(IsraelNN.com) According to the London-based Arabic daily A-Sharq al-Awsat, the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) has reached the conclusion that Hamas does not intend to release kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit even if its demands are met. The group is using Shalit to reinforce its reputation as a group capable of causing Israel to release terrorist prisoners, ISA sources said, but it does not intend to let Shalit go.Yes, it is kind of unusual for a newspaper like that to file such a report. But it shows that Shin Bet certainly understands the real nature of terrorist organizations like Hamas, and that truly, they don't want to release prisoners whom they consider valuble.
Israel and Hamas have been negotiating Shalit's release in exchange for terrorist prisoners with the help of Egyptian intermediaries. Hamas has repeatedly added new demands, ISA agents said.
In what appears to be an unusual leak from the ISA to an Arab newspaper, the sources said the ISA had created a plan that would put military pressure on Hamas in order to obtain Shalit's release.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
SHIN BET SUPPORTS MILITARY OPTION FOR SHALIT'S RELEASE
Shin Bet gets it:
OBAMA AND DODD WERE THE TWO BIGGEST RECIPIENTS OF FANNIE MAE MONEY
HAS OBAMA MENTIONED THIS? WHY IS HE COVERING IT UP,
IF THERE'S NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF?
OBAMA IS A PHONY CONMAN
AND AS CROOKED A CHICAGO POLITICIAN
AS THERE HAS EVER BEEN.
AND AS CROOKED A CHICAGO POLITICIAN
AS THERE HAS EVER BEEN.
PART OF WHY THE USA GOT IT UP THE YOU KNOW WHAT: HOMO BARNEY FRANK WAS SLEEPING WITH MALE FANNIE MAE EXEC FOR YEARS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.HE WAS SCREWING HIM AND US AT THE SAME TIME - RIGHT UP THE YOU KNOW WHAT!So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
Mandated Philanthropy
The title here, a break from politics, does not refer to the recently enacted bailout bill. Rather this title refers to a court ruling ordering the Washington Redskins to have captions for the hearing impaired available for all the games at FedEx Field. Excerpt from this October 3, 2008 article in the Washington Post:
In my view, the Americans With Disabilities Act is being carried too far. The judge's ruling in the above case is but one example of how ludicrous our courts have become.
A federal judge in Greenbelt has ruled that the Redskins must continue to run captioned play-by-play at FedEx Field and begin showing the lyrics of songs played in the stadium to offer deaf and hard-of-hearing fans the full game experience.Because my husband is hard of hearing, completely deaf in one ear and substantially compromised in the other, I pay attention to stories related to deafness and accommodations for those hard of hearing. No doubt, compromised hearing does reduce one's ability to function and to enjoy certain activities. Indeed, my husband's handicap automatically precludes his enjoyment of crowded parties. Must the hosts of the parties we attend also provide captioning? Give me a break!
The decision mandates that the team do much of what it began doing voluntarily after being sued. The ruling appears to be the first of its kind in the country, and advocates for the deaf and hard-of-hearing said it could lead to challenges at sporting venues around the country....
[...]
The ruling requires that deaf fans also be treated to the lyrics, spelled out on the screens, of such tunes as "Who Let the Dogs Out" in all its repetitive resonance.
U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. ruled Tuesday that under the Americans With Disabilities Act the Redskins captioning was not optional but required. He said the team had made "what appears to be have been reasonable efforts" to accommodate the hearing-impaired but that the additional steps were needed....
[...]
The judge did not say precisely how equal access should be provided at FedEx Field but noted that the plaintiffs would not be aided by the assisted listening devices the stadium has long provided to patrons who request one.
[...]
In an interview, Redskins General Counsel David Donovan said the team would begin looking for ways to address the judge's remaining concern that deaf fans be able to read the lyrics of music used during cheerleader dance routines....
In my view, the Americans With Disabilities Act is being carried too far. The judge's ruling in the above case is but one example of how ludicrous our courts have become.
Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling?
Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.
Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.
Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.
Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.
Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between "warm" and "cool" phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its "warm" phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its "cool" phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its "warm" phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.
Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.
Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.
Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.
Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between "warm" and "cool" phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its "warm" phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its "cool" phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its "warm" phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.
Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Even a British Leftist lady grudgingly finds great virtue in Sarah Palin
Excerpts from a comment in "The Times" about the VP debate. Anything in "The Times" will be widely read
And the joy of Mrs Palin, what endears her to Middle America and fascinates every British woman I know, is her quality that cannot be bottled and sold: authenticity.
It shines out, even through her shopping-channel presentation, the Day-Glo patriotism of her XXL Old Glory lapel pin, her talent for talking while perpetually smiling (which, ask Gordon Brown, is a tough trick to pull off without looking deranged), the cheeseball winks, the local DJ shout-outs to kids at her brother's elementary school, the exaggerated nose wrinkles when uttering something as disgusting as "single-sex relationships" or "redistribution of wealth". She is Nicole Kidman as the driven weather girl in To Die For, Reese Witherspoon, the ruthless high-school candidate in Election. A candy-coated ball of granite.
When she offered "a bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street", Joe Biden had to counter quickly with the word down in Kay's Restaurant and the Home's Depot in Wilmington. When Mrs Palin played her son in Iraq, her special-needs baby, her worries about college fees, Mr Biden had to match it with a soldier boy of his own and raise her with his dead wife and daughter, then an emotionally welling remembrance of struggling to raise two injured sons alone.
And you could detect frustration and pique in Mr Biden's lament that, "just because I'm a man", he doesn't understand the hard decisions made over that mythical American kitchen table. But perhaps in this alone women politicians have an advantage, being the ones most able to convince voters that they have seen the inside of a maternity ward, a supermarket, a classroom, have dried tears and chewed pencils over household budgets....
Authenticity is now at a premium. William Hague, with his soft Yorkshire tones, his tales of delivering fizzy pop to streets like my own, is an asset at this hour. Perhaps he is dragging out his kitchen-table conservatism even now. Even John Prescott, oddly, is a voice for these times, as is Alan Johnson, who raised three kids on a council estate. Peter Mandelson, with his slick suits and slippery mortgage, is the last face voters can bear. But then Gordon Brown has the more clearcut task of steering the ship between the icebergs: Cameron must get with the bodies in the water.
After that debate, those who loathe Mrs Palin will still loathe her; those who cleave to her will find no new reason to be repelled. It is just shtick, she's sticking to the rigid train tracks of her notes, you tell yourself when she says how Saturday soccer parents fret at the touchline over their investments. But then the debate ends, her great messy family spreads out on stage, and Mrs Palin tenderly passes her always-placid Down's baby to her little girl. The sound is off, the scripted babble is over. It is a silent gesture, something compellingly real in a cooked-up world.
More here. It's a pity the lady commenting does not speak Australian. Australian English has a very apposite word for the virtue she sees in Sarah. Sarah is "fair dinkum".
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
And the joy of Mrs Palin, what endears her to Middle America and fascinates every British woman I know, is her quality that cannot be bottled and sold: authenticity.
It shines out, even through her shopping-channel presentation, the Day-Glo patriotism of her XXL Old Glory lapel pin, her talent for talking while perpetually smiling (which, ask Gordon Brown, is a tough trick to pull off without looking deranged), the cheeseball winks, the local DJ shout-outs to kids at her brother's elementary school, the exaggerated nose wrinkles when uttering something as disgusting as "single-sex relationships" or "redistribution of wealth". She is Nicole Kidman as the driven weather girl in To Die For, Reese Witherspoon, the ruthless high-school candidate in Election. A candy-coated ball of granite.
When she offered "a bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street", Joe Biden had to counter quickly with the word down in Kay's Restaurant and the Home's Depot in Wilmington. When Mrs Palin played her son in Iraq, her special-needs baby, her worries about college fees, Mr Biden had to match it with a soldier boy of his own and raise her with his dead wife and daughter, then an emotionally welling remembrance of struggling to raise two injured sons alone.
