures are a form of political attack, this would be FAR worse than Nixon’s abuse of power, simply because Nixon and Colson used a scalpal to cut at enemies; whereas Obama and his Task Force are using the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

We’re talking about somewhere around 20,000 employees at these 789 dealerships.

Let me repeat the words of the attorney to deposed the president of Chrysler:

“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers… It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

Even Nixon never dreamed of abusing his presidential power like that.

Tim Mahoney Affair, Democrat Hypocrisy, and Media Bias

October 14, 2008

I still remember the name of Florida Representative Mark Foley even after two years.  It’s like that line I heard over and over and over again from George Bush, Senior: “Read my lips: no new taxes.”  I still remember that one 16 years later without having to check out the accuracy of the quote.

Why do I remember that line so well?  Because it was played so many times by the media that I couldn’t get away from it.  President George Herbert Walker Bush had campaigned on holding the line on taxes, and the Democrat-controlled Congress subsequently forced him to break his promise if he wanted to accomplish anything during his administration.  And then they nailed him for it.

In the case of Mark Foley, the investigation just went on and on and on.  Democrats used the Foley story and the hoopla over Senator George Allen’s meaningless “macaca” slang to paint the Republicans as out-of-touch racist and pervert hypocrites.  And it worked pretty good.

You probably won’t remember the name “Tim Mahoney” in a couple of years.  You may well not even know about it now.  But that’s only because the same media that ginned the name of Mark Foley into a Republican witch hunt won’t do the same thing to Tim Mahoney even though he replaced Foley in the same West Palm Beach, Florida district and even though he did much, much worse.

Mahoney spent $121,000 of taxpayer money to keep an aide with whom he was sexually involved with from talking after she threatened to sue him.  Mark Foley, by the way, never actually had sex with anybody in the course of his sexual scandal.

Here is a partial transcript of the recorded exchange between Mahoney – who is married and who so self-righteously proclaimed that he would be better than the Republican he was replacing – and Patricia Allen:

MAHONEY: You’re fired. It’s correct. It’s what I believe. You’re fired. Do you hear me? Don’t tell me whether it’s correct or not.

ALLEN: Tell me why else I’m fired.

MAHONEY: There is no why else.

ALLEN: Yeah there is.

MAHONEY: No–just you’re fired because I said that you y’know … not the judge and the jury. Ok? You’re fired. D’you hear me? Call what’s her name in Anchorage, Alaska if you want to keep on thinkin’ like y’know that I’m not being fair or somehow this is a negotiation. This, this is not a negotiation. Ok? Y’know, you’re not in a position to negotiate with me on this. Ok? My position. Ok? You work at my pleasure. Do you understand what that means?

ALLEN: What does it mean?

MAHONEY: It means that you work at my pleasure. If you’re doing the job that I think that you should do, you get to keep your job. Whenever I don’t feel like you’re doing your job, then you lose your job. And guess what? The only person that matters is–guess who? Me. Do you understand that? Now this is how life really is. This is how it works.

“You work at my pleasure.  Do you understand what that means?”

It means that we Democrats can use our female staff like frivolous little sex toys, and even pay hush money with taxpayer money, and Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emmanuel will still come rushing to our defense.  You working at my pleasure means that you pleasure me.  And if you don’t like it, why don’t you give Sarah Palin a call.  Maybe she’ll care.  Democrats sure won’t.

That’s right.  Rahm Emmanuel and other senior Democrats have done their best to help Mahoney keep his seat:

Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign, the Mahoney staffers said.

ABC has at least run the story, though there’s little chance they will keep pounding away at it like they did with Mark Foley.  Who else has run the story?

Here’s a delicious bit of irony that underscores the sheer hypocrisy of Democrats.  Mahoney – that paradigm of virtue – was tasked to lead the way in the Democrats’ ethics reform package.

Republicans, and the kind of independents who vote for Republican candidates, are the kind of people who demand moral accountability.  When a Republican screws up, he’s usually gone pretty damn fast.  The media – and his own party – drive him out of office.  Not that that matters to the media, who continue to hound the matter as long as it is useful to their liberal friends in Congress.

If Mahoney were a Republican, we would hear the worst portions of the audio tape over and over and over again while we learned every new detail of the media investigation and any other investigation – slowly leaked out for the next three weeks to obtain maximum political damage.  And they would craft the narrative that the Republican Party degrades women and that the Party that nominated a woman for Vice President actually vilifies womens’ rights and self-respect.  But he isn’t a Republican; he’s a Democrat.

So the story will probably go the way of Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha, who falsely and repeatedly accused Marines in Haditha of war crimes who later turned out to be completely innocent.  Or Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, after FBI agents discovered $90,000 of bribe money found in his freezer.  Two years later, he is still serving, and Democrats will re-elect him for another term.  Or like Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who didn’t feel he needed to bother following the very tax laws he wrote for everyone else as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.  Or Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who not only assured the stock-buying public that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be solid buys in the future just before the GSEs went belly up (Enron’s Ken Lay would have rotted in prison for doing the SAME THING had he not died first); but who also had an homosexual relationship with a Fannie Mae ececutive while he had oversight over Fannie Mae, and never bothered to disclose the relationship in spite of the clear conflict of interests.

Democrats – who routinely attack Republicans for much, much less – never seem to care about moral accountability.  And the media that hold Republicans’ feet to the fire for much, much less never seem to be willing to make them care.

