“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress took his advice by creating the 647-page, $825 billion House legislation that was sold as an economic “stimulus”. But when Democrats finally released the details, we better understood Rahm’s point. It managed to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

Just scratching the surface exposed $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects, even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

House Republicans and even some Democrats argued that the Democrat appropriations bill disguised as a stimulus bill was heavily laden with pork and pet projects that had little to do with stimulus or job creation and demanded they be trimmed. Some were, although an outraged Nancy Pelosi wanted them added back in when the Senate came to bat. And so the Bill moved on to the Senate which, with the help of three RINOs (Sens. Susan Collins, Maine, Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania and Olympia Snowe, Maine), passed their version. Now dems in both bodies will feign due diligence before presumably reaching a compromise.

Click to read more ...

“While Americans were asleep at the wheel, a faction of our government was planning the nation’s shift to socialism, a drastic move calculated to preserve their power after their brutal rape of the treasury had rendered the country technically insolvent. Liberal lawmakers, and those that influence them, had been moving in that direction for years. Now, with control of both houses and the strategic placement of Barack Obama as president, they were ready to move to the final phase…”

Sounds like the plot of a Michael Crighton doomsday thriller, doesn’t it? But it’s not as far fetched as you might think. We’re already quasi-socialists. Socialized medicine is next, to be followed by our government taking larger portions of our incomes for redistribution to others. We’ll become increasingly dependent on government for more and more services, surrendering more of our incomes for redistribution until, finally, we’re a nation of socialists with government “sharing” all wealth - yours and mine - for the good of the state.

How did we allow this to happen? Well, the GOP put us here by giving us eight years of George W. Bush and then, when Romney could probably have beaten Obama by a good 20 points, backing over-the-hill war hero John McCain instead. Don’t get me wrong, I like and respect John McCain, but he was the wrong choice for such an important campaign.

But I’m through licking my political wounds. Now I’m bracing for eight years of well orchestrated programs and tax initiatives aimed at advancing us from “closet” socialism to “naked” socialism. That’s the “change” Obama promised, what his political upbringing taught him was needed in America, and what he and political adviser Robert Reich, along with other socialists like Charlie Rangle, are already working hard to implement. Get used to social engineering the likes of which this country has never seen. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

There’s no shortage of news about Bernie Madoff’s astounding Ponzi scheme through which he (allegedly) bilked a great many investors and charitable foundations out of billions of dollars. The fact that he is out on reduced bail and has used that freedom to send millions in jewelry to his children and write checks for a few billion more to friends and family is even more astounding. But what amazes me is how Congressional leaders are posturing about it. They’re appalled, they say. Something must be done, they promise. But wait. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

For those few of you unfamiliar with how the Ponzi scheme works, it’s where a shyster takes in money from marks investors to “invest” for them, pockets it, produces spurious reports illustrating the stellar performance of the “fund’s” portfolio, gets more investors and uses some of the newly invested money to pay a few of the earlier investors, then continues the practice until he has a ton of money in his pocket. The portfolio, of course, is essentially worthless and he has all the money squirreled away in off shore accounts. Then he moves to an island somewhere in the Pacific or to a country without an extradition treaty with the U.S. and lives large. The trick is to keep the investors believing their investments are earning astounding returns while he collects more and more money from new investors. You’ve probably heard of Ponzi schemes, but Madoff’s may be one of the largest such frauds (ahem…alleged frauds) in history.

Or is it? Isn’t that exactly how our government has been operating our Social Security system?

Click to read more ...

While most of us were ringing in the new year, California police officers were preparing for the text-messaging law, SB 28, that went into effect on January 1. It bans writing, sending, or reading a text-based communication while driving on the highways of the golden state as posted on the Department of Motor Vehicles’ web site.

Frankly, I’m amazed that such a law was needed. I mean, common sense should have made it unnecessary. But apparently a wake-up call to the swerving clueless among us was needed. Texting has become a big deal, especially among teens, but I hadn’t noticed until recently just how many of them do it while driving. Maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention to fellow drivers with whom I share the highways before the law went into effect, but I am now and what I’m seeing scares me.