And you could detect frustration and pique in Mr Biden's lament that, "just because I'm a man", he doesn't understand the hard decisions made over that mythical American kitchen table. But perhaps in this alone women politicians have an advantage, being the ones most able to convince voters that they have seen the inside of a maternity ward, a supermarket, a classroom, have dried tears and chewed pencils over household budgets....
Authenticity is now at a premium. William Hague, with his soft Yorkshire tones, his tales of delivering fizzy pop to streets like my own, is an asset at this hour. Perhaps he is dragging out his kitchen-table conservatism even now. Even John Prescott, oddly, is a voice for these times, as is Alan Johnson, who raised three kids on a council estate. Peter Mandelson, with his slick suits and slippery mortgage, is the last face voters can bear. But then Gordon Brown has the more clearcut task of steering the ship between the icebergs: Cameron must get with the bodies in the water.
After that debate, those who loathe Mrs Palin will still loathe her; those who cleave to her will find no new reason to be repelled. It is just shtick, she's sticking to the rigid train tracks of her notes, you tell yourself when she says how Saturday soccer parents fret at the touchline over their investments. But then the debate ends, her great messy family spreads out on stage, and Mrs Palin tenderly passes her always-placid Down's baby to her little girl. The sound is off, the scripted babble is over. It is a silent gesture, something compellingly real in a cooked-up world.
More here. It's a pity the lady commenting does not speak Australian. Australian English has a very apposite word for the virtue she sees in Sarah. Sarah is "fair dinkum".
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
UPDATED (v 2.0) John: STOP Selling Out the American People for Political Corrtectness
**** UPDATE: Rewritten for readability and to correct a few errors. ***
Dear Senator McCain:
Please allow me to clarify: in the headline above, I am not referencing your obtuse refusal to let facts get in the way of your lame defense of the mythology/religion disguised as the "truth" about "man-made" Global Warming; no, what I am referring to is your apparent indifference to allowing Marxists disguised as Democrats to define the entire debate about what caused this financial crisis. You are allowing them to perpetuate and circulate widely an out-and-out lie--a lie so grand and diabolical that it ignores historical fact (i.e. that unhindered Capitalism is the greatest engine for creation of wealth, full employment and for raising the standard of living for everyone --that the world has ever known.) History has demonstrated over and over again that Socialism--or any large-scale interference by government in the operation of free markets--is among the most destructive non-military forces in human history.
Senator, as you well know, we now are finally seeing the end result of years of Democrats such as Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and Chuck Schumer running interference for their surrogates Fannie, Freddie and ACORN (all of which, in turn, kicked back out millions in campaign contributions to the same gallery of rogues...)--which has engineered this financial crisis as if it were planned by some diabolical mind.
What is most disturbing about this John, is that you have stood on the Senate floor (two years ago!) and warned us of this, but even then you would not name names. But today... today to not name names, when our country is at the precipice of a true catastrophe; that is unconscionable.
The truth--just waiting for someone to speak it--is that the Democrats have been the primary driving force behind the Federal Government literally forcing banks (see: the "Community Reinvestment Act") to lend billions to "disadvantaged" minorities who had no business whatsoever getting those loans. This was done in the name of "providing opportunity" to those who had not been able to own a home in the past. Tens of thousands of loans were doled out; loans which no bank nor financial entity would ever have approved, had not the Federal Government forced them to. For this we have to thank: President Carter. President Clinton. George Soros. Janet Reno. Barney Frank. Chris Dodd. Chuck Schumer. And a cast of other rogues who, in the name of populism and "fairness", have sold their country down the river.
Ultimately, their treachery was not "helping the poor realize the American dream" as they claimed it would do; rather, it was helping people without the means to do so to ROB banksof capital and wealth that could otherwise have been utilized more effectively to help our economy grow. In the name of "fairness" the Leftists have enabled the "disadvantaged" to drain all of the oil from the very engine that has kept America employed and prosperous. Is it any wonder that as a result, today that engine is "locking up"?
Yet--even as these cretins point their bony fingers of blame at "greedy bankers" and "market capitalism"--you, Senator McCain, persit in your refusal to direct the light of truth to the direction of the real cause of this crisis.
Why??? Is it because you are afraid of some ACORN activist calling you a "racist"? Good grief man, you have endured worse in your life! You can't handle some "community activists" (read: solicitors of voter fraud) using the same race-baiting tactics they have been using since the days of Malcolm X? If not, then why should any person who actually gets what is really going on actually believe that you can handle the Presidency? We may know that Obama would be a catastrophe, but how are you going to convince independents from middle America that you can solve their problems if you can't even identify their problem?
These loans were not wrong because they went mostly to people of different skin color; these loans were criminal--because no banker in his right mind would have made most of these loans, because the people they were lending to were more than likely not going to pay the loans back.
Period.
Why should any bank--a business like any other--make a loan under such circumstances? A: because they HAD to. Sorry folks, but that is not free market capitalism, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says. That is not the absence of regulation; it is the consequences of too much regulation.
And... after about 20 years of this government "intervention", the note has finally come due--and as a result the banks are failing like dominoes. So the very same corrupt-to-the-core politicians that caused the latest crisis have asked us--several times now--to bail them out. And we did!
It is Frank, Dodd, Schumer, et. al. who should be posting bail right now. Yet, Senator you apparently are too damn scared of the almighty media (your best friends, right John?) to dare to speak the truth about this crime of the century.
Man Up, for God's sake. This is not a game; this is our future, our retirement, and our childrens' future.
You ought to know all of this; after all, was it not you that warned us all about this on the Senate floor two years ago--even as these same Democrats filibustered repeated Republican attempts to establish more oversight and accountability over Freddie and Frannie. Was it not the Republicans and President Bush who raised the alarm about the danger of Fannie and Freddie taking on all this bad debt with very little oversight--even as Frank, Dodd, and Schumer paraded to microphones and to the pages of the New York Times to state repeatedly "there is no problem with Fannie and Freddie; if we tighten the requirements all these (unable to repay the loan) people won't be able to realize the American dream! ..." ?
Today these same corrupt politicians have the utter audacity to blame the BANKS and WALL ST. and FREE MARKETS for their own manipulation of those markets. These are the same pols who forced the bankers to IGNORE common-sense lending and accounting principles.
The problem is not now and never has been the free market; the problem is that the Democrats have been preventing the free markets from doing what markets are supposed to do. And yet you, Senator are chiming in with the very people who caused this problem in assigning blame to the market economy. How could you? It is hard not to view this as a betrayal of the highest order, made even more so by the fact that you saw the problem coming. Yet you still refuse to name the culprit.
You say you would rather lose an election than lose a war; would you also rather us all to lose the American way of life because you are so timid about telling the truth??
Your "camp" is apparently so petrified of 'race-based' accusations by your opponents that you-- the fighter pilot who endured unbearable torture--today stand there like a deer in the headlights, afraid to tell the TRUTH, even as the Dems and their cheerleaders in the media LIE to the American people about it. Many of the people are clueless enough that they are buying this load of crap. And yet you will not speak the truth.
Unfortunately, Senator, those "headlights" happen to be a runaway freight train that is about to wipe us ALL out. I know it is difficult John, because you aren't even President yet, but this situation requires being Presidential. Bush is so neutered that he won't do it, and no one would listen to him if he tried. YOU have to do it.
P.S. Virtually none of the people in the demographic who have benefited from all these abominable loans are going to vote for you anyway; so why are you so afraid of "offending" them? Or is it that you still are operating under the illusion that the media will treat you "fairly" if you don't go there? Right.
