29
Sep
Obama and Ahmadinejad have been intertwined quite a bit in this race. Seems kinda odd to me. First, we had Obama’s flap that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad unconditionally. He even cited Henry Kissinger as approving. That didn’t fly with Kissinger too well who denounced Obama’s claims and flat out stated McCain is right, Obama is wrong on this issue. Obama has backpeddled on the issue saying now that due diligence would be done first. Which, of course, is how it’s done now. However, I’m sure I’m not the only person scratching their head trying to figure out how you meet someone unconditionally when you’ve had your underlings discussing all the conditions first. I hear Keith Olbermann will explain that to us all at some time.
Then, there was the Palin/Ahmadinejad flap. Palin wanted to attend a rally opposing Ahmadinejad. Only problem to the organizers was they had invited Hillary Clinton as well. When Hillary found out, she backed out rather than being there with Palin. When the organizers found out Clinton had backed out, they disinvited Palin. They cited not wanting a political rally to be politicized as the reason.
Now we’ve got the flap over Obama’s primary financial guru, Penny Pritzker hosting an event that featured Ahmadinejad. According to the right, she had to know what was going on at her hotel. According to the left, she simply owns the hotel ( or not ), and since she owns lots of hotels and stuff, there was no way she would know every little detail. Now, I’ve got a problem with that logic. This was no little event. It was plastered all over the news and protested on tv. For Pritzker to not have known what was going on, especially when involved in a presidential race, is a pretty huge leap to follow. If that truly was the case, I would be firing a lot of management. Her name is now linked to Ahmadinejad whether she likes it or not.
Given the previous events, I just gotta wonder whether she does like it or not.
If you’re going to debate this current financial market crisis or criticize the efforts to mitigate it, you HAVE to read this article by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters.org:
…The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.
Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race……
That’s the guts of what’s happening now. I don’t hear Obama mentioning it. And, I guarantee you won’t hear about it on CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, or Daily Kos.
Something else you won’t hear any of them mention, John McCain’s speech in 2005:
Why he stumbled on this issue early in the week is beyond me. He should have just cited what he said three years ago.
And, the very last thing they’ll mention is this chart from IBD:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac financials contributions from 1989-2008 (from IBD)
Although you’ll find Barack Obama has done quite well in a very short time, you’ll also find Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have done quite nicely as well. Of course, with the media not the least bit concerned about showing their preference for the candidate of their choice, Obama has nothing to worry about.
But, if you’ve read any of this, you’ll have an answer the next time Obama blames this on McCain, or Pelosi blames it on Bush.
Fact is, this is what you get when you compel liberal policies on the private business sector.
And you know what, even in this meltdown, Democrats are STILL trying to compel lendors to expand subprime mortgage loans to high risk areas:
The heart of that? “meeting their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act“. Folks, that’s a bill submitted by Democrat Jack Reed less than a year ago. Although it’s not gotten very far, it just shows that the Democrats in Congress don’t have the slightest clue about what led to all this.
That’s what caused this meltdown. When risk based institutions are not allowed to mitigate their risk, they are compelled to fail.
Henry Paulson has crafted a plan to bail out the finance industry for the very short run. It’s brilliant. However, unless Congress has the balls to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, we’ll just be doing this again in ten years or less.
If cities and states are worried about slums and people not being able to get loans in high crime areas, then do something about the crime so that the risk is mitigated. Once that risk is mitigated, then the private sector will be more than happy to develope it.
This folks, is nuts:
How exactly is she going to “go after” OPEC? Even if she does prove they are a monopoly ( which, by definition, they are not ), who in the world order of things cares? China’s been dumping stuff on the world markets for years. The WTO slaps their wrists and they just do it some more. The WTO is basically useless as a regularoty or policy enforcement force. It is most useless when dealing with something bigger and richer than it is. Namely, OPEC. They don’t have to be a member of WTO, even though most are. So, what’s she going to do about it?
The one very obvious thing she can do about it drill for more domestic oil, lessening our dependence on foreign lands almost immediately. However, she has repeatedly and very enthusiastically voted against any domestic development of petroleum in almost any way. So, scaring OPEC into lowering their prices via increased domestic competition is off the table. And, they know it.
Once again, I need to state the absolute simplest rule of business economics. Nothing gets any simpler that this:
IN ORDER TO DRIVE DOWN PRICE, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE SUPPLY.
Period.
The fact Hillary is unwilling to adhere to the simplest business concept is the only reason needed to totally dismiss any economic ideas she might have as far as I am concerned. It’s obvious she’s pandering for votes. But, when the pandering is this bad, I would only hope the people being pandered to aren’t that stupid and call her bluff.
I am however, quite often wrong when assuming people think about what the candidates are actually saying.
H/T Poliblog.