Bear in mind, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just signed the hands-free cell phone law in September although the fines, if you’re caught in violation, aren’t very steep. Yet, now that I’m paying closer attention, I’m noticing that a lot of people — and not just teens — are talking on hand helds or texting in the lanes next to me.

It’s as though they’re thumbing their collective noses at law enforcement. Or maybe they’re rich and aren’t swayed by the prospect of shelling out the bucks for fines if they’re caught. Or maybe they’re just too stupid to realize they’re putting other people’s lives — yours and mine — at risk. Maybe they just don’t give a damn.

In any event, I wonder what can be done about it. There aren’t enough police officers available these days to nab red light runners or drunk drivers, so I imagine texters are way down the priority lists of the few officers we do have. Would it help if we called 911 and reported abusers? Or would that be considered a non-emergency call?

I don’t have the answers. If anyone does, I’m all ears.

My favorite illustrator, John Cox, came up with this illustration last year that echoes, I think, public sentiment, especially during these trying economic times. Many believe we are abandoning our nation’s manufacturing roots in favor of becoming a country that makes nothing and buys everything from abroad but likes to think we’ll be dominant in the development of technology (with any related manufacturing, of course, being outsourced offshore.) Whew! Long sentence!

I think we’re deluding ourselves. We could regain our dominance in manufacturing if we simply uncoupled ourselves from labor unions. Why can’t we compete in auto manufacturing, even against Japanese auto makers who manufacture cars right here in the U.S.A.? Because the Japanese car makers are exempt from our trade unions (and aren’t financially hamstrung trying to support a bottom heavy legacy pension plan, but that’s another issue for another day). Hardly a level playing field, is it. But what are we doing about it? Nothing.

Anyway, I thought John’s illustration was particularly poignant at this time of year when we’re concerned about our economy and vanishing manufacturing roots. Fisher-Price, Mattel - many of this country’s major toy manufacturers - have outsourced the manufacturing of their toys to China, and quality and safety have suffered. Not too many years ago, Americans wouldn’t have accepted poor quality. But we’ve become a nation of “sheeple,” too fat and lazy to do anything about it. I hope we rediscover our cajones before it’s too late.

You’ve all listened to and watched the news footage of the whacko angry Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President Bush during a press conference Sunday, and probably wondered why the Secret Service—the guys charged with protecting the President, even taking a bullet for him should the need arise—was conspicuously late to the party. Here are ten questions we’d all like to ask the Secret Service, compliments of Jon Friedman:

1. Shouldn’t you have jumped in front of that shoe?


2. Shouldn’t you have jumped in front of that second shoe?


3. Second shoe = the one thrown after being removed from foot after first shoe was thrown…


4. Let’s say people had three feet. Would you have allowed a third shoe to fly unimpeded?


5. While the shoe was in the air, were you like, “Oh, its just a shoe.”


6. Same question about the second shoe.


7. Do you think this is funny: “Throw a shoe at me once, shame on—you. Throw a shoe—you throw a shoe, you can’t throw a shoe again.”


8. Is there not “protection training” for lunatics launching objects?


9. Let’s say there isn’t training for that—but do they tell you that if someone does throw (or shoot) something to be on the alert in case they want to repeat this behavior?


10. Where were you?

If any of you hear from the Secret Service or think you know the answers to any of these burning questions, please share.

Quasimoto’s comment earlier today asking why I believe Barack Obama to be be a Marxist and racist convinced me to break the promise I made to myself to abstain from posting any more about the Presidential election. So here’s my last contribution on the matter.