Put down the pipe John. It's screwing up your reasoning.
Here is the thing: no one is going to tell the people for you--and especially not the DNC propaganda machine known as the MSM. YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
Apparently you think that Americans can't handle the truth--when the reality is that we have never needed the truth to come out more urgently.
Yet there you sit. When the going gets tough--when a tough decision HAS to be made, you seem to be demonstrating that you don't have the courage to stand up for what is right and true.
It is really beyond belief that a Republican--who announces in a debate that he was part of the "Reagan Revolution"--is afraid to defend the very economic principles that have given us the highest standard of living on Earth.
But because Obama is such an abomination; because the very thought of a Marxist in office is so such a monstrous idea to even contemplate--here I am, typing away, trying to avoid the conclusion that you actually are trying to lose this thing on purpose, and to flush the rest of us down the toilet with you.
Man up, John. We need you now. Cut the crap and tell the truth.
Second: stop being such a wimp; there is no question--you must attack Obama relentlessly--and you must not let up until after the election is over. Obama is cutting you to shreds every single day on the stump and in the media, yet and you won't even go after his past associations, his complete dearth of experience, his hard-left ideology--you won't even tell the truth about how they ruined the economy. The mighty Oz is a corrupt, bankrupt party that has brought bankruptcy and financial ruin to every State in the Union where they have been governing for a long time (see: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey...).
Q: If this is The Wizard of Oz, then where is Judy Garland when we need her?
A: We saw her debate Joe Biden; but your handlers won't let her tell the truth either.
John: just between us--If you do not change this dynamic, you are going to lose. For God's sake, man, tell the people the truth. We can handle the truth. But what our country cannot handle for much longer is the growing number of liars, and those who know better--who nevertheless would prefer to go along to get along. This is not what our country needs right now.
So Senator, I beg of you: please stop this madness. There is too much at stake.
James Pethokoukis agrees:
Dear Senator McCain:
Please allow me to clarify: in the headline above, I am not referencing your obtuse refusal to let facts get in the way of your lame defense of the mythology/religion disguised as the "truth" about "man-made" Global Warming; no, what I am referring to is your apparent indifference to allowing Marxists disguised as Democrats to define the entire debate about what caused this financial crisis. You are allowing them to perpetuate and circulate widely an out-and-out lie--a lie so grand and diabolical that it ignores historical fact (i.e. that unhindered Capitalism is the greatest engine for creation of wealth, full employment and for raising the standard of living for everyone --that the world has ever known.) History has demonstrated over and over again that Socialism--or any large-scale interference by government in the operation of free markets--is among the most destructive non-military forces in human history.
Senator, as you well know, we now are finally seeing the end result of years of Democrats such as Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and Chuck Schumer running interference for their surrogates Fannie, Freddie and ACORN (all of which, in turn, kicked back out millions in campaign contributions to the same gallery of rogues...)--which has engineered this financial crisis as if it were planned by some diabolical mind.
What is most disturbing about this John, is that you have stood on the Senate floor (two years ago!) and warned us of this, but even then you would not name names. But today... today to not name names, when our country is at the precipice of a true catastrophe; that is unconscionable.
The truth--just waiting for someone to speak it--is that the Democrats have been the primary driving force behind the Federal Government literally forcing banks (see: the "Community Reinvestment Act") to lend billions to "disadvantaged" minorities who had no business whatsoever getting those loans. This was done in the name of "providing opportunity" to those who had not been able to own a home in the past. Tens of thousands of loans were doled out; loans which no bank nor financial entity would ever have approved, had not the Federal Government forced them to. For this we have to thank: President Carter. President Clinton. George Soros. Janet Reno. Barney Frank. Chris Dodd. Chuck Schumer. And a cast of other rogues who, in the name of populism and "fairness", have sold their country down the river.
Ultimately, their treachery was not "helping the poor realize the American dream" as they claimed it would do; rather, it was helping people without the means to do so to ROB banksof capital and wealth that could otherwise have been utilized more effectively to help our economy grow. In the name of "fairness" the Leftists have enabled the "disadvantaged" to drain all of the oil from the very engine that has kept America employed and prosperous. Is it any wonder that as a result, today that engine is "locking up"?
Yet--even as these cretins point their bony fingers of blame at "greedy bankers" and "market capitalism"--you, Senator McCain, persit in your refusal to direct the light of truth to the direction of the real cause of this crisis.
Why??? Is it because you are afraid of some ACORN activist calling you a "racist"? Good grief man, you have endured worse in your life! You can't handle some "community activists" (read: solicitors of voter fraud) using the same race-baiting tactics they have been using since the days of Malcolm X? If not, then why should any person who actually gets what is really going on actually believe that you can handle the Presidency? We may know that Obama would be a catastrophe, but how are you going to convince independents from middle America that you can solve their problems if you can't even identify their problem?
These loans were not wrong because they went mostly to people of different skin color; these loans were criminal--because no banker in his right mind would have made most of these loans, because the people they were lending to were more than likely not going to pay the loans back.
Period.
Why should any bank--a business like any other--make a loan under such circumstances? A: because they HAD to. Sorry folks, but that is not free market capitalism, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says. That is not the absence of regulation; it is the consequences of too much regulation.
And... after about 20 years of this government "intervention", the note has finally come due--and as a result the banks are failing like dominoes. So the very same corrupt-to-the-core politicians that caused the latest crisis have asked us--several times now--to bail them out. And we did!
It is Frank, Dodd, Schumer, et. al. who should be posting bail right now. Yet, Senator you apparently are too damn scared of the almighty media (your best friends, right John?) to dare to speak the truth about this crime of the century.
Man Up, for God's sake. This is not a game; this is our future, our retirement, and our childrens' future.
You ought to know all of this; after all, was it not you that warned us all about this on the Senate floor two years ago--even as these same Democrats filibustered repeated Republican attempts to establish more oversight and accountability over Freddie and Frannie. Was it not the Republicans and President Bush who raised the alarm about the danger of Fannie and Freddie taking on all this bad debt with very little oversight--even as Frank, Dodd, and Schumer paraded to microphones and to the pages of the New York Times to state repeatedly "there is no problem with Fannie and Freddie; if we tighten the requirements all these (unable to repay the loan) people won't be able to realize the American dream! ..." ?
Today these same corrupt politicians have the utter audacity to blame the BANKS and WALL ST. and FREE MARKETS for their own manipulation of those markets. These are the same pols who forced the bankers to IGNORE common-sense lending and accounting principles.
The problem is not now and never has been the free market; the problem is that the Democrats have been preventing the free markets from doing what markets are supposed to do. And yet you, Senator are chiming in with the very people who caused this problem in assigning blame to the market economy. How could you? It is hard not to view this as a betrayal of the highest order, made even more so by the fact that you saw the problem coming. Yet you still refuse to name the culprit.
You say you would rather lose an election than lose a war; would you also rather us all to lose the American way of life because you are so timid about telling the truth??
Your "camp" is apparently so petrified of 'race-based' accusations by your opponents that you-- the fighter pilot who endured unbearable torture--today stand there like a deer in the headlights, afraid to tell the TRUTH, even as the Dems and their cheerleaders in the media LIE to the American people about it. Many of the people are clueless enough that they are buying this load of crap. And yet you will not speak the truth.
Unfortunately, Senator, those "headlights" happen to be a runaway freight train that is about to wipe us ALL out. I know it is difficult John, because you aren't even President yet, but this situation requires being Presidential. Bush is so neutered that he won't do it, and no one would listen to him if he tried. YOU have to do it.
P.S. Virtually none of the people in the demographic who have benefited from all these abominable loans are going to vote for you anyway; so why are you so afraid of "offending" them? Or is it that you still are operating under the illusion that the media will treat you "fairly" if you don't go there? Right.