Update: Mahoney has now been forced to acknoweldge other affairs, including at least one MORE case which appears to have had illegitimate or illegal finances.  Again, the real issue is the fact that 1) the Democratic Party leadership came to help this scumbag win reelection even though he’s lower than whale poop; and 2) the media demonstrates that it is a Goebbels-like propganda machine in its total hypocritical double standard over how it handled Mark Foley vs. Tim Mahoney given a sex scandal in the same district at the same time before an election.

Financial Crisis: Obama Democrats Have Red Ink All Over Them

September 22, 2008

Whether Franklin Raines is an Obama adviser or not is a rather entertaining question.  He sure seemed to be one until not very long ago:

Raines was an Obama adviser on July 16, when The Washington Post reported:

“In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

And Raines was still an Obama adviser on August 28, when The Washington Post said:

In the current crisis, their biggest backers have been Democrats such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.). Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.

In fact, Raines was still an Obama adviser as of September 18, when a Baltimore Sun blogger cited a Wikipedia article as follows:

“Franklin Delano Raines (born January 14, 1949 in Seattle, Washington) is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton. He is currently employed by Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign as an economic adviser.”

But that last sentence has been scrubbed from Wikipedia within the last two days, and all of a sudden Franklin Raines somehow isn’t an Obama adviser anymore.  It’s almost like when Barack Obama said of Jeremiah Wright, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me…”, until, you know, he denounced him.

But when Barack Obama denounces something, all mention of it as being in any way associated with him somehow gets purged – even if that relationship lasted 23 years.  Now when it comes to the McCain denunciation of Franklin Raines as an Obama adviser, The Washington Post faults McCain for relying on…the Washington Post.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers noted that Obama didn’t contradict the claim when it first appeared in the Post (MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AGO!!!).  But that doesn’t seem to matter.  What matters is that Franklin Raines is black, and therefore McCain is a racist for connecting Obama and Raines.  Apparently, the card deck of Barack Obama, “new politician” of “hope” and “change,” contains a whole bunch of race cards.

But, try as he might to distance himself from his erstwhile adviser, what Barack Obama CAN’T do is deny that Franklin Raines is a DEMOCRAT.  A Democrat who dredges up all sorts of bad mojo for Democrats as they try to frantically scrub their hands of all the red ink and all the corruption that took place during Franklin Raines’ tenure at Fannie Mae.

It reminds us of the October 7, 2004 Los Angeles Times story that appeared titled, “Ex-Fannie Mae Accountant Says CEO Knew of Concerns“:

The former Fannie Mae accountant who raised questions about the mortgage giant’s bookkeeping said Wednesday that he took his concerns directly to Chief Executive Franklin Raines in 2002 and asked him to investigate.

The disclosure by Roger Barnes, who left Fannie Mae in October 2003, came as Raines and Chief Financial Officer Timothy Howard defended the company’s accounting and told Congress that regulators’ allegations of earnings manipulation represented an interpretation of complex rules.

At a House subcommittee hearing, Raines and Howard testified under oath in their first public appearance since news surfaced Sept. 22 about the allegations and a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into government-sponsored Fannie Mae. Lawmakers questioned them closely about an instance in 1998 in which accounting rules were said to have been deliberately violated so that top executives could collect full bonuses.

This is a very serious allegation, and I deny that it occurred,” Raines testified.

The thing is, it DID occur, and much worse.  And it was discovered that Raines had manipulated accounting practices so that senior executives could make millions in bonuses:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Employees at mortgage giant Fannie Mae manipulated accounting so that executives could collect millions in bonuses as senior management deceived investors and stonewalled regulators at a company whose prestigious image was phony, a federal agency charged Tuesday.

The blistering report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the product of an extensive three-year investigation, was issued as the government-sponsored company struggles to emerge from an $11 billion accounting scandal.

Earlier, a person familiar with the situation said that Fannie Mae was being fined between $300 million and $500 million for the alleged manipulation of accounting to facilitate executives’ bonuses, in a settlement with the housing oversight agency.

“The image of Fannie Mae as one of the lowest-risk and ‘best in class’ institutions was a facade,” James B. Lockhart, the acting director of OFHEO, said in a statement as the report was released. “Our examination found an environment where the ends justified the means. Senior management manipulated accounting, reaped maximum, undeserved bonuses, and prevented the rest of the world from knowing.”

The report also faulted Fannie Mae’s board of directors for failing to exercise its oversight responsibilities and failing to discover “a wide variety of unsafe and unsound practices” at the largest buyer and guarantor of home mortgages in the country.

The OFHEO review, involving nearly 8 million pages of documents, details what the agency calls an arrogant and unethical corporate culture. From 1998 to mid-2004, the smooth growth in profits and precisely-hit earnings targets each quarter reported by Fannie Mae were “illusions” deliberately created by senior management using faulty accounting, the report says.

The accounting manipulation tied to executives’ bonuses occurred from 1998 to 2004, according to the report, a much longer period than was previously known.

Lest any not know it, Franklin Raines was a Clinton appointee.

A Wikipedia article (we’ll see how soon it takes to purge it!) talking about the Clinton years is extremely informative in the current ruinous aftermath:

The Clinton Administration’s regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [2] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [3] [4]

Bill Clinton walks off the stage as the conquering hero in the mythical narrative of the liberal media, but IT WAS THESE VERY LOANS BY THESE VERY LENDERS THAT RESULTED IN THE DISASTER WE ARE NOW SUFFERING.

