Posts Tagged ‘President’

Do American Christians Care About the Iranian Election Demonstrations?

June 22, 2009

We see you, Iran.

We don’t fully know what to make of what is going on, but we definitely see you.

For one thing, we don’t know for sure if the election that is being protested was fraudulent in the first place.  We know that a pre-election poll from May 11 (three weeks before the election) predicted much the same results that were officially released by Iran: a more than 2-1 victory for Ahmadinejad, with Ahmadinejad even winning in leading contender Moussavi’s home town.

And we don’t know what to make of Mir Hussein Moussavi: a man who took part in the Iranian Revolution that ushered in the rule of the ayatollahs; a man who governed with the full backing of the ayatollahs as Prime Minister; and a man who supported Iran’s nuclear program.  We don’t know that the man who may or may not have been usurped by fraud wouldn’t be better than, as bad as, or worse than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been.

What we DO know is that millions of Iranian demonstrators are out on the streets.

We also know that the Iranian regime is attempting to block the world from seeing these public demonstrations by restricting journalists and blocking demonstrator’s access to media, internet, and cellular sources.

And we know that demonstrators are being beaten and even killed.

The world IS watching, Iran.  And it DOES SEE what is happening.

You do not need to fear that no one knows or cares what is happening.  You do not need to fear that the regime can simply crack down by cracking skulls, and that no one in the rest of the world will care.

If you are living in Iran, you should know: we in America do not support the Iranian theocratic regime.  We do not support the Ayatollahs, and we want to see the “1979 revolution” defeated.

Nor do we support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Or Mir Hussein Moussavi, for that matter.

We do not even necessarily support the Iranian people.

What we DO support is liberty and democracy, not only for the Iranian people, but for ALL people of every race, and of every creed.

Nearly fifty years ago now, President John F. Kennedy said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

And while America has never perfectly defended liberty, we have always had the best of intentions in trying to defend and spread liberty to the world.

The United States fought against the evils of communism nearly alone.  The war in Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War which we ultimately won.  But in the aftermath of our defeat and withdraw from Indochina, millions were murdered or allowed to starve to death by the communists.  And in the decades that followed, the United States took the side of the oppressed Muslims against the Serbs in Bosnia.  That same United States would later overthrow Saddam Hussein, who had buried at least 400,000 of his own people in mass graves, and help bring about a stable democracy in Iraq.

In the 1980s, Russian dissidents – some of whom were literally being tortured in the gulags – expressed being “overjoyed” when an American president announced that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” which the United States would oppose.  Great dissidents such as Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Natan Sharansky realized that they were no longer alone against a monstrous system.  That they had powerful allies on the outside who were aware of the crimes going on, and who sided with them against the brutal regime.

When freedom finally came to Poland, after decades of totalitarian control by the U.S.S.R., it turned out to be Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan who had been at the heart of the revolution.

It was Natan Sharansky who called George W. Bush “the dissident president” because of his goal of bringing democracy to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and who predicted Bush would largely fight for democracy in the world alone.

Mr. Sharansky says of his adversaries among the Western intellectual elite: “Those people who are always wrong–they were wrong about the Soviet Union, they were wrong about Oslo [the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian peace deal], they were wrong about appeasing Yasser Arafat–they are the intellectual leaders of these battles. So what can I tell you?”

In the same way, the great writer and Soviet dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, who likewise experienced the gulags, likewise found himself attacked by Western “intellectual” elites after he delivered his great address entitled “A World Split Apart.”  Following that address, the same “Western intellectual elite” that Sharansky would come to deride as “wrong about everything” attacked Solzhenitsyn.

And upon what value system did these great changes occur?

As you seek to throw off the yoke of theocratic oppression by Ayatollahs, allow me to humbly advise you not to sever yourselves from religion or religious principles, however.

It was George Washington who said:

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…  Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

It might amaze you, Iranian Muslims, that your greatest allies in the West could be Christians.

Christians disagree with Muslims regarding the name and even the nature and purpose of God, but we can agree with any Muslim dissident that there is in fact a transcendent God who created human beings and intended them to have personal freedom, liberty and dignity.