Put down the pipe John. It's screwing up your reasoning.
Here is the thing: no one is going to tell the people for you--and especially not the DNC propaganda machine known as the MSM. YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
Apparently you think that Americans can't handle the truth--when the reality is that we have never needed the truth to come out more urgently.
Yet there you sit. When the going gets tough--when a tough decision HAS to be made, you seem to be demonstrating that you don't have the courage to stand up for what is right and true.
It is really beyond belief that a Republican--who announces in a debate that he was part of the "Reagan Revolution"--is afraid to defend the very economic principles that have given us the highest standard of living on Earth.
But because Obama is such an abomination; because the very thought of a Marxist in office is so such a monstrous idea to even contemplate--here I am, typing away, trying to avoid the conclusion that you actually are trying to lose this thing on purpose, and to flush the rest of us down the toilet with you.
Man up, John. We need you now. Cut the crap and tell the truth.
Second: stop being such a wimp; there is no question--you must attack Obama relentlessly--and you must not let up until after the election is over. Obama is cutting you to shreds every single day on the stump and in the media, yet and you won't even go after his past associations, his complete dearth of experience, his hard-left ideology--you won't even tell the truth about how they ruined the economy. The mighty Oz is a corrupt, bankrupt party that has brought bankruptcy and financial ruin to every State in the Union where they have been governing for a long time (see: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey...).
Q: If this is The Wizard of Oz, then where is Judy Garland when we need her?
A: We saw her debate Joe Biden; but your handlers won't let her tell the truth either.
John: just between us--If you do not change this dynamic, you are going to lose. For God's sake, man, tell the people the truth. We can handle the truth. But what our country cannot handle for much longer is the growing number of liars, and those who know better--who nevertheless would prefer to go along to get along. This is not what our country needs right now.
So Senator, I beg of you: please stop this madness. There is too much at stake.
James Pethokoukis agrees:
Here is the big question of the moment that many GOPers are asking: Why is John McCain not tearing into Barack Obama and the Dems on the huge role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act in the financial crisis on Wall Street? In fact, the biggest criticism by conservatives of Sarah Palin's debate performance last night was that she had the opportunity to talk about Fannie/Freddie and the CRA but instead criticized the role of "predatory lenders."
Here is what Team McCain is telling me: Expect McCain to make the case on television, but don't look for him to turn to Obama in the next debate, point his finger, and say something like this (courtesy of the Ace of Spades HQ blog):
I stayed away from making these partisan attacks, even though you lied ridiculously about me and your own attempts at 'reform.' I held back, because partisan attacks—even truthful ones—would harm our country and reduce the chances of getting a vital bill passed. Well, the bill is now passed. I put country first. You didn't, and you lied on top of that. And now—only now that this crisis has been dealt with, to the extent we can—I'm going to give you a bit of straight-talk about Fannie, Freddie, my attempts to reform it, and your attempts to block reform on behalf of your big donors and friends in ACORN.
Nope, that is not going to happen Why not? 1) It is a complicated argument, and McCain is not good at making complicated arguments, not even about earmarks. (Note, additionally, his lack of defense of the war in Iraq during his debate with Obama. Amazing.)
2) There is a racial component to criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act that can make it sound like you are scapegoating minorities for Wall Street's problems.
3) The campaign believes McCain's time is better spent talking about taxes and energy and healthcare. Really.
There is a newish TV ad about Fannie and Freddie. You tell me if it makes the point conservatives desperately want McCain to make. I don't think it explicitly or aggressively connects the dots the way activists crave. Here is the transcript:
ANNCR: John McCain fought to rein in Fannie and Freddie.
The Post says: McCain "pushed for stronger regulation"..."while Mr. Obama was notably silent."
But, Democrats blocked the reforms.
Loans soared.
Then, the bubble burst.
And, taxpayers are on the hook for billions.
Bill Clinton knows who is responsible.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
ANNCR: You're right, Mr. President. It didn't have to happen.
JOHN McCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
My bottom line: The McCain campaign is underestimating how absolutely furious conservatives are that free markets, and by extension Reaganomics and the last 25 years of American economic policy, are getting the blame for the housing and credit crisis. A real morale killer, they tell me. Over and over. Every day.
Friday, October 03, 2008
OCTOBER SURPRISE PREVENTION: NYTIME ATTEMPTS TO INOCULATE OBAMA ON AYERS
THE NYTIMES IS CLAIMING THAT AYERS AND OBAMA BARELY KNOW EACH OTHER.
WE KNOW WHY: THEY FEAR WHAT'S GONNA COME OUT SOON: PROOF THAT OBAMA AND AYERS WERE ALMOST AS TIGHT AS OBAMA AND WRIGHT.
INADVERTENTLY THEY REINFORCE THE FACT THAT OBAMA WILL TALK TO FOREIGN LEADERS WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS:
WE KNOW WHY: THEY FEAR WHAT'S GONNA COME OUT SOON: PROOF THAT OBAMA AND AYERS WERE ALMOST AS TIGHT AS OBAMA AND WRIGHT.
INADVERTENTLY THEY REINFORCE THE FACT THAT OBAMA WILL TALK TO FOREIGN LEADERS WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS:
Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”
“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”
THERE'S A REASON OBAMA LIKES BILL AYTERS AND WILL CHAT WITH AHMADINJAD WITHOUT PRECONDITON: LIKE AYERS AND AHMADINEJAD, OBAMA AND THE LEFT WANT BRING AMERICA DOWN A NOTCH.
THAT'S WHY THE PROSPECT OF AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE USA, ISRAEL AND THE FREE WORLD.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
THE FANNIE MAE FINANCIAL FIASCO - the Mastercard Version
BASED ON THIS POST AT THE CORNER:
Executive compensation:
Franklin Raines (D) AND an Obama adviser $90 million
Jim Johnson (D) AND an Obama adviser $21 million
Jamie Gorelick (D) $26 million.
Campaign Contributions
Senator Barack Obama, (D) $126,349 in just 4 years
Sen. Chris Dodd, (D) $165,400 — in 19 years.
Taxpayer Liability
700 billion, and counting....
THE BAILOUT MIGHT JUST BE... ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS!
Franklin Raines (D) AND an Obama adviser $90 million
Jim Johnson (D) AND an Obama adviser $21 million
Jamie Gorelick (D) $26 million.
Campaign Contributions
Senator Barack Obama, (D) $126,349 in just 4 years
Sen. Chris Dodd, (D) $165,400 — in 19 years.
Taxpayer Liability
700 billion, and counting....
THE BAILOUT MIGHT JUST BE... ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS!
THE ROMANTIC APPEAL OF OBAMA: THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS THE AMERICAN THINKER BY 8 MONTHS
AT THE GREAT "AMERICAN THINKER" TODAY:
Faced with what appears to me to be a conundrum -- why the majority of voting Americans would prefer for president a man whose resume is a big fat zero - I asked a friend for his opinion. He said (and I think he's right), that most people don't care about Obama's past record of accomplishments. Instead, he says, they simply like what they hear. He's promising them a lot of things -- such as a crystalline, pre-industrial environment, without any economic downsides; peace and harmony with the baddest of bad guys; universal health care; and wealth for all -- and they believe those promises, despite the fact that Obama's ineffective resume shouldn't give them reason to believe that he can follow through on any of his promises.TAB EIGHT MONTHS AGO: "IT'S THE SEX STUPID!"- (ABOUT HOW OBAMA'S SEX APPEAL TRUMPED HILLARY GENDER APPEAL)
And just like that, I suddenly got it. I got why Americans are flocking to Obama: They are precisely like the woman who wants to marry a romantic bad boy.
- REGULAR READERS KNOW THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
- SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US.
THE NYTIMES LIKES THE LATEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE GLORIFYING A MURDEROUS TYRANNICAL SOCIALIST: "CHE!"