President Bush tried to reform Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the entire housing finance industry before it was too late:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

But his effort to reform the housing finance industry by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was blockedBY DEMOCRATS.

The same New York Times article cited above, dated September 11, 2003 (yet another 9/11 that Democrats caused, and Republicans took the blame for ) ends with these words:

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.

Barney Frank – the same liberal doofus who said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine and not facing any kind of financial crisis – is still around, and still in charge of the Financial Services Committee.

Mel Watts, the race-card playing liberal who opposed reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the grounds that it would prevent poor blacks from getting home loans, is also still around.

And though Barack Obama may be able to distance himself from Franklin Raines – however falsely – he can’t distance himself from another prominent “adviser” – Jim Johnson.  Johnson was briefly appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee until it was discovered that he had benefited from sweetheart Countrywide loans.  And Johnson was another Fannie Mae CEO who was Franklin Raines’ predecessor at Fannie Mae.  He joins a long list of Clinton Democrats who “served” at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and walked away with millions.  Jim Johnson also sits on the board at Goldman Sachs, a company that was also massively invested in subprime loans but managed to sell them short and preserve itself.

And Obama is personally up to his eyeballs in the housing finance collapse in other ways, as well.  Obama is second on the list of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Chris Dodd; and he is second on the list of Lehman Bros’ campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.  Is it any wonder he would appoint Penny Pritzker – who was at the very epicenter of what would come to be the biggest financial scandal in American history, and who paid a $460 million fine to bribe her way out of jail – as his national campaign finance chair.  He also named Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential nominee, in spite of the fact that Biden championed the very bill that many experts and at least two studies attribute to creating the mess that caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their homes and precipitated much of the ensuing financial market meltdown.

Now allow me to provide the contrast between Obama – who is tied by both party and by big money contributions to his political career – with John McCain.  The previously quoted Washington Post says:

This is not an easy one for the Illinois senator because of the companies’ close ties to his party. To be sure, both Republican and Democratic politicos have held well-paid positions in the two firms or have partaken of the tens of millions that they spend on lobbying. But a few Republicans, such as Mr. McCain and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who has been chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, have taken them on over the years, warning about their use of an implicit government guarantee to pursue private profits. Meanwhile, Democrats were not only politically but intellectually committed to the companies, seeing them as innovative public-private institutions that have been a boon to home ownership. In the current crisis, their biggest backers have been Democrats such as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.). Two members of Mr. Obama’s political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.

John McCain fought hard to pass regulations that would control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in May 25, 2006.  But again the measure was killed by Democratic opposition.  Hot Air takes up McCain’s efforts and who killed them:

In this speech, McCain managed to predict the entire collapse that has forced the government to eat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns and AIG.  He hammers the falsification of financial records to benefit executives, including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom have worked as advisers to Barack Obama this year.  McCain also noted the power of their lobbying efforts to forestall oversight over their business practices.  He finishes with the warning that proved all too prescient over the past few days and weeks.

John McCain fought in vain to prevent the collapse of the housing finance market, and would have succeeded had it not been for utterly determined Democratic opposition.  Barack Obama, for his part, led the lists of campaign contribution recipients from both Fannie and Freddie and from disgraced and belly-up Lehman Bros.

There are only 43 days left in this election.  That is not very long for the American people to realize that they are being lied to by the very people and the very party that caused the disaster that has so angered the electorate.

Before Vice President Debate, Palin Already Beating Biden

August 31, 2008

Initially, 67% of voters didn’t have enough information on Sarah Palin to have any opinion whatsoever.  But after the rush of media coverage, 53% now have a favorable opinion of her, versus only 26% with an unfavorable opinion, said Rasmussen.

The most important quote:

“Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters. Obviously, these numbers will be subject to change as voters learn more about her in the coming weeks. Among all voters, 29% have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 9% hold a Very Unfavorable view.”

By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

What I find significant about this is the two numbers – 53% and 63%.  We have never seen Barack Obama or Joe Biden – or for that matter John McCain – poll over 50% at any time.  Paliln’s pull with unaffiliated voters seems incredibly promising.

The full article followed by additional commentary appears below: (more…)

Obama Caught With Yet ANOTHER Radical Association

August 8, 2008

Obama keeps reaching back to his Chicago political past for his policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil rabbit after another out of his hat.

The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not.

They need to be.

Oh, we know about Obama’s 23 years at Trinity United Church of Christ. And we know about Jeremiah Wright. These relationships alone were enough to prompt the leftist Rolling Stone Magazine to acknowledge that:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.

And of course, many have heard the name of Father Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings (what do you call a white man who despises his own race? A liberal).

But many don’t realize that Barack Obama met the radical social activist Father Pfleger while Obama was carrying out his own radical social activism. They don’t realize that Barack Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” was at ACORN, about as radical an organization that one can find in America.

But you haven’t heard quite as much about James Meeks, the third of Obama’s three closest “spiritual advisor’s.” You can hear one of his “sermons” on Youtube.

We certainly could learn more about another of Barack Obama’s friends from Chicago, Penny Pritzker, who heads the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. We can look into her own financial background and learn that not only was she the president of Superior Bank – which massively failed; and not only did she literally personally buy her way out of jail by paying a $460 MILLION dollar “fine”; but that she was at the very epicenter of what would become known as “the subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

We could look at former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee until it was discovered that he had benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

The name Tony Rezko certainly ought to sound familiar.