A lot has been debated over whether or not John McCain is legally able to run for president. Now, the circumstances are he was not born IN the United states. He was however, born on a United States base in Panama. Now, I think most people pretty much came to the conclusion that since he was born of two United States citizens acting on behalf of their country in a foreign country, he’s just as American as anyone else. Some people, with obvious ulterior motives, tended to disagree citing the Second Constitutional Amendment:
They just hang all over that caveat of “natural born Citizen”. The Consitution however, does not define what “natural” is. Being as this is 1776 we’re talking about, test-tubes and all that don’t apply. So, what would a “natural born Citizen” be? Those with ulterior motives took the stance that it had to mean they HAD to be born WITHIN the United States. Now, the second part of the Article gets very specific, sayimg they had to be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So, why would they be so specific in regards to the second part, but ambiguous about the first part?
The answer to me is very simple. They had no clue when they wrote the Constitution exactly WHAT the United States would be. The Constitution was a concept they had to sell to a bunch of independent states in order to get them to join as one country. When they were writing the Constitution, some states were not totally committed to the idea of taking on England. It was a hard sell. So, in order to appease some of those states sitting on the fence, they had to toss out some caveats which left some ideological commitments kind of vague. By wording the Second Article the way they did, it limited who the President could be to basically a member of Congress and the Senate at that time. It also left the door open for other states to join. However, they had to join before a resident of that state could have control of Congress. In other words, someone couldn’t sell out their state simply to get control of the United States army or funds. You had to walk the walk before you could talk. Brilliant.
Over two hundred years later, that environment no longer exists. The United States hasn’t expanded, or even tried to, in fifty years. So, the Second Article became pretty much a forgotten passage until an odd quirk in an election year occurred. Someone noticed a presidential candidate was not born within the bounderies of the United States. They basically dismissed the fact that both parents were “natural born citizens” and the fact that military bases are considered sovereign territory to make their point. So, tiring of the “controversy” that most people were ignoring, the US Senate sprung into action:
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain , III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain , III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain , III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
I’m sure plenty of people are already figuring the conspiracy angles to this one. However, the most obvious evidence that no one who seriously thinks at all is taking this seriously is the fact that it was authored by Claire MacCaskill, a Democrat. It was also co-sponsored by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And, it was passed unanimously. Not one single Senator felt there was enough doubt about what the Constitution intended to question this vote.
I’m sure that won’t stop some people from talking about it anyway.
Here’s what Hillary Clinton said:
Now, MSNBC has been no fan of Hillary’s. I don’t think I’ve seen them dig terribly deep into anything Obama’s claimed. But, they did a good job of presenting the facts behind this situation. Mainly, Magnequench was already internationaly controlled. Their resources came FROM China, the patent from Japan. So, what was happening was they were importing the resources from China to Indiana to build at much higher wages. The owners, George Soros being one, were losing money and closed the plant. Nothing was lost. The intellectual property was already in China’s possession and has been for a decade. In fact, it fell into China’s hands in 1995. Wanna guess who was in charge in 1995? What made it possible for the Chinese to completely own Magnequench was this event in 2000:
By establishing normal trade relations with China, Bill Clinton made it possible for China to own companies that supplied military parts, along with those intellectual rights, to the the US Military. At that point, Magnequench in Indiana became completely useless. A LOT of people, including me, opposed the situation of allowing a military antagonist to the US that much access to our military secrets.
Digressing, Magnequench isn’t a threat to our national security because we have the ability to develop our own in California if need be. Given the rise of technology associated with hybrid cars, they are now making similar magnets and such. So, it’s not a crisis. But, it could have been. The free market usurped the dangers imposed by Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Now, eight years later, Hillary wants everyone to forget that she was right there with Bill when he signed normal trade relations with China and allowed military technology to be shipped to China, and allowed China unfettered access to ours. Now, she wants to blame Bush for being compelled, by law, both nationally and internationally, thanks to her husband, for what did not actually happen in Indiana.
That, in a nutshell, is why Hillary Clinton should never be allowed to be President.
26
Apr
From Dick Morris, who I highly respect:
I tend to agree with him at this point. Hillary is obviously not at all concerned with doing what is best for the party. My gut feeling is she is posturing for 2012 and making sure someone she can beat is in the White House. Parties rarely vote out an incumbant member of their own party. What do you think?