NYTIMES:
This is sickeningly idiotic and ahistorical and immoral snark. Che was a tyrannical murderer, a charismatic psychopath with in common with Pol Pot and Charles Manson than either a REAL REVOLUTIONARY George Washington or even arch-lib moron George Clooney.
A more accurate statement would be "Killing Fields with better cigars". Or "gulags with better cigars."
It's freakin' sickening - this paean to the murderous Che. But not so surprising coming from the NYTIMES and Hollywood.
THE NYTIMES IS AFTER ALL, JUST PRAVDA WITH NO CIGARS.
And admiration for Che it is to be expected from those who admire Obama.
Leftists like tyrannical utopianists. And make excuses for them.
I feel that if elected - PLEASE G-D FORBID!_ - Obama may indeed to turn out to be WORSE than Attlee and worse than Fidel; Obama may very well become our Pol Pot.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
Throughout the movie Mr. Soderbergh mixes the wild beauty of his landscapes with images of Che heroically engaged in battle, thoughtfully scribbling and reading, and tending to ailing peasants and soldiers."Ocean's Eleven" with better cigars. "Ocean's Eleven" with better cigars. "Ocean's Eleven" with better cigars.
Che wins, Che loses, but Che remains the same in what plays like a procedural about a charismatic leader, impossible missions and the pleasures of work and camaraderie - "Ocean's Eleven" with better cigars.
This is sickeningly idiotic and ahistorical and immoral snark. Che was a tyrannical murderer, a charismatic psychopath with in common with Pol Pot and Charles Manson than either a REAL REVOLUTIONARY George Washington or even arch-lib moron George Clooney.
A more accurate statement would be "Killing Fields with better cigars". Or "gulags with better cigars."
It's freakin' sickening - this paean to the murderous Che. But not so surprising coming from the NYTIMES and Hollywood.
THE NYTIMES IS AFTER ALL, JUST PRAVDA WITH NO CIGARS.
And admiration for Che it is to be expected from those who admire Obama.
Leftists like tyrannical utopianists. And make excuses for them.
I feel that if elected - PLEASE G-D FORBID!_ - Obama may indeed to turn out to be WORSE than Attlee and worse than Fidel; Obama may very well become our Pol Pot.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
MORE PROOF IT AIN'T BUSH'S FAULT: FRANCE AND IRELAND IN RECESSION; WORLD ECONOMY SLOWING
IHT:
IT'S REALLY TWO-FOLD:
THE ROOT CAUSES WERE HIGH CENTRAL BANKS RATES AND OIL.
GREENSPAN KEPT RAISING RATES THE LAST TWO YEARS HE WAS FED CHAIRMAN, AND THE ECB KEPT THEIR RATES HIGH.
HERE'S A CHART OF THE FED FUNDS RATE - LOOK AT IT FROM 2004 TO 2006 -- THIS IS ONE REASON WHY THE ECONOMY SLOWED:
HERE'S THE OIL CHART; NOTE WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2004:
AND HERE, LOOK AT WHAT THE ECB DID: THEY KEPT THE RATE HIGH, UNTIL.... THEY RAISED IT WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE LOWERED IT!
AT THE TIME SARKOZY SAID THIS WAS THE WRONG THING, AND THAT THE ECB SHOULD HAVE LOWERED RATES. SARKO WAS CORRECT!
France has entered a recession, with economic contraction expected in the third and fourth quarters of 2008, the country's national statistics agency said Friday.WHY ARE BOTH EUROPE'S AND AMERICA'S ECONOMIES SLOWING? EUROPE CANNOT BE SLOWING BECAUSE OF BUSH POLICIES.
The Insee statistics agency said it expects the economy to shrink by 0.1 percent in both the third and fourth quarters.
Following on a 0.3 percent fall in the second quarter, that would bring growth down to 0.9 percent for 2008.
Insee said its forecasts, which are based on the premise that the current financial crisis does not worsen, also expect unemployment to rise to 7.4 percent by the end of the year, from 7.2 percent in the third quarter
The projections have sparked a debate over the definition of recession, which economists generally define as two consecutive quarters of falling gross domestic product. Government officials have been quick to insist France is experiencing very slow growth but is not in a true recession because growth for the year is still expected to be positive and is close to the government's projection of 1 percent growth for the year.
IT'S REALLY TWO-FOLD:
- IT'S BUT BECAUSE CENTRAL BANKS MADE AND KEPT MONEY TO TIGHTLY AND TOO EXPENSIVE FOR TOO LONG,
- AND BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF OIL.
THE ROOT CAUSES WERE HIGH CENTRAL BANKS RATES AND OIL.
GREENSPAN KEPT RAISING RATES THE LAST TWO YEARS HE WAS FED CHAIRMAN, AND THE ECB KEPT THEIR RATES HIGH.
HERE'S A CHART OF THE FED FUNDS RATE - LOOK AT IT FROM 2004 TO 2006 -- THIS IS ONE REASON WHY THE ECONOMY SLOWED:
HERE'S THE OIL CHART; NOTE WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2004:
AND HERE, LOOK AT WHAT THE ECB DID: THEY KEPT THE RATE HIGH, UNTIL.... THEY RAISED IT WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE LOWERED IT!
AT THE TIME SARKOZY SAID THIS WAS THE WRONG THING, AND THAT THE ECB SHOULD HAVE LOWERED RATES. SARKO WAS CORRECT!- THESE TWO FACTORS - (THE HIGH COST OF MONEY AND HIGH COST OF ENERGY) SLOWED US DOWN AND BURST THE LENDING/REAL ESTATE BUBBLE. PEOPLE HAD THEIR MORTGAGES GO UP AND THE CREDIT CARD EXPENSES GO UP AND THEIR ENERGY EXPENSES GO UP. SO THEY CUT BACK WHERE THEY COULD, AND THIS IS HOW WE GOT HERE.
- TIGHTER CONTROL OF FANNIE MAE - WHICH BUSH AND MCCAIN FAVORED BUT WHICH THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS BLOCKED - WOULD HAVE LIMITED OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM'S EXPOSURE.
- FOR YEARS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PREVENTED ENERGY EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION IN THE USA, AND THE PROLIFERATION OF CLEAN COAL PLANTS AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. THIS ANTI-ENERGY SUPPLY EXPANSION POLICY IS WHY WE PAY TOO MUCH - AND WHY FOREIGNERS HAVE GOTTEN RICH OFF OF US.
- IF VOTERS ARE SMART ENOUGH, THEN THEY WILL NOT BE DUPED, AND THEY WILL PUNISH THE PARTY MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR MESS: THE DEMOCRATS.
PAKISTAN ARMY IN MAJOR ASSAULT IN FATA REGION - ESPECIALLY AROUND BAJAUR
THEY SEEM TO BE CLOSING IN... IHT:
War has come to Pakistan, not just as terrorist bombings, but as full-scale battles, leaving Pakistanis angry and dismayed as the dead, wounded and displaced turn up right on their doorstep.I HAVE A FEELING WERE VERY CLOSE TO GETTING ZAWAHIRI AND BIN LADEN...
An estimated 250,000 people have now fled the gunship helicopters, jets, artillery and mortar fire of the Pakistani Army, and the assaults, intimidation and rough justice of the Taliban who have dug into Pakistan's tribal areas.
About 20,000 people are so desperate that they have flooded over the border from the Bajaur tribal area to seek safety in war-torn Afghanistan. Many others are crowding around this northwest Pakistani city, where staff members from the UN refugee agency are present at nearly a dozen camps.
The International Committee of the Red Cross flew in a special surgical team from abroad last week to work alongside Pakistani doctors and help treat the wounded in two hospitals, so urgent has the need become.