The name William Ayers, terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend should certainly come to mind.

We could also look at Barack Obama’s youthful associations and see just how radical and troubling they are:

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Barack Obama’s own wife Michelle should have a LOT more explaining to do than her “and for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country,” her, “America is a mean place in 2008” comments. If that’s all you know about her “work,” you have no IDEA. The following short video is guaranteed to give you some “Oh, My God!” moments, or I’ll refund your money:

Now we find another Obama association that exposes a whole other ugly can of worms.

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed as the national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign (if this link fails you will know that the Obama campaign is continuing to scrub its website) less than two weeks ago, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund’s board – which also included a fundamentalist imam – prompting The Wall Street Journal to email inquiries. Asbahi attempted to make his brief time on a board the issue, when the real issues were his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his 8-year long personal relationship with Hamas fundraiser Jamal Said.

Gee, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. If you really want people to forget that you are the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; if you want them to forget that you attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child and even practiced Islam; if you want them to forget that you campaigned in Kenya on behalf of your cousin, Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and even violence in his campaign; numerous other troubling associations between yourself and radical Muslims; forget those photographs of you waling around in traditional Muslim clothes, well then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t hang around with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and another radical pal of yours, the anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

It is frankly impossible for me to understand how Barack Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination. That so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is – beyond the fact that he is the Democrat in the race – is simply amazing.

Democrats Demagogue and Lie About Oil – As Usual

July 29, 2008

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday as his Democrats failed to move their energy bill:

They’ve come up with the most unbelievable dodge that I can remember. They said, ‘We’re not going to do anything on speculation because it’s no longer important,’ even though it’s part of their bill.

But that’s a bald faced lie, and he knows it.

Republicans have repeatedly said they were willing to deal on speculation, and alternative energy, and other things the Democrats want. But they insist that drilling on federal lands – which is now off limits on and off shore because of Democrats – be part of any package they will support. As usual, Democrats prove themselves to be dishonest manipulators rather than straight dealers.

You want another example of Democrats’ bald faced lies – again from the top Democrat in the Senate? Speaking again about speculation (i.e. the oil futures market), Reid said:

Something that will lower prices by 20-50%. And I think that, uh, one of the reasons the price of oil has gone down… you’ll note that it has gone down since we started, introduced, since we introduced our legislation dealing with speculation.

No it isn’t, and he knows it. On July 14, President Bush ended the executive ban on offshore drilling. The very next day saw the price of oil take the biggest drop in 17 years.

Within two days of Bush’s signing the executive order, the price of oil dropped from nearly $145 a barrel to $130.73 a barrel. And within four days, it had dropped to $128.88. And Harry Reid wants to take credit for this drop in price with his incredibly airheaded speculation bill that never really had a chance of overcoming a filibuster to begin with?

In the House, Democrats are putting the energy bill on the “suspension calender” in a move that will require a 2/3 majority to pass any legislation, but which prevents the Republicans from adding ANY amendments to allow for drilling on federal lands or contribute in any way.

Democrats are so paranoid that a drilling amendment might be introduced that they would rather scuttle any meaningful vote whatsoever.

Why did President Bush lift the ban?:

The White House announced today that President Bush will lift an executive order banning offshore oil drilling, a move aimed at stepping up pressure on Congress to end the prohibition it imposed in 1981.

The futures market reduced the price of oil because they saw the very real possibility that the American political system might finally get itself in gear to increase the supply of oil. Increased supplies lower prices. It’s as simple as that.

It is just like the Democrat Party to do everything possible to cause the problem for restricting the oil supply, and then try to claim credit for lowering prices. They are the worst kind of backstabbing liars you could possibly ever deal with.

To add to the sheer insanity of the Democrat’s position on energy, Sen. Charles Schumer said the same day:

The bottom line is very simple. We Democrats believe in the future when it comes to energy policy. We believe in alternative energy, we believe we have to wean ourselves away from oil and dependency from people like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Putin. And they want to throw themselves right into their owns because big oil wants it. So the equations is simple. The Republicans equal big oil and the past. They do what big oil wants. We democrats represent alternatives weaning ourselves away from oil and the future.

So Democrats state that they have no intention of doing anything to increase the supply of oil or doing anything meaningful to reduce the cost even as they blame the Republicans who ARE trying to increase the oil supply.

Or to put it another way, how on earth can Democrats be both for oil and against oil at the same time?

And pandering demagogue that Schumer is, he labels Republicans as stooges of the oil companies which he and other Democrats have repeatedly demonized.

Oil companies certainly have their flaws. But they have one essential virtue: they produce oil. And in demonizing oil companies, Democrats have long-since crossed the line into demonizing the oil that these companies produce.

Or, to put it in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s words:

“Those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is, coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, its Global Warming, its ruining our Country, its ruining our World.”

Democrats are clearly opposed to oil. And that’s why the supplies are so low and the prices are so high.

You just remember something. Right now we are dependent upon oil. That is why Al Gore keeps flying his fuel-gobbling private jets and getting himself ferried around in gas-guzzling convoys of SUVs. Oil is what we have, and it is very difficult to go without it – even for the hypocrites who tell everyone else to do so.

Democrats like Schumer and Reid are not just part of the problem – they ARE THE PROBLEM. Because of Democrats, we are doing nothing to tap our own massive energy resources. Because of Democrats, we are therefore forced to go to the very dictators that Schumer named and give them $700 billion a year for something we could be producing ourselves.