17
Apr
Last night I didn’t watch the debate. I prefer to spend my time chasing a five year old around and working in the yard. Additionally, I prefer to just wait till it all filters out through what people take on it after the fact. 90% of any debate is fluff and posing, I just don’t consider that worth watching. The good stuff sticks around for a day or two. Apparently the best part of last night was George Stephanpoulos throwing Obama a curve-ball about his relationship with William Ayers. First of all, a little background on who William Ayers is:
Bill Ayers was a member of Weather Underground in the late 60′s and 70′s. They advocated violent opposition to the Vietnam War. I always loved people who advocated violence to stop a war, that should tell you about how bright they are in the first place. I mean, if we’re gonna have violence, explosions, and death, why not do it somewhere else? Back to the point, his main claim to fame in his quest for violence to end the war was blowing up three of his friends, including his girlfriend. Because of that, he went truly underground for a while. He eventually re-emerged and I guess the FBI decided he was too stupid to prosecute, since he did a better job busting his violent opposition group than the FBI did and the war ended so he apparently had nothing to violently oppose any more. So, he became a college professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Amazing how 1960′s radicals just magically become college professors.
Fast forward to last night. Based on a $200 contribution several years ago, and the fact Obama and Ayers are members of a local charity, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relation to Ayers. This is where it gets weird to me. Here’s his reply:
“George … this is an example of what I’ve been 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.”
OK so far, but then he decided to kick in an unnecessary opinion:
Instead, he struck a blow against bipartisanship by mentioning that he is friends with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who he termed “one of the most conservative Republicans” in the Senate and a politician who “once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.”
Continued Obama: “Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.
Now, the average person I think would see the difference between someone who expresses an opinion and works diligently with the system to get the change they want, and someone who thinks blowing things up because they’re not happy with it is a proper coping mechanism. What Coburn said I don’t agree with, but I feel he’s rational enough to discuss it. I don’t usually like arguing with people who blow up things they don’t like.
Hillary took the bait and ran with it. As usual, she should have just left well enough alone as Obama’s bizarre comparison wasn’t setting too well with people and Hillary had been handed a gift. She expressed her disdain for the comments Ayers had made after 9/11 and how it was something the Republicans would use in the fall. She was right on that part. However, a lot of pundits are attacking Stephanopoulos for asking what the Republicans would obviously bring up in the fall. I mean, comparing someone who hangs out with radicals ( the preacher ), and terrorists ( the weatherman ), versus a war hero is just too easy to pass up. The problem with last night wasn’t that the question was asked, it was Obama taking the answer too far AND the rebuttal by Clinton. She may not like the comments Ayers made or what he stood for in the 1960′s, but she has more of a connection to supporting The Weathermen that Obama had in the first place:
Now, here’s where it gets very troublesome for both. In Obama’s case, he’s once again linked to the radicals he was inferred to be one of again. Although he did say he didn’t agree with what Ayers was, he cited his relationship with another “radical” as his justification. The donation he received and kept from Ayers is physical proof that relationship exists. In Hillary’s case, she once again has pretty much lied. If she truly opposed Ayers, ergo the Weathermen, she would have openly opposed, or gotten her husband to not to pardon other Weathermen for murders they committed. Ayers killed people by accident, the others were in the act of a crime. Not a protest, but a robbery. For reasons unknown to me, the Clintons saw fit to pardon Susan Rosenberg. Now, which pile of evidence will be more damning, a check from someone else, or a signature by your husband? Hillary claims a lot of her experience from the fact she was the wife of a president. Once again, she wants to cherry pick what that experience is. Obama took a flesh wound from this one, Clinton then took the gun and aimed it squarely between her eyes, again.
The big winner here once again will be McCain. It could have been a moot point to a large degree, but neither candidate could keep their mouths shut.
Hillary Clinton had a fundraiser hosted by Sir Elton John. It went well, raising a couple of million dollars. It should have, Sir Elton has quite a bit of money and hangs around people with a lot of money as well. Only problem is, someone had a problem with it:
Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the FEC asserting that Sir Elton is not a US citizen and therefore not allowed to contribute to US presidential candidates. My very cursory fact-check re-affirms their claim that Sir Elton is indeed still a British citizen. Now, for the most part I ignore campaign gaffes since there are so many minutae of regulations regarding even a campaign for dog-catcher. However, in Hillary’s case, it goes beyond this campaign for two reasons:
- This is not the first fairly obvious campaign infraction Hillary has committed. While calling on Bush to boycott China’s Olympics, Clinton’s China connections have been well documented and gotten her in trouble more than once in the past. So, enlisting a Brit to raise money should have raised all kinds of flags that she should have learned from Hsu. She’s either blindly greedy or just plain stupid to risk another flap that I think pretty much started her downfall in the fall.
- Hillary Clinton, lest we forget, is a lawyer by trade. However, her legal ethics have been questioned repeatedly in the past. Her repeated legal lapses in this campaign have been fodder for bloggers, but to me shows a much larger trend of being totally flippant about those laws she took an oath to uphold. Obama’s in the same set of standards as Clinton, McCain not. I will hold a higher standard for Obama and Clinton than I will a former soldier when it comes to respecting the law.