"This is now a war zone," said Marco Succi, the spokesman for the Red Cross.
Not since Pakistan forged an alliance with the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has the Pakistani Army fought its own people on such a scale and so close to a major city. After years of relative passivity, the army is now engaged in heavy fighting with the militants on at least three fronts.
NYC teachers allowed to show political bias?
We read:
An employer can set conditions for employment but when the employer is a government body it gets murky.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
"The teachers union has been handing out thousands of Barack Obama campaign buttons to its members, sparking a clampdown by education brass. The Department of Education - which has a long-standing policy barring teachers from wearing campaign buttons in schools - is set to send out an e-mail this week from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein laying down the law. "Schools are not a place for politics and not a place for staff to wear political buttons," said department spokeswoman Ann Forte. "We don't want a school or school staff advocating for any political position or candidate to students and we don't want students feeling intimidated because they might hold a different belief or support a different candidate than their teachers."
United Federation of Teachers official LeRoy Barr told his members in a recent e-mail that union chief Randi Weingarten is fighting the DOE decision. Officials of the union - which has endorsed Obama - said they didn't know of any schools where button-wearing teachers were told to zip it, but they said they were exploring the matter "to ensure members' rights to free speech and expression."
While department officials said the courts are on their side in the matter, many city teachers say their right to wear partisan buttons is a matter of free speech. Several cited a landmark 1969 Supreme Court ruling involving students who planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. It affirmed that constitutional rights don't get dropped "at the schoolhouse gate."....
Source
An employer can set conditions for employment but when the employer is a government body it gets murky.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Another selection of conservative comments on the VP debate
Maybe John McCain should fire the advisers who won't let Sarah Palin do more interviews. The Alaska Governor has faced two major campaign challenges -- her acceptance speech and last night's debate -- and each time she's shown herself worthy of the national stage. Let Mrs. Palin be herself, and then when she makes a mistake, as every candidate does, it won't be treated like some epic judgment on her fitness to be Vice President.
Mrs. Palin couldn't match Mr. Biden's fluency on Bosnia or Darfur last night, but not too long ago neither could Barack Obama. The Republican nominee more than held her own on foreign policy in general, and in our view won on points at least on Iraq and Afghanistan. She didn't let Mr. Biden get away with interpreting the comments of a U.S. general in Afghanistan as a rejection of Mr. McCain's strategy. And on Iraq she exposed both Mr. Biden's change of heart on the war, and his change of heart on Mr. Obama's views on the war. At times Mr. Biden even looked a little frustrated -- as if he couldn't quite believe he had to share the stage with someone who hasn't hung out with Dick Lugar or . . . Mike Mansfield back when the Senate was still a civil place. Or someone who says "doggonit."
More here
*********************
She killed. She had him at "Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?" She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy.
The whole debate was about Sarah Palin. She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled-they are thrust and parry. They are for campaigners. She is a campaigner. Her syntax did not hold, but her magnetism did. At one point she literally winked at the nation.
As far as Mrs. Palin was concerned, Gwen Ifill was not there, and Joe Biden was not there. Sarah and the camera were there. This was classic "talk over the heads of the media straight to the people," and it is a long time since I've seen it done so well, though so transparently. There were moments when she seemed to be doing an infomercial pitch for charm in politics. But it was an effective infomercial.
Joe Biden seems to have walked in thinking that she was an idiot and that he only had to patiently wait for this fact to reveal itself. This was a miscalculation. He showed great forbearance. Too much forbearance. She said of his intentions on Iraq, "Your plan is a white flag of surrender." This deserved an indignant response, or at least a small bop on the head, from Mr. Biden, who has been for five years righter on Iraq than the Republican administration. He was instead mild.
The heart of her message was a complete populist pitch. "Joe Six-Pack" and "soccer moms" should unite to fight the tormentors who forced mortgages on us. She spoke of "Main Streeters like me." A question is at what point shiny, happy populism becomes cheerful manipulation.
Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We've got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend. She's about to get jumpers, the old political name for people who are so excited to see you they start to jump.
More here
***********************
Governor Palin destroyed Senator Biden tonight and had fun doing it. She was a smiling barracuda teasing a guppy. The joy on her face was infectious - it was lost on Biden until she even made him smile broadly with her "There you go again" Reaganisms. There were no teleprompters. There were no MSM editing the footage to make her look bad. It was just plain Sarah - the most authentic person working as a politician I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Now if you thought Senator Biden was the winner you should have listened to Karl Rove on the roundup. He said Biden made ten undisputable misstatements and another eleven he could argue about. Biden may have sounded experienced - unfortunately he was spewing fiction. However, I never heard a word about the most damaging thing he had to say. No one apparently caught it or if they did I didn't catch it.
He said the bankruptcy courts should be able to readjust not just the interest rate on your home (in default) they should be able to adjust the principal. For example your $500,000 mortgage now is supported by a $250,000 house. He and Obama want taxpayers or the lender to foot the bill for the $250,000 loss. They support having taxpayers footing the $250,000 bill (or the lender) so the homeowner could keep their home.
That is communism. Taking property by government fiat. It is most surprising that Democrats have become so comfortable with Karl Marx that a vice-presidential candidate would espouse confiscation of private property on national TV in a presidential debate. However, if Barrack Obama and the Democrats take over the administration and the Congress I guess we need to get a copy of Das Capital to discover the many ways the American culture will be undermined and our sovereignty stolen
Comment from Dick McDonald, not online elsewhere
*********************
Senator Joe Biden lied at least 14 times during the vice presidential debate according to those counting at John McCain's presidential headquarters. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman from GOP presidential candidate John McCain's campaign said in a statement, ""Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight's debate." McCain's blogger-in-chief Michael Goldfarb chronicled the 14 lies HERE.
On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama's pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition "goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment." Biden lectured Palin, "That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad." During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without "precondition" during his first year in office. "I would," he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?" he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. "Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as "not voting."
More here
***********************
Sarah won this by a mile. This was her first unscripted moment on national stage and she proved herself. This makes me wonder how many good answers Gibson and Couric left on the cutting table. It would be interesting to see how the MSM spins their insistance that Palin is dumb.
Was Biden better with points? Maybe. But who in the audience noticed that? Biden mostly made wonkish points that will give boners to Washington insiders. Sarah talked in a language ordinary Americans understand.
Even fluffy Plouffe agreed (sort of) that Sarah did good. McCain's chances just went way up. McCain has taken a big hit by suspending his campaign to work on the economic crisis. This debate makes up for that.
More here
*************************
Kos: "Sarah Palin won!" He tried to be sarcastic, he tried to spin it, but he had to admit it.
And this was the most telling part of his post: "So who won? Who cares. Nothing happened to change the dynamics of this race. Palin proved that she's still unable to answer the questions posed to her, but she also didn't fall flat on her face. And in the ridiculously depressed expectations for the governor of Alaska, she didn't crash and burn. But she didn't need to maintain the status quo. That's toxic territory for her. She needed to prove that she could get beyond pre-packaged talking points to demonstrating some capacity for analytical thought. In that regard, she failed."
Those grapes are sour.
Source
****************
Republican Sarah Palin flicks off Democrat Joe Biden's talking points. The moose hunter bags another one.
Biden has veered off the facts into Daily Kos land. Biden saying Republican John McCain was wrong on the war. Two words: The Surge. Palin has sliced this guy bad. She shows he knows nothing about energy, the economy and the war. Every answer he has is Bush, Bush, Bush. He's scripted. She's not. Biden's lying. She's not.
I don't know if she can still save McCain, but she got game. Line of the night: Doggone it, Joe. : The shot of the night, after the debate, she took a sleeping Trig and perched him on her shoulder. Not fair but them's the breaks.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Source
SARAH PALIN: SHOCK AND AWE AT THE VP DEBATE!