We can either go on listening to one stupid self-serving lie and excuse after another, or we can vote these fools out and elect men and women who will allow this country to provide itself with the energy we need.

A Hope For Some Rare Awareness About The Economy

July 21, 2008

I was in a Wal Mart store a little while back, and got into an argument with an older employee with whom I have periodically chatted.

In that discussion, I discovered that the man was a Democrat, and a pretty liberal one to boot.

And I learned that he had a terribly flawed memory about the Clinton years.

His primary contention was that he had never seen the regional economy so bad. He told me, “When Clinton was president, I had no trouble finding work. But now this Wal Mart job is the best I can get.”

Well, to put it into six words: he’s wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

The Press Enterprise, Riverside County’s (and the Inland Empire’s) largest paper, had a front-page article on July 19 titled “Inland unemployment rate hits 8 percent, highest in 9 years.”

I didn’t have to pull out my calculator to realize that “nine years ago we were in the height of the Clinton presidency.

So why on earth was my liberal Democrat friend at Wal Mart so completely wrong?

Partially because that’s precisely what the media told him to think (you ever hear that sarcastic expression, ‘If I want your opinion I’ll give it to you’?).

John R. Lott did a study that demonstrated that the media viewed the economy through rose-colored glasses during the Clinton years even when the economy was in fact entering a recession. By contrast, we have been hearing the word “recession” for the better part of a year now under a Republican president even when the economy was actually growing and even though the economy is STILL not in recession according to the standard definition of the term. When Bill Clinton was president, the media largely saw even negative news through rose-colored glasses. By contrast, throughout the Bush presidency, the media has been hypercritical – as well as hypocritical – of virtually every economic development.

It is simply a demonstrable fact that the media have for years given Democratic administrations’ economic performance every benefit of the doubt, and given Republican administrations’ economic performance an unrelentingly critical review. Republicans aren’t angry that the media is portraying the economy as being in a recession; they are angry because the media subjectively and unfairly refuse to evaluate Democrat-managed economies by the same standards.

And when it comes to the economy, perception often becomes reality, because people who think that the economy is tanking will invariably begin to act in ways that subsequently cause the economy to tank. As one example, if people are continually told that the economy will worsen and the housing market will continue to decline, will they buy homes now, or will they hold off and wait for the market to further decline and lower prices further? But by waiting, they are actually contributing to the market’s actual decline.

So the same media that helps to create positive perceptions of the economy during Democratic administrations helps to undermine the economy during Republican administrations. They frequently resort to downright irresponsible reporting to do so. And when Democrat and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich used the term “DEPRESSION” to describe the Bush economy, he was going beyond even the irresponsible media and pandering to the very lowest form of demagoguery.

Is our economy really doing so terrible?

Just to demonstrate how horrifyingly irresponsible Robert Reich was in his prediction of a “Bush depression” on March 14, 2008, the VERY NEXT DAY the story emerged that the United States continues to have the best and most competitive economy in the world!

I hate to be rude, but Reich revealed himself for the vile little pandering and demagoguing rodent that he is. Yet rabid little rat or not, he continues to be paraded from elite media network to network with all the fanfare of an enlightened analyst who truly understands what is going on.

My liberal friend at Wal Mart assured me that the economy was always great under Clinton, and that Clinton balanced the budget. The fact that neither statement is true doesn’t matter. Today’s liberals are fitted with psychological filters designed to prevent truth from entering their minds.

First of all, Bill Clinton most certainly did not get off to all that great of a start as president. If he had, he wouldn’t have contributed to the greatest landslide in political history with a massive 52 seat swing in the ’94 midterm elections that put the Republicans in power for the next dozen years.

Furthermore, President Clinton – all ubiquitous media misrepresentation aside – most certainly DID NOT balance the budget. What he did was fiddle with the numbers to pay off the public debt by borrowing from the intergovernmental debt (particularly from the Social Security Trust Fund). The so-called “Clinton surplus” is simply a myth: The national debt continued to grow and grow and grow, and the last Clinton budget was $133.29 billion in the red.

And when President Clinton left office, he also left President Bush with an economy that was very definitely stumbling into a recession about as bad as the one we’re stumbling into now. He also left President Bush with Osama bin Laden (when he rejected a Somali offer to literally hand him over to us) and with an al Qaeda that was growing stronger and stronger after repeatedly attacking the United States throughout the Clinton administration.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that:

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Please don’ think that the vicious 9/11 attacks – which President Clinton could have nipped in the bud by taking out its chief leader and architect – didn’t massively hurt the U.S. economy. Yet a liberal media ensured that President Bush duly received all the blame for both the recession and the attack.

The Press Enterprise article points out that a year ago, the two-county unemployment figure was a reasonable 5.9%. If anything, we have Nancy Pelosi and her “commonsense plan” to thank as much as anyone for the dramatic increase that has taken place during the oversight of a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. But you can count on the fact that the media will never connect the economic downturn to the Democrat’s control of Congress the way they routinely connect President Bush to it.

What’s caused the dramatic negative economic turnaround in the last year?

Is it the sky-high increase in oil prices? I have written again and again that it is Democrats – and Democrats virtually alone – who deserve the blame for the current situation by refusing to allow us to act in a responsible way by drilling the oil we have right under our feet and right off our shores.

See my articles (in order from the earliest to the most recent):

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

Blame Democrats for Sky-High Gas Prices

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat’s Ideological Stand Against Domestic Oil Terrible for US Economy & Security

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama: The Three Stooges of American Energy Policy

Is it the secondary market fiasco and the subsequent housing market collapse? While Republicans deservedly merit some of the blame, let us not forget that it was Democrats who demanded that poor and unqualified borrowers had to have access to home loans. And let us not forget that the principle political figures involved in the subsequent scandal have been Democrats (Former Fannie Mae Chairman and former Barack Obama key assistant Jim Johnson, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad headline the list among other prominent Democrats).

The media that would have left no stone unturned in launching exhaustive and well-covered investigations into Republicans in any kind of similar situation has conveniently allowed the Democrat’s scandal to vanish off the headlines. They continue to play the part – of Democrat apologist and enabler – that they have chosen for themselves all along.

And we saw an all-too typical example of Democrats and the media ganging up to harm the economy under a Republican administration. Sen. Charles Schumer unnecessarily notified the public of the impending federal takeover of IndyMac in California, creating the equally unnecessary lines and panic among account holders. And then there was the media flocking like vultures, breathlessly envisioning one worst-case scenario for the American economy after another.

Don’t you DARE try to claim that Democrats – who were so utterly consumed with investigating baseball players’ for allegations of steroid abuse and with repeatedly demonzing oil executives at one communist-type show trial “hearing” after another that they were entirely blindsided by the secondary market collapse – were one iota less to blame than the Republicans even at their worst.

And don’t you dare believe that Republicans under George Bush mismanaged the economy in spite of the Democrats’ best attempts to keep it rolling smoothly along. If anything, it was precisely the other way around.

My liberal friend is responsible for unquestioningly believing the liberal media spin rather than engaging in the critical thinking that would let him see the truth about the disinformation campaign going around all around him. Please don’t make the same mistake.

Obama’s Democratic Debate Goofs

April 18, 2008

During the 16 April Democratic debate, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Barack Obama the following question:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

SENATOR OBAMA: “George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.”

What exactly can we say about a man who equates being a murderer and a terrorist bomber with being a pro-life conservative U.S. Senator? Isn’t that frankly over-the-top nuts? Not to a liberal, so it’s perfectly okay in the People’s Republic of Leftistan. Surprise, pro-lifers: you’re just as vile as terrorist bombing murderers! How dare you believe babies deserve to live!!! Quit clinging to your religion, you bitter people!

And the fact that Ayers bombed some 20 places forty years in the past (and, just to make sure we all know, Ayers has admitted his involvement in the bombings; he was arrested and tried for the crime, but was acquited on a technicality) when Barack Obama was “8 years old” should somehow mean its okay to be his buddy now?

Beyond the affirmation that Barack Obama and William Ayers “were friendly” comes the realization that Obama went to Ayers’ house to garner support for his campaign. The two men went to speaking engagements together. They served on the same board together. They had the sort of relationship that Americans would not expect between candidate for the office of President of the United States and admitted terrorist bomber of American targets.

Do you think it will be okay to be in a friendly relationship with an unrepentant al Qaeda terrorist who killed Americans in a few decades? Is that a guy you don’t mind being on friendly terms with? Apparently, if you are a liberal, it’s just not that bad.

Here was another magic moment during the debate:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS (asking about Rev. Jeremiah White): But you do believe he’s as patriotic as you are?

SENATOR OBAMA: This is somebody who’s a former Marine. And so I have — I believe that he loves this country, but I also believe that he’s somebody who, because of the experiences he’s had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices that he’s seen.

Well, Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, too. And he was pretty darned angry about injustice, as well. Does that make Lee Harvey Oswald a patriot too, Senator Obama?

A liberal patriot, of course, is a person who dedicates his life to attacking and undermining America (oh, I’m sorry: AmeriKKKa).

Oh, as a follow-up question, as a white man living in poverty, could you please explain how Reverend Wright – who will be living in a 10,000 ft/sq house located on the fairway of an exclusive country club with a $10,000,000 line of church money – is angry? And what I did to him? I’m not sure I get that.

The resulting media firestorm has been both predictable and amusing. The New York Times – the flagship of the elite media – thought it entirely appropriate to write a front page story about a “relationship” Senator John McCain had with a female lobbyist. The story was clearly nothing more than an uncooborated hatchet piece alleging impropriety and sleeze against a Republican. But when there are genuine, documented events concerning Senator Obama’s pastor for 20 years, concerning a former Marxist terrorist whom his own campaign acknowledged as being a friend – these things should be completely off limits?

I have heard liberals ask, “How would John Mccain like it if the media looked into his pastor?” I honestly don’t think the man would mind. Unlike Barack Obama, I don’t think John McCain has been sitting under a Marxist preacher for twenty years. Nor do I think he’s friendly with terrorist bombers who attacked the United States.

This little allegory might help liberals understand why Barack Obama’s relationship with William Ayers is disturbing:

Senator John McCain was linked today with a former Army of God member who bombed a string of women’s health clinics that provided abortion, it was revealed today. In 1985, Michal Bray was charged with conspiracy, following a series of clinic bombings. The Maryland Metropolitan Medical Women’s Center, a Planned Parenthood office and also the Washington Office of the American Civil Liberties Union were bombed. Two doctors who performed abortions were killed in the attacks.