Read Solzhenitsyn address, Iranian people.  Understand what he meant.  His speech excoriated the West for its immorality, materialism, and godlessness.  He affirmed traditional cultures against the all-encompassing mass culture of Western secularism.  He dissected Western materialism and its fixation on comfort and pleasure, which had drained away its capacity for courage and sacrifice.  He deplored the way our laws had been divorced from morality.  And he said, “Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror.”

Solzhenitsyn argued that both the communist East and the secularist West suffered from the same spiritual sickness.  And he concluded that, “No one on earth has any way left but – upward.”  Toward God and His transcendent values.  An outraged New York Times editorial summarized the very postmodernism Solzhenitsyn was damning: “He believes himself to be in possession of The Truth” (from “The Obsession of Solzhenitsyn,” New York Times, 13 June 1978).

But Alexandr Solzhenitsyn did have The Truth.  He had found it in the transcendent values of religion.  By contrast, he had NOT found it in Western secularism.

If the people of Iran truly want to throw off the shackles of brutal government control and oppression, we Christians in the West will stand with you.  Because we believe – as the American founding fathers believed – that every human being is created in the image of God, and possesses God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don’t care who you want for your president.  And we believe you have a right to be Muslims because God gives you the ultimate freedom – along with the ultimate responsibility – to be who you want to be, and to believe what you want to believe.

We care only about a peaceful and democratic Iran, where every citizen has God-ordained liberty and the right to pursue freedom, along with the happiness and prosperity that come with genuine freedom.

And it is as a Christian that I pray for the safety and success of Iranian demonstrators.

If Obama Wins, Should Republicans Hope Democrats Win HUGE?

November 2, 2008

The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race.  I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points.  This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide.  Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?”  “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?”  Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama.  I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.

But I’ve got to face reality.  Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right.  I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him).  But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections?  What should we hope for during the course of the next two years?  During an Obama Presidency?  Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster?  Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process?  Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?

You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there.  They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party.  They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence.  They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.

It’s what I always wanted.  At least up to now.  I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief.  I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest.  And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army.  During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!”  I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him.  I prayed for his wisdom and leadership.  Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them.  They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.

But something happened to me.  Maybe I began to stop being proud of my country when Michelle Obama finally STARTED being proud of hers.  Maybe it was when I discovered that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual adviser for 23 years years said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  He called America “the US of KKK A.”  And Democrats didn’t care about this outrage.  Maybe it was when I found out that Barack Obama had partnered with a man who had bombed the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York Police headquarters, who said on 9/11/2001 that he not only didn’t regret setting bombs, he felt he didn’t bomb enough.  Finding out that Obama’s rat bastard pal dedicated a book to Robert Kennedy murderer Sirhan Sirhan sure didn’t help.  I suppose that I feel that if a man like this could actually be elected President of the United States, that there must be something profoundly wrong with the country and with the people who live in it.

I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America.  Or even wish it well.  We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies.  In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed.  I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.

If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA!  THE U.S. OF KKK A!!!  And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”

I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him.  I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.”  They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.

I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.”  Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.

I wonder how many conservatives will criticize me for my new feelings about Obama’s “new America.”  One thing is for certain: No one who votes for Barack Obama can criticize me; you can’t vote for ‘God damn America’ and then criticize me for saying the same thing.  I’ll bring up the last guy you Democrats nominated, and how John Kerry accused his fellow servicemen as a bunch of genocidal war criminalsbefore taking it back – and how he threw away his medals.  I won’t throw away my medals; they remind me of a country I loved, and was once so proud to serve and even shed my blood to defend.  I’ll bring up how Democrat after Democrat after Democrat justified the Iraq War until they cynically and cravenly repudiated that support for sheer political expedience.  Even though nearly 60% of Democratic Senators had voted for that war.  Even though the measure passed by wider margins in both branches of Congress than the 1991 war resolution.  I’ll bring up Rep. Jack Murtha, who accused innocent Marines of murderous war crimes before he accused his own Pennsylvanian voters of being racists.   I’ll bring up Sen. Dick Durbin, who compared U.S. servicemen to Nazis.  I’ll bring up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was so quick to proclaim defeat for American soldiers while they were fighting on the battlefield.  I’ll bring up Democratic Whip James Clyburn, who said that success in Iraq “would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”  I’ll bring up every single sermon that Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years preached, right down to the last hateful word.  Right down to calling the United States “the US of KKK A.”  Hell, I could start bombing buildings like Barack Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers and Democrats couldn’t accuse me of squat without being even bigger even hypocrites than they already are.

But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President.  I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism.  The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.

The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair.  It can happen in two ways:

The US economy – and in fact the world economy – are facing a crisis.  And while leftist media propaganda may be assuring you that Obama will be better for the economy, our investors and our business leaders most assuredly do not agree at all.  “Over 70% of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.”  And the financial market – which is already selling off in expectation of an Obama win – would face a “dramatic sell-off on Wall Street” if Democrats make the huge gains they are anticipated to win.  Wall Street is terrified of an Obama presidency.  Obama’s radicalism and socialistic redistribution policies, his doomed-to-fail massive health care plan, his steadfast refusal to exploit our domestic oil resources in favor of “alternative energy” sources that can’t possibly meet our energy needs, and the fact that his every move will be backed by tax-and-spend liberals hungry for power and a propagandist media – serving as apologists – will all come together to doom our economy.

Obama has promised $4.3 TRILLION in new spending, even as his tax redistribution plan is guaranteed to shrink the tax base as the wealthy shelter their assets.  Where are we going to get all that money?  Democrats believe their messiah can turn water into money.  But the people will ultimately come to see that they are wrong.  And no amount of media propaganda will ultimately be able to hide that reality.

I wonder what will happen when Americans discover that Democrats want to socialize their 401Ks?

The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.

Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship.  Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves.  Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years.  When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.  Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency.  Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too.  That only seems fair.  I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.

The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help.  At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.

We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis.  Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran.  Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.

When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return.  That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks.  But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country.  Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama.  One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.

I believe that if the country wants to hop aboard a freight train that’s going to steam full speed off a cliff, then Republicans – if they’re smart – ought to get as much out of the way as they possibly can and be ready to pick up the pieces after the dust settles.  Vote against everything so its on the official record, but let the Democrats hang themselves.  If Republicans finally decide to be as cynical as Democrats have been for  years, they might even consider doing everything possible behind the scenes to sow havoc and discord both in domestic and international policy, so they can then turn around and blame the Democrats’ “failed policies” just like the Democrats did to them.  You can hardly blame them, once you get past that whole “But that would be un-American!” thing.  After all, that hardly stopped Democrats, and they’ve benefited mightily from doing it.  I mean, you’ve got Democrats agreeing with Republicans on the need to remove Saddam Hussein, only to despicably turn on them the moment it was to their advantage to do so.  You’ve got Charles Rangel comparing the US action in Iraq to the Holocaust; you’ve got Dick Durbin comparing American troops to Nazis;  you’ve got Barack Obama suggesting that our troops have to do more than just air raiding villages and killing civilivans.  You’ve got Democrats accusing innocent Marines of being murdering war criminals; you’ve got Democrats declaring defeat in Iraq while our troops were fighting in the field; you’ve got Democrats acknowledging that good news in Iraq was bad news for Democrats; you’ve got Democrats opposing the surge strategy that brought us to victory; you’ve got Democrats falling all over themselves to support the reasons for going to war against Iraq before they fell all over themselves to attack Republicans for going to war against Iraq.  If the American people approve of and vote for that kind of conduct, why shouldn’t Republicans look at the polls and follow suit?

Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl.  But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen.  The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.

Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil.  God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A.  We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died.  That sort of thing.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama: Media Ignores 300 Generals, Admirals Who Endorsed McCain

October 20, 2008

For anyone who hasn’t heard yet, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama today.  It’s been pretty hard to miss in the media.

I’m sure you were also equally well aware of the fact that 300 generals and admirals endorsed John McCain on September 26, 2008. I mean, it would amount to a media cover-up if they didn’t tell you about that significant development.

Oh, yeah, that’s right; the American media learned their trade from Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda himself.

That means you probably haven’t heard about the overwhelming support for John McCain by the professional military.  Here are the poll numbers:

If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Total: 68% for McCain; 23% for Obama

Enlisted Personnel:
68% for McCain; 24% for Obama

Officers
70% for McCain; 22% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
74% for McCain; 19% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling military personnel issues, such as pay and benefits?
73% for McCain; 18% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling Defense Department issues, such as weapons purchases, the size of the armed forces and national security strategy?
77% for McCain; 15% for Obama

And here’s a link to the corresponding story in the Army Times.

Oh, well.  It didn’t favor Barack Obama.  So it wasn’t worth reporting.  Goebbels didn’t print a whole lot of anti-Hitler stuff either, you know.

What I don’t understand is why the endorsement of the chief defender of the War in Iraq (that’s Powell) would matter for a guy who said that the Iraq War was the stupidest thing we’ve ever done (that’s Obama). Wouldn’t that, like, make Colin Powell an idiot whose opinion and judgment shouldn’t be trusted?

Oh, that’s right. These are liberals; rational disconnects mean nothing to them.  They think only in terms of rhetoric, and couldn’t care less about moral consistency.  Had Powell endorsed McCain, he would have been dismissed as the man who stupidly supported a stupid war.

Colin Powell has been routinely demagogued by liberals as an “Uncle Tom,” a “house negro” (polite version), etc.  Heck, even Donna Brazile, who gets to be on TV virtually every week, called Powell an Uncle Tom.

The Daily Kos ran an article titled, “Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush.”  Knowing the Daily Kos‘ (and Barack Obama’s) tendency to re-enact favorite scenes from 1984 by purging inconvenient truths and replacing them with new lies, this story will probably be purged now that Powell is a great American hero again.  The Ministry of Truth thrives with liberals.

You see how that works?  Now that Colin Powell supports Obama, he gets to quit being a house nigger doing the bidding of Massah Bush and he gets to be a great man and a genius again.

That’s the way reality is shaped when you have moral bankruptcy with full media backing, boys and girls.

Bush’s Address To Nation Over Finance Crisis (Transcript)

September 25, 2008

Transcript: President Bush Address to Nation on U.S. Financial Crisis, September 24, 2008

(Source: White House Press Office)

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America’s economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.
We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We’ve boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.

Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I’ve proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry — it is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America’s financial system is back on track.

I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I’ve proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.

First, how did our economy reach this point?

Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions — along with low interest rates — made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition — some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.

Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit — combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise — led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected — along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.

These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today’s mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called “mortgage-backed securities.” These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.

The government’s top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:

More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem — and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I’ve invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.

I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.

Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?

After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets — including mortgage-backed securities — now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan’s implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.

In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.

Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?

The primary steps — purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit — and this will not change.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we’ve seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy’s ability to grow.

In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.

Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we’ve overcome tough challenges before — and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is — a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.

Thank you for listening. May God bless you.

Why We Need A Rottweiler For President

September 20, 2008

In these difficult times, with financial crises on the one hand, and international instability and terrorism on the other, do we want a toy poodle running our country?

Absolutely not.  We need a Rottweiler to lead us through the difficult times.

Do you seriously want this to be your commander-in-chief and chief executive?

Or would you rather trust this?

Give me the Rottweiler.  Give me his courage, his tenacity, his loyalty, his fierce protection of heart and home.  Will the financiers, the Wall Street big boys, and the money-grubbing CEOs play their games when they have to deal with him?  Not if they want to keep their body parts, they won’t.  Will the terrorists want to attack when he’s on duty?  I don’t think so!

Vote for the Rottweiler.  Let’s get them toy poodles out of our politics!

Updated September 26, 2009:

The situation may well be even be worse than I feared.