PEGGY NOONAN SAYS SARAH KILLED!
JOE BIDEN WRONG 16 TIMES IN VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE W PALIN
EVEN THE SWING VOTERS SWUNG TOWARDS SARAH!
DICK MORRIS: SARAH BRILLIANT!
Kathleen Parker, George Will and David Brooks all owe Sarah Palin a huge apology!! They were all willing to throw her under the bus after one bad interview.
Even Charles Krauthammer who has been a Palin skeptic said she did "extremely well". Michelle Malkin sums up my sentiments in this response:
Jim at Gateway Pundit blogged on the debate and the rally after wards. The rally had 10,000 people who were fired up and "greeted Sarah Palin like a Super Bowl Champion".
JOE BIDEN WRONG 16 TIMES IN VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE W PALIN
EVEN THE SWING VOTERS SWUNG TOWARDS SARAH!
DICK MORRIS: SARAH BRILLIANT!
One of the very best debate performances I've ever seen by anyone. Only the liberal media could deny her this victory. This was a clear victory. I would consider this a knock-out!!--Rudy Giuliani
Unbelievable win for Sarah Palin! In fact, I think that it unveiled a level of skill in communication that I really have not seen since Ronald Reagan. She is a super star!--Dick Morris
Kathleen Parker, George Will and David Brooks all owe Sarah Palin a huge apology!! They were all willing to throw her under the bus after one bad interview.
Even Charles Krauthammer who has been a Palin skeptic said she did "extremely well". Michelle Malkin sums up my sentiments in this response:
Sarah rocks!
First, I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words.
Eat them.
Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight’s debate.
She was warm, fresh, funny, confident, energetic, personable, relentless, and on message. She roasted Obama’s flip-flops on the surge and tea-with-dictators declarations, dinged Biden’s bash-Bush rhetoric, challenged the blame-America defeatism of the Left, and exuded the sunny optimism that energized the base in the first place.
McCain has not done many things right. But Sarah Palin proved tonight that the VP risk he took was worth it.
Jim at Gateway Pundit blogged on the debate and the rally after wards. The rally had 10,000 people who were fired up and "greeted Sarah Palin like a Super Bowl Champion".
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sarah Palin, the view from Norway
About a month ago I brought an analysis from Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet about why the Norwegian media is so pro Obama. One researcher explained that most Norwegians are Democrats and there's no reason to give an unbiased picture, as long as they report on the situation of the elections race and the candidate's position in the polls.
What's wrong with being biased?
Here's a list of some of the articles Dagbladet published about Sarah Palin. Links are in Norwegian.
Palin marriage will be fantastic.
Pregnant Palin daughter can save McCain. If she gets married.
Is this Sarah Palin's secret lover?
Major American newspapers refuse to speak about him.
(based on the National Enquirer)
Here Sarah Palin is saved from 'witchcraft'
In service with controversial bishop
Palin employs friends and fires her enemies
New complaints about the Republican's idol
See, now everybody parodies Palin
But Palin parodied them also
(I couldn't find anything about that last one in the article)
Palin is a narrow-minded homophobic
Lohan about Hollywood's new target
Sarah Palin's email hacked
Private pictures, pregnant daughter's address and contact list put on the net.
(Dagbladet not only reports, but brings samples)
A frightening woman
Sorry, but I can't understand why the Republican's vice president, Sarah Palin,
is portrayed as a fresh breath of air in American politics
Tonight she can't read from scripts
Sarah Palin meets a news journalist for the first time since she became a vice presidential candidate
Palin has hated me since 1996
I looked around me and saw that everybody else was too afraid to speak
Absurd and terrifying that Palin can be president
Matt Damon believes McCain will die early
Palin asked for money to live at home
New scratch in the varnish for the vice presidential candidate
Feels "fucked over" by Palin
A soft-rock attack on the Republicans.
Hard to blame them, though. The Norwegian newspapers simply copy from the American media.
What's wrong with being biased?
Here's a list of some of the articles Dagbladet published about Sarah Palin. Links are in Norwegian.
Palin marriage will be fantastic.
Pregnant Palin daughter can save McCain. If she gets married.
Is this Sarah Palin's secret lover?
Major American newspapers refuse to speak about him.
(based on the National Enquirer)
Here Sarah Palin is saved from 'witchcraft'
In service with controversial bishop
Palin employs friends and fires her enemies
New complaints about the Republican's idol
See, now everybody parodies Palin
But Palin parodied them also
(I couldn't find anything about that last one in the article)
Palin is a narrow-minded homophobic
Lohan about Hollywood's new target
Sarah Palin's email hacked
Private pictures, pregnant daughter's address and contact list put on the net.
(Dagbladet not only reports, but brings samples)
A frightening woman
Sorry, but I can't understand why the Republican's vice president, Sarah Palin,
is portrayed as a fresh breath of air in American politics
Tonight she can't read from scripts
Sarah Palin meets a news journalist for the first time since she became a vice presidential candidate
Palin has hated me since 1996
I looked around me and saw that everybody else was too afraid to speak
Absurd and terrifying that Palin can be president
Matt Damon believes McCain will die early
Palin asked for money to live at home
New scratch in the varnish for the vice presidential candidate
Feels "fucked over" by Palin
A soft-rock attack on the Republicans.
Hard to blame them, though. The Norwegian newspapers simply copy from the American media.
Some thoughts on the desirability of miscegenation
I used the word "miscegenation" above deliberately to inflame Leftists. I am sure that any Leftist seeing the word will immediately get an erection. The word was of course used in the Jim Crow era to condemn interracial sex.
Sadly for the Leftists, however, I am going to suggest that there should be more of it! What I am about to say does however still run the risk of grave incorrectness. There only three circumstances under which one can permissibly mention race these days:
1). If you are a Leftist.
2). If you are praising some minority to the skies
3). If you are yourself a member of some minority.
I am going to claim privilege under category 3 -- as I am a member of the world's second-most condemned minority: Middle-class WASP males. The most reviled minority of all is of course that good old faithful from way back: The Jews. Which may be why I tend to think highly of Jews.
So, after that super-careful preamble, what I want to observe is that Caucasian males are a very good matrimonial "catch" for minority women!
Wow! That will immediately get me accused of sexual inadequacy, I am sure. I can only say in my defense that in my life I have looked close up into rather a large number of blue eyes. And, yes, I do think that blue eyes are the most beautiful. Wow! Am I in deep now! But I have blue eyes myself so I do hope that like is still allowed to go with like. Leftists are great egotists so maybe they will allow us conservatives to have a LITTLE bit of liking for what we are ourselves.
Getting back to my point: It is a well-known phenomenon on American university campuses that little ladies of Asian origin often team up with big Caucasian men. It is so common that there is a mocking expression for it: "Yellow fever". Lots of Asian women find tall, well-built white men to be much more attractive than "nerdy" little Asian guys.
It's something one observes a lot in Australia too -- and not only on university campuses. Australia is about 10% Asian these days and as I walk around the streets of Brisbane, white men with Asian women are a common sight. Below is a picture of my son with his long-time girlfriend.
My son is 6' tall, well-built and with blond hair and blue eyes. He also has a degree in mathematics. I am delighted that he associates a lot with smart and civilized Asians rather than with the rough company that he could potentially get into.
What DOES amaze me, however, is that black women seldom seem to pursue white males. I know I am not supposed to mention it but black men are mostly very rough with their women. The women concerned would usually get much more gentlemanly treatment from a white guy. So I think that black women should try harder for white partners. There are after all a lot of white guys around and many of them are quite manly (the metrosexuals of NYC excepted, of course). If black women went more for white guys it would probably make black men sit up and take notice too.