“Reporters verified that Senator John McCain served on a board with Mr. Bray, and the two attended a number of speaking engagements together. When his campaign was contacted for comment with the story, McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson acknowledged, “They’re certainly friendly with each other.”

Michal Bray has repeatedly acknoweldged taking part in the bombings, and several years ago said, “My only regret is that I didn’t bomb more abortion clinics” at the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade Decision.

And, again:
“In an unrelated story, we have just obtained video of Senator John McCain’s paster for the past twenty years, the Rev. Tom Robbe, engaged in a series of racist rants against African Americans. The Senator has been a member of Rev. Robbe’s congregation for the past twenty years. The church features a “White family contract” and preaches white separatism.

In one video-taped sermon, Rev. Robbe calls African-Americans “degenerate criminals, drug addicts, murderers, rapists, and gang banging thugs who have children like rabbits and inflict their animal behavior on white America.” In other videos he claimed that America deserved 9/11 for tolerating black behavior and for not shipping blacks off to Africa.

Contacted for comment, Senator McCain said he was shocked at the the racist comments, and claimed that he had not been in the church when the remarks were made.

I made up these stories. But imagine they were true. As a liberal, what would you think of Senator John McCain? Would liberals and the liberal media be saying, “Well, we can’t convict a man of guilt by association“? No friggin’ way!!! They would not only be demanding that Senator McCain suspend his presidential campaign; they would be hysterically demanding that he resign from the U.S. Senate!!! You KNOW they would.

And rightfully so. If John McCain had those associations, it would disqualify him from ever being president, and should frankly disqualify him from continuing to serve in the U.S. Senate.

But please tell me the difference between Senator Obama’s “associations” and the one’s I just made up (and realize, the only reason I have to make them up is because – unlike with Obama’s – they didn’t happen). It turns out that the only difference is the fact that Obama’s bomber bombed the Pentagon and New York Police headquarters (good targets from a liberal perspective) and my bomber bombed abortion clinics (bad targets from a liberal perspective). And it turns out that Obama’s pastor is an anti-American anti-white racist (good targets from a liberal perspective) and the pastor I desribed is an anti-American anti-black racist (bad targets from a liberal perspective).

It is time that liberals grew up and learned that hate is hate, and racism is racism, and it is simply unacceptable from anybody – particularly when it can be associated with a man who wants to be the president of the United States.

Any genuine candidate of reconciliation would not EVER have tolerated such people in his life. He would have confronted their racism, their anti-Americanism, and (in the case of Ayers) their violence against Americans, and they would have refused to associate with them. Period.

In Defense of Life

March 27, 2008

There are many people who oppose the abortion industry, but they generally can’t do a very good job explaining why. The Republican Party is officially pro-life in its platform, but I’ve never heard a GOP candidate offer a good reason for being pro-life. But there are excellent reasons for being pro-life, and it is way past time that society heard them.

Democrats and “pro-choice” proponents offer “a woman’s right to choose” as the primary reason to support abortion. But let us think about that for a moment: should women have “a right to choose?” Sure they should, up to a certain point. But should that right extend to anything a woman might want to do? What if she wants to drive her car through a crowd of people? What if she wants to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper? Clearly, a woman doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a right to do anything she chooses. The first question needs therefore needs to be, “the right to choose to do what?”

If you were busily working on peeling potatoes over the kitchen sink when your oldest child came in and said, “Is it okay if I kill this?” What would you do? Would you say, “Sure! Go ahead! Since I’m not certain of the ontological status of whatever you’re considering killing, I’ll leave the decision up to you!” Or would you turn around and look to make sure your little gremlin wasn’t talking about your youngest child? (Or maybe it wouldn’t matter, because you’d figure your firstborn was exercising that sacrosanct “right to choose“?). The ability to use rhetoric to cast metaphysical doubt on the meaning of “being human” does not mean that ignorance is bliss, and one can abort at will. The fact of the matter is, we haven’t even begun to understand the miraculous – and it truly is miraculous – process of a baby forming in mommy’s womb. The age of viability has decreased dramatically; medical experts have been repeatedly proven dead wrong again and again in determining brain function in comatose patients who later recovered after being declared ‘brain dead’; the Hippocratic Oath recited by doctors for centuries explicitly banned the performing of abortions; and so on, and so on. When in doubt, why not choose life?

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

And then there’s that whole “It’s a woman’s body” line. That one falls rather flat as well. The fact is that that from the moment of fertilization there is a separate, distinct, unique genetic individual in the mother’s womb; every cell in its little body is different from that of its mother. Half of children are male, for goodness sake! We are clearly not talking about a woman’s body; we are talking about her child’s body.