While our obvious ideal is clearly this:

P1000686a

I fear we may have this:

Woosey-dog

Cute?  Of course.  Presidential?  You decide.

Updated again, September 11, 2010:

Recently Barack Obama trotted out to a union-dominated audience in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and whined, “They talk about me like a dog.”

All I can say, Mr. President, is that maybe you should stop yapping like one:

For my part, I don’t talk about you like a dog, Mr. President.  Because I like dogs.  I treat my dog like royalty.  And you’d have to evolve about 7 million percent for me to talk about you like a dog.

I’ll Take Sarah Palin At 3AM Over Barack Obama Any Day

August 29, 2008

Do you remember that 3AM phone call ad?  Will our President be ready when it comes?

Sarah Palin, apparently, would be awake, alert, and have her rifle in her hands:

HILLARY Clinton supporters may go for John McCain now he’s revealed that his vice president would be one Sarah Palin.She’s the woman to man the red phone in times of emergency.

It’s 3am, the phone is ringing… And Sarah Palin:

Sarah and her father would sometimes wake at 3 a.m. to hunt moose before school, and the family regularly ran 5k and 10k races

Barack Obama might be able to give a speech – as long as the teleprompter has been set up and is working right.  Otherwise he’s in a lot of trouble.

Obama might be able to talk tough in a speech, but Sarah Palin can hunt our enemies down and kill them.

I’ll take the fiesty chick with the big gun, thank you.

Interesting Election Tidbits From Rasmussen Polls

August 29, 2008

This is just a collection of Rasmussen’s findings on the Presidential race, on the attitudes of Democratic women for the Obama-Biden ticket, on Democrats’ and Republicans’ registration efforts, on which Presidential candidate is more trusted in National Security, and on the electoral college race, as of August 28: (more…)

Obama Relies On Lie After Lie to Sell His Toughness On Iran

August 28, 2008

McCain has an ad about Obama and the threat of Iran running:

(more…)

Interesting Tidbits From Rasmussen Polls

August 28, 2008

This is just a collection of Rasmussen’s findings on the Presidential race, on the attitudes of Democratic women, on Democrats’ and Republicans’ registration efforts, on which Presidential candidate is more trusted, and on the electoral college race, as of August 28:

On the Presidential Race:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama. The Democrat gained a point from yesterday and now attracts 45% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 44%. When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 47% (see recent daily results).

On how Democratic women feel about the Obama-Biden ticket:

Nearly half of Democratic women (47%) say Barack Obama should have chosen Hillary Clinton for his running mate instead of Senator Joseph Biden as the former First Lady prepares to speak tonight at the Democratic National Convention. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a sizable majority (57%) of Democratic women believe that Obama is the Democratic candidate who will do best against John McCain in the November election. See crosstabs by gender within party.

On the success of Democrat’s relative to Republican’s voter drives:

During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%. That’s the first time since January that the number of Democrats has fallen below 41% (see history from January 2004 to present).

While the number of Democrats declined, there was virtually no change in the number of Republicans. In July, 31.6% said they were Republicans, the fourth straight month that number has been below 31.4% and 31.6%.

The Democrats now have a 7.6 percentage point advantage over the Republicans, down from a 9.5 percentage point advantage in June and 10.1 percentage points in May.

Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based upon telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002.

Among men, 34% are Democrats, 33% Republican. Forty-four percent (44%) of women are Democrats, and just 30% claim the GOP as their party.

Forty-one percent (41%) of government employees are Democrats while 31% are Republicans. Among entrepreneurs, 36% are Republican, 34% Democrat. Those who work for someone else in the private sector lean Democratic by a 38% to 31% margin.

In January and February, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in the early stages of the battle for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the number of Americans who considered themselves to be Democrats surged to record highs.

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.

On which Presidential Candidate is more trusted on National Security:

National security is the issue of the day at the Democratic National Convention, but it wasn’t supposed to be this way. Democrats were planning on riding opposition to the highly unpopular war in Iraq right into the White House.