I’m pretty sure everyone’s heard the audio clips of sermons by Reverend Wright of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Before Wright’s retirement in May, ABC News highlighted the racist and America-hating rhetoric in his sermons and questioned Barrack Obama’s 20+ years as not only a member of the church but a close personal friend of Wright’s. Obama at first shrugged it off but, when the issue wouldn’t go away, he “denounced” a few months ago, not Wright, but the hateful things Wright believes and preaches. Kind of like divorce is handled in some primitive countries: “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you. There. We’re divorced. Let’s move on.”

The press, not wanting to rain on Obama’s parade, moved on. But it is what it is and, for many, the long relationship suggests that Obama may, like Wright, be racist and anti-American. I don’t think such a logical conclusion, shared by many, or at the very least a valid and unresolved concern, can be ignored.

As for Obama’s Marxist statements, they too are a matter of public record. But to recognize them, you need to understand the teachings of Karl Marx. Among the principal tenants of Marxism are that capitalism, the system of social production for private profit, is the enemy of working people, and that class struggle is the motor force of history with workers being the only class with power, knowledge and interest in aligning with other oppressed groups to create a new egalitarian society based on sharing socially created wealth. In a Marxist/Communist society, wealth is redistributed “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Obama has said publicly that the Warren Supreme Court, considered by most historians to have been the most radical in our history, was not radical enough because it failed to address the redistribution of wealth from the “haves” to the “have nots”, and that we will not have “fairness” until we achieve that redistribution. He says further that it is too cumbersome to achieve redistribution via the courts but that it can be achieved legislatively. That, my friends, is Marxism, and coupled with socialists already in positions of power within our Legislature (Reid and Pelosi among them), an Obama presidency could move us further, perhaps irreversibly, into socialism. That should scare the devil out of all of us.

:   

And the reason, Quasimoto, that Obama has “gotten to be a Senator or gotten nominated to be president” is that too many citizens choose to believe that, if these things are true, “someone else” would have/should have stopped Obama’s progress to this point. But that’s just not the way it works anymore. We’ve become a lazy society of “sheeple”, expecting “someone else” to do all the heavy lifting. And when “someone else” fails to come through for us, we draw our opinions and make our decisions based on superficial criteria and emotional responses. Worse yet, we even allow ourselves to be influenced by comedy TV. We can’t efficiently govern ourselves that way.

So my question is, knowing what we know, how can anyone in good conscience ignore these issues or cast a vote in spite of them? Don’t like McCain? Fine, I get it. But come on, that’s no reason to vote for socialism.

Okay, I’d told myself I wasn’t going to talk about the election any more and I’ve done it anyway. All I can say is, people will do what they choose. I just wish they did more of their own homework and cast their votes based on things more substantive than “he looks more presidential” or “I just don’t like McCain”.

Yeah, I know, I’ve beaten this drum for quite a few posts now, but it’s important to understand. For those less inclined to slug through my more lengthy attempts at explaining where we are and how we got here, watch this Special Report with Bret Hume which offers a more “capsulized” version:

And for those of you that really want to understand what happened, why, and how our elected (and a few appointed) officials are dealing with it, listen to this audio presentation by Mark Levin at his best. It’s long — about an hour — but you’ll get “extra credit” in Economics 101 for investing the time.

In their September 23 Wall Street Journal article, Charles Calomiris and Peter Wallison opined the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) — and their sponsors in Washington — are largely to blame for our current mess.

Well, sure. But, as I wrote yesterday, Fannie and Freddie chose that path because they were pressured by the Clinton administration to loosen loan requirements for minorities and others unable to qualify for conventional financing. And, as Ben commented, Clinton relied on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed under Carter in 1977, for authority.

Didn’t anyone realize what was happening and sound the alarm? Sure, many. And in the wake of Freddie’s 2003 accounting scandal, even Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, calling for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their risky retained portfolios. But by presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing, Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained.

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

Eventually, of course, the bubble burst just as Alan Greenspan and others had predicted. Now Congress is trying to get out from under the weight of responsibility by pointing at everyone else while the Bush Administration is working with the Fed to propose a way for Congress to repair the damage with the least negative impact on American taxpayers.

And what were our current presidential candidates doing while all this was going on?