Then there’s the notion of a woman’s rights to her own body, which views the baby in her womb as a hostile invader forcing itself upon her. Why should she carry it to term if she doesn’t want to? Well, for one thing, because it’s her child. The so-called “violinist argument” is fatally flawed from the outset by casting a woman’s child in terms of an unwanted intruder whom the woman has no moral obligation to care for. Furthermore, we would never consider that rather despicable line of moral reasoning after a child is born – when it actually requires a far greater sacrifice and burden to care for (ask a new mother whether her child required more chasing around the house before or after birth). We go from the rather passive act of “being pregnant” to the extremely active act of caring for a newborn – and that burden proceeds to continue for years as the child grows up. Leave your five year old at home and go gamble in Las Vegas for a week and see what happens when you come back home if you don’t believe me. See how far that, “But I have a right to my own body” line takes you. It ought to take you all the way to jail for abandoning your child.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the “woman’s right to her own body” argument, then let us think about the way they are using the term “rights.” We must realize that in virtually every case one person’s right presupposes someone else’s duty. One person’s right to freedom of speech imposes the duty upon the remainder of society to tolerate what might be offensive to them for the greater good of a free society. In other cases, the duty imposed is far more selective: When liberals describe the duty of the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, they are imposing a duty on a small class of people. The wealthiest 5% of Americans already pay 57% of the taxes, and the wealthiest 10% pay 68% of the tab. The top 1% earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes; meanwhile the “poorest” 50% of Americans earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes. This introduces a legitimate question for some future discussion: just how much more should the wealthy be expected to pay? [Don’t allow the issue of taxation to distract you from my argument: I merely raise taxation as an issue in which certain advocates subjectively claim that a few should have a duty to pay more, while the majority should have a right to pay less]. But in the case of abortion, the right given to the mother presupposes the most extreme duty upon one single individual – her child – the duty to die for the convenience of its mother. On the side of the “right of a woman to choose” are not only women who suddenly find themselves pregnant and their anxious parents, but hedonistic men and women who want to abdicate any responsibility for their “sexual expression,” along with a powerful media culture that aggressively pursues the same end, a powerful abortion industry and its lobby, the stem cell research lobby, unelected judges who impose their will on society, etcetera. Who is on the side of the right of the unborn to live? The Constitution – which guarantees the right to life as preeminent over all others – but other than that, far too few allies. One side has sole access to the megaphone; the other cannot speak. If we were to stop focusing on the Constitutionally-invisible “right to choose” and focus just for a moment on the DUTY OF PARENTS to nurture and care for their children, we would have a very different discussion indeed. I cannot help but remember the slogan of the Ministry of Health vans that Nazi Germany used to haul away retarded children, epileptics, children with malformed ears, chronic bed wetters, and the like to their deaths: Lebensunwertes Leben – “Life Unworthy of Life.” Today I still see cars bearing bumper stickers with the equally oxymoronic – but far more deadly – slogan, “Pro child, Pro choice.” What a shame that so many Americans have so blithely come to champion Nazi morality.

Then there’s that, “It’s only a potential human being” pseudo-argument. First of all, I’m not even sure what it means to be “a potential human being” – and neither do those who are reciting it. I do understand what it means to be “a human being with potential.” Let us begin this discussion with the straightforward observation that had your mother decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, that you would not have been born. It would NOT have been some potential you that perished; it would have been you. You would have been one of the nearly 50,000,000 babies in America alone who were killed by abortion. Just as you were once a child, once a toddler, once an infant, you were also once a fetus, once an embryo, once a zygote. Killing you while you in any of those stages would have killed you just as dead.

And let us pause for a moment to consider what murder actually does to the victim. The character Clint Eastwood played in Unforgiven put it pretty well: “When you kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he’s ever going to have.” A human baby will naturally inherit every quality of human life unless someone steps in and unnaturally ends that life. It is simply his or her nature as a human being to do so. You merely have to contemplate your own life to consider what would have been taken away from you had you been among the abortion statistics. This idea of “potential” as some ambiguous term that allows a mother to kill her baby is as ridiculous as it is amoral. If I were to walk up to you in a parking lot as you got out of your car and shoot you to death, what would I be guilty of? I certainly didn’t take away your past, as it has already happened. And if your future – when is clearly merely “potential” – doesn’t count, all I truly deprived you of is the two or three seconds of immediate conscious awareness. And I could have deprived you of at least that much had I merely asked you for the time instead of shooting you! For murder to be a serious crime, “potential” has to be a real, tangible thing that has intrinsic, incommensurable value. To attempt to argue that an unborn baby’s potential is somehow meaningless but a born person’s matters is both a fundamentally irrational and immoral distinction that leads inevitably to a degradation in the value of human life. Tyrants have routinely made the same type of “status of humanity determined by selective criterion” distinction when they said that Jews, or blacks, or any other class of people should not matter.

Deep down, I believe that even the Democrats and other abortion advocates realize the immorality of abortion in their choice of language. They demonstrate this by reciting the new mantra, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” But why on earth should it be rare if it is a fundamental human right? How many other basic rights should be rare? Put “free speech,” “freedom of the press,” “the right to peaceably assemble,” or any other right that liberals hold as sacrosanct into this “____ should be safe, legal, and rare” equation and see how it flies. If abortion is a good thing, why on earth should it be rare? In point of fact, we should be encouraging more of it, not less.

During the Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates, when Douglas said that states ought to have a right to choose the institution of slavery, Lincoln famously said, “One cannot say that people have a right to do wrong.” Fortunately the country chose Lincoln’s moral reasoning over Douglas’. The Civil War was subsequently waged by a Confederacy which argued that their own rights were being systematically violated, even as they inhumanly violated the most fundamental rights of the blacks they oppressed. Apart from the fact that the party of Lincoln, the party of abolition, was the Republican Party and the party of Douglas, the party of institutionalized slavery, was the Democratic Party, I cannot help but see the parallels between the Party of Slavery and the Party of Abortion. For one thing, the Party of Abortion uses the identical arguments to justify its abominable institution that the Party of Slavery relied upon. For another, the Party of Abortion is just as insistent upon its “rights” as was the Party of Slavery, even as they systematically violate the rights of the most innocent and most helpless.