So you see what a terrible white-racist I am! Quite unforgiveable. Must not mention reality.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
I used the word "miscegenation" above deliberately to inflame Leftists. I am sure that any Leftist seeing the word will immediately get an erection. The word was of course used in the Jim Crow era to condemn interracial sex.
Sadly for the Leftists, however, I am going to suggest that there should be more of it! What I am about to say does however still run the risk of grave incorrectness. There only three circumstances under which one can permissibly mention race these days:
1). If you are a Leftist.
2). If you are praising some minority to the skies
3). If you are yourself a member of some minority.
I am going to claim privilege under category 3 -- as I am a member of the world's second-most condemned minority: Middle-class WASP males. The most reviled minority of all is of course that good old faithful from way back: The Jews. Which may be why I tend to think highly of Jews.
So, after that super-careful preamble, what I want to observe is that Caucasian males are a very good matrimonial "catch" for minority women!
Wow! That will immediately get me accused of sexual inadequacy, I am sure. I can only say in my defense that in my life I have looked close up into rather a large number of blue eyes. And, yes, I do think that blue eyes are the most beautiful. Wow! Am I in deep now! But I have blue eyes myself so I do hope that like is still allowed to go with like. Leftists are great egotists so maybe they will allow us conservatives to have a LITTLE bit of liking for what we are ourselves.
Getting back to my point: It is a well-known phenomenon on American university campuses that little ladies of Asian origin often team up with big Caucasian men. It is so common that there is a mocking expression for it: "Yellow fever". Lots of Asian women find tall, well-built white men to be much more attractive than "nerdy" little Asian guys.
It's something one observes a lot in Australia too -- and not only on university campuses. Australia is about 10% Asian these days and as I walk around the streets of Brisbane, white men with Asian women are a common sight. Below is a picture of my son with his long-time girlfriend.
My son is 6' tall, well-built and with blond hair and blue eyes. He also has a degree in mathematics. I am delighted that he associates a lot with smart and civilized Asians rather than with the rough company that he could potentially get into.
What DOES amaze me, however, is that black women seldom seem to pursue white males. I know I am not supposed to mention it but black men are mostly very rough with their women. The women concerned would usually get much more gentlemanly treatment from a white guy. So I think that black women should try harder for white partners. There are after all a lot of white guys around and many of them are quite manly (the metrosexuals of NYC excepted, of course). If black women went more for white guys it would probably make black men sit up and take notice too.
So you see what a terrible white-racist I am! Quite unforgiveable. Must not mention reality.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
There are TWO ways the U.S. government has destroyed the financial system
The email below from someone in the system (Steve Goodman of Voorhees, NJ) explains all. Not only did the government cause the problem with its insistence on lending money to anybody capable of staggering into a bank but it is now preventing any recovery of the system with its "mark to market" regulation. The essential point is that most sub-prime borrowers are in fact making their payments but the regulations not only ignore that but force the financial system to treat the mortgages concerned as worthless
I am an attorney and have spent most of my career advising banks and other lenders on compliance with the many laws and regulations that govern loans to consumers and businesses.
I think that the culprit behind this mess is fast coming to light. It is our government. In part the crisis is a runaway subprime loan giveaway foisted on regulated lenders by the government. Banks and other mortgage lenders were required by federal law to make and invest in mortgages made to persons who could not afford to borrow, or they would be in violation of the federal 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Over the years, consumer activist groups, such as ACORN (but there are others), used the CRA to interject themselves in the regulatory process regarding requests by banks to open new branches or to merge with other institutions. Initially, the Federal Reserve Board gave little weight to these activist claims but, as the Congress criticized the Fed to enforce the CRA (and thereby to STOP discrimination in home lending, of which there was little or no evidence), banks were forced to enter into contracts with ACORN and other activist groups under which they committed to make billions of dollars of subprime loans.
The CRA was used more recently as a cudgel to force banks to make loans the banks would not make on their own. How could a bank refuse to make a loan if it would be approved by applying the very low approval standards adopted by the gse's (Fannie and Freddie)? And, under Andrew Cuomo, the Chairman of HUD in the 90's, the then "normal" rules for rejecting loans were replaced by very lax standards intended to rapidly increase home ownership by those persons who could not afford to buy homes under the old rules. HUD permitted the charging of broker's fees, ALT-A loans, interest only, and whatever the market would bear. It created the subprime market we know today and induced lenders to participate. States and localities are adopting laws and ordnances to regulate the practices of mortgage lenders and brokers, with no real understanding of how the market got to this point.
The majority of CRA (subprime) loans are now performing. But, that fact seems to have no impact on their "market" value, at least to regulators, auditors and accountants. The market for subprime loans has quickly dried up because the "mark to market" rule adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board requires that all assets be valued and revalued based on their current market worth. If the secondary market for any financial product (such as a loan) tends to dry up, the mark to market rule comes into play to further devalue those products traded in that market. Thus, fairly quickly, an otherwise performing subprime loan secured by residential real estate collateral has a near zero market value. Even if a buyer wanted to purchase the subprime mortgage for what the buyer deemed its worth based on the performing stream of payments. interest rate, and the like, the buyer would be required to immediately mark the asset value down on its books and undermine its own stock market value.
So, if a buyer purchased a mortgage that, based on the likelihood of payment, remaining payments, interest rate, and credit worthiness of the borrower it valued at $100,000, it would then have to apply the mark to market rule to value the loan at near zero on its books. No publicly traded or regulated company or bank can do that. Moreover, in my experience, the bank regulators will soon demand that other loans, such as prime mortgage loans, car loans, installment loans, and the like, be written down as their marketability will come into question. The regulators can themselves bring a loan market to a standstill. They did it before and will do it again.
Thus, the net effect of the mark to market accounting rule is to create a downward spiral in valuation of all loans, without regard to their true worth. And, while the mark to market rule was supposed to create a better understanding of a company's (or bank's) value, which the cost basis somehow did not do (although it worked for a long, long time and there was no perceived need to change it), it has quickly been found to artificially undermine that net worth.
So, instead of throwing $700 Billion into a black hole, to be doled out at the discretion of some bureaucrat who will have no idea what he or she is doing, and thereby prolonging instability in the market and inviting a depression, we should simply rescind the mark to market rule and let buyers and sellers reach the price for loans that would allow them to value loans in the real world and use that cost or historical value for bookkeeping purposes. To do so will keep bank regulators, accountants and auditors at bay and open the market to market trading.
(It would be a positive on public confidence in the banking system to raise the cap on deposit insurance, too but, in my opinion, that is not as essential as rescinding the mark to market rule.)
Note that by requiring the use of the mark to market rule, the government that required that subprime loans be made, is now requiring that they be written down to near zero values that Secretary is advising the Congress are much less than their real worth. After all, his argument in selling his plan to the Congress is that the government can hold the loans for a short while and then sell them into the market for large profits. But, unless and until the mark to market rule is rescinded, The government will be able to sell subprime loans only to nonpublicly traded companies. So, to unload these loans for the promised profits, the mark to market rule will rescinded when it is in the interests of our government to do so.
In essence, the U. S. Government has required banks and other mortgage lenders to make imprudent subprime loans and, under Paulson's plan, gets to steal them and later sell them for a profit. This is not a bailout. It is highway robbery. And, we are now getting to see the Paulson plan for what it is. This is a very incompetent man who rose far above his capabilities.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
I am an attorney and have spent most of my career advising banks and other lenders on compliance with the many laws and regulations that govern loans to consumers and businesses.
I think that the culprit behind this mess is fast coming to light. It is our government. In part the crisis is a runaway subprime loan giveaway foisted on regulated lenders by the government. Banks and other mortgage lenders were required by federal law to make and invest in mortgages made to persons who could not afford to borrow, or they would be in violation of the federal 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Over the years, consumer activist groups, such as ACORN (but there are others), used the CRA to