Click to read more ...

While Democrats bluster about the nation’s financial meltdown and the President’s proposed bailout, remember that all their finger pointing is a desperate attempt to divert attention from their own responsibility at this crucial point in the election campaign. Where did all these sub-prime loans come from, anyway? Whose bright idea was that?

Frequent contributor Mike points to a September 30, 1999, New York Times article (Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending) that pinpoints the genesis of the current financial crisis and exposes why current Democratic finger pointing is aimed in the wrong direction:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration [emphasis added] to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines [emphasis added*], Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”…

*As recently as August 2008, Raines was identified as an economic adviser to the Obama campaign. He’s apparently now been pushed into the shadows. Good decision, but not soon enough to go unnoticed.

To be continued…

I have a hard time understanding the success of MySpace. I know, it’s for “social networking”, I get it. But the personal sites I’ve visited are clunky, crowded, confusing conglomerations that have left me exhausted and wondering why MySpace doesn’t clean up its interface.

Someone once told me MySpace was originally designed for musicians to distribute samples of their music and book gigs. And the music window works great, although it would be a more pleasant experience without the surrounding clutter.

Anyway, kids soon discovered MySpace and the rest is history. Unfortunately, freaks and pervs discovered it too. If you have kids, especially tweens and teens, MySpace is not a safe place for them to hang out.

I found this on DZSokol’s blog and was surprised that, despite dueling comparisons between Sarah Palin’s experience and that of Barack Obama, this simple yet glaring truth had escaped me.

You couldn’t get a job at McDonald’s and become District Manager after 143 days of experience.

You couldn’t become chief of surgery [at a hospital] after 143 days of experience.

You couldn’t get a job as a teacher and be principal after 143 days of experience.

You couldn’t join the military and become a colonel [or even 1st Leutenent] after a 143 days of experience.

You couldn’t get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

BUT…

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That’s how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.

And, strangely, a large sector of the American public accepts this. We wouldn’t accept [it] in our own line of work, yet some of us accept [it] for the President of the United States of America.

Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!

So the next time someone tells you that Obama has more experience than Palin, please feel free to set them straight.

Several readers sent this asking that I post it. Watch it to the end.

This video from Michael D is a representation of a letter purportedly published July 7, 2008 in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Having grown up in Miami, I appreciate the feelings of Cubans who fled their homeland for America following Fidel Castro’s military coup and I understand how they might see alarming parallels between the changes promised by Castro and Barack Obama. I don’t know whether the letter was or wasn’t published or how accurately the video portrays its sentiment, but as Michael points out, it’s something to at least think about.

In his well crafted acceptance speech last night, John McCain described his perceived mission: to shake up the Washington status quo and redirect its gridlocked “me first” divisiveness toward the “Country first” purpose to which he believes we need to return. In the process, he accepted his and his party’s share of blame, acknowledging “we were given the chance to change Washington but instead let Washington change us.”

I found that admission profound because we all should realize by now that we can’t set about correcting our failures without first accepting our share of responsibility for causing them. Too often candidates simply point at their predecessors, blame them for all our problems, and pledge to lead us to the promised land. You and I know that it isn’t the incumbent President or his administration that put us behind the proverbial eight ball; it’s Congress. So it’s refreshing to see a candidate admit that, as a member of Congress, he’s been part of the problem.

In case you missed the speech last night, I’ve included MSNBC’s video of it for your consideration along with a link to the complete transcript. I especially appreciated the last ten minutes. It’s worth a watch regardless of your ideological or political preferences.

You know, there are certainly issues on which I vehemently disagree with McCain. But I think his record of taking on both parties for the benefit of his country and fellow Americans makes him an overall better choice for President. And I think Sarah Palin, another maverick, is a breath of fresh air sorely needed in Washington. The alternative? Two more Congressional lawyers who, like those before them, promise to sweep away all the problems caused by the previous administration. It’s been done before with little success. It’s time for a decidedly different approach.