Instead, Barack Obama is begrudgingly admitting the “surge” of additional troops into Iraq has worked, and Hillary Clinton told the convention Tuesday night that, if elected, Obama will “end the war … responsibly,” with no mention of a timetable.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters trust Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Obama on national security issues 52% to 41%.

Nationally, for weeks the race between the two men has been a dead heart in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, with oddly enough McCain showing slight momentum this week following the announcement of Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate.

Over half of voters (51%) also continue to believe that it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will win the war in Iraq if McCain is elected, while only 30% believe that to be the case should Obama win the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) think the United States is not likely to win if Obama is elected, compared to 41% who feel that way about McCain.

At the same time, voter confidence in how America is fighting the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The latest national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. Just 19% of voters think the terrorists have the advantage, while 20% say neither is winning.

In terms of national security, male voters trust McCain over Obama 58% to 36%. Female voters, who in most polls heavily favor the Democrat, rank them virtually dead even. McCain leads by a wide margin in all age and income groups, except among those 18-29 and those earning less than $20,000 a year who trust Obama more.

Even 21% of Democrats trust McCain more on national security, compared to seven percent (7%) of Republicans who prefer Obama. Unaffiliated voters favor McCain 54% to 35%.

And on the electoral college race (state by state):

The latest wave of state-by-state polling, market data and national trends have pushed the Rasmussen Reports’ Electoral College projections as close as our daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The latest numbers from the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator show Obama leading in states with 193 Electoral College votes and McCain ahead in states with 183 Electoral College votes. Previously, Obama had enjoyed a 210–165 advantage.

Currently, states with 135 Electoral College votes are leaning slightly in one way or the other, and three states with a total of 27 votes — Colorado, Nevada and Virginia — are pure toss-ups.

A state-by-state “balance of power” chart is available HERE.

Hillary Clinton: Good Speech, But Not Much Of An Obama Endorsement

August 27, 2008

Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good speech. She presented her case for her candidacy, citing all the reasons why she ran and all the aspirations she had for America. And she said that those same reasons were why she now supported Barack Obama. She did outwardly all the things the Obama people wanted her to do.

But she didn’t do any more than the minimum.

The McCain campaign jumped all over what Hillary Clinton didn’t say:

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded, “Senator Clinton ran her presidential campaign making clear that Barack Obama is not prepared to lead as commander in chief. Nowhere tonight did she alter that assessment. Nowhere tonight did she say that Barack Obama is ready to lead. Millions of Hillary Clinton supporters and millions of Americans remain concerned about whether Barack Obama is ready to be president.”

I  took notes on an interesting discussion  on Fox News.  There analysis was insightful about what Hillary didn’t do.

The interesting thing about this speech is that she could have given it about ANY Democratic nominee. It could have been given of John Edwards or Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. She didn’t say a word about him as a person. She didn’t talk about what she’d learned about his character over the last 18 months. She didn’t trace his biography and tell us what about his character or experiences would make him fit to be President. She never said she respected him. She never said she had confidence in him. She never said he was ready to be president. She never said she’d come to have confidence in him as Commander-in-chief. She never claimed he was experienced or ready to lead. And in the past she has said that he WASN’T ready to be president, ready to lead, ready to be Commander-in-chief.

In the end, Hillary Clinton supported Barack Obama for President because he is the Democratic nominee for President. She would have supported Daffy Duck if Daffy Duck were the Democratic nominee.

Interestingly, she said Michelle Obama would make a great first lady. She never said the same about Barack Obama making a great President.

It was a minimalist endorsement, and she didn’t go one iota beyond what she needed to.

Contrast Hillary’s speech endorsing Barack Obama with Barack Obama’s speech introducing Joe Biden.

Heck, the last quarter plus of her speech presented her historic role as the first major female candidate for President. “This is the culmination of the women’s movement of 1848.” That sort of thing. That was the rhetorical high point of the speech.

The speech didn’t in any way culminate with a presentation of Barack Obama’s vision for America. In the end, the speech was more about Hillary (and Hillary supporting the Democratic Party) than it was about Barack Obama as the candidate for President.