- Something’s just not right with Hillary for her to sign off on a very obvious foreigner raising money for her after the Hsu flap. I really don’t get it. Greed? Eliticism? Stupidity? Beats me.
- Ya gotta wonder why Hillary would even want Sir Elton being very visible with her in the first place. She’s had an issue with the conservative to moderates in this county. All she needs is another Elton tirade against religion during one of her rallies or another one of his misogynistic attacks against Madonna and the US, or generalized attacks against youthful pop stars. In simple words, he’s become a bitch
. Given Hillary’s struggles with that image herself, you’d think she’d avoid the connotation he brings to her image.
So, although I think Judicial Watch will probably win and get Hillary fined well within her financial capabilities to cover it, the over-all wisdom of teaming up with Sir Elton shows horrible judgement on many fronts to me.
Now, I would like to know who out there decided to vote for Hillary because Sir Elton asked them to?
And:
That’s the rhetoric you hear from two of the campaigners, who both happen to be Democrat. The part they don’t want you to consider is what came to me in the form of an anonymous email:
Remember the election in 2006?
�
Thought you might like to read the following:
�
A little over one year ago:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2 ) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3 ) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
�
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
�
1 ) Consumer confidence plummet;
2 ) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3 ) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase ) ;
4 ) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses ) ;
5 ) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6 ) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
�
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
�
Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
A liberal is a person who will give away everything they don’t own.
The letter doesn’t come right out and say it, but the main theme for 2006 was “change”. This is the change we’ve gotten so far. Change for change sake never guarantees change for the better. In this case, it’s been change for the worse, obviously. Now Obama is running his entire campaign on change for change sake. Not sure about you, but I’ve had about all the change I can afford in the last two years. Clinton is running hers pretty much on the “failed Bush economics” without once mentioning the failed economic policies of Nancy Pelosi and her own party. This is a boogeyman argument that very few people seem to want to explore. If Clinton as President has no desire to reign in Nancy Pelosi, we can only expect things to continue to get much worse. Being liberal with social values is one thing, and can work. Being liberal with budgets never works. Nancy Pelosi is simply the latest example of why. Seems to me the last time we had these same circumstances of inflation AND recession at the same time was 1979 when the Democrats controlled the House as well and we had a very liberal Democrat President.
Anyone up for 1979 again?
Think before you vote. Don’t vote for generics and unquestioned claims. Vote for what you know. If you don’t make any effort to know the issues, why bother even voting? Voting for “change” when the “change” keeps making things worse is not terribly smart. But, I’ll bet more people vote for “change” than any other single issue this fall.
Care to challenge my assertion?
If I’m wrong, I’ll be more than happy to “change”.
4
Apr
Man, there is nothing more I’d love to see this fall than a McCain/Rice ticket. Talk about ending this race mucho prompto? Think ahout it.
- Condi would, to say the least, neuter the race issue that so far is exclusive domain of Obama. It’s there, for sure, and will be a factor in November. However, Hillary is completely unable to mention it. That would be true with McCain as well in the fall. Every single time McCain would mention a social issue, I’m sure there will be plenty of Obama minions ready to play the race card. Doubt me? Look how many times Clinton’s peeps, who were part of the 60′s equality fights, have been inferred as racists for simply even mentioning the fact that Obama is not pasty white. Now, if Condi were front and center with McCain, it would make the entire issue moot. Which, in my opinion, is what the issue should be in the first place if we truly believe there is equality. If there truly is not, then all races should be allowed to discuss that fact, not just one.
- Condi I think would completely neuter the gender issue as well. She is a woman. She is an attrative woman. She is a strong woman. She is a woman that women can like ( except Barbara Boxer ), and men can respect as well. The problem with Hillary is not too many people perceive her as being too womanly these days.
- Condi is an icon of conservatism. Now, this is where it gets weird. The most powerful conservative Republican in the country would be a black female. Not exactly the stereotype Hollywood is used to painting either Republicans or conservatives as. Given the options at this time, convervatives are not exactly happy with any of the candidates. IF they do vote, it will be the lesser of evils. With Condi, they could get excited. I know I would.
- Condi has unbelievable foreign policy experience. And, she very quietly gets things done. To say the least, it would put a stop to Hillary’s 3am commercials.
- Lastly, although McCain is an icon of male America, owning his own beer company, shooting big guns in war situations, being held prisoner of war, banging models, and the whole bit, Condi gives other kids something to shoot for. Well versed, well educated, speaks multiple languages, trained in classical music. In other words, a symbol of the United States for kids that want to be something a little more ethereal. We need this in the worst possible way right now.
Now, with Condi, we get the entire package of what America is. We get more minority representation, gender equality, moderate AND conservative values, macho symbolism AND brains. It’s just too perfect.
For that reason, it will never happen. Politics just doesn’t usually work that way. However, I’m willing to push that button here. Help me if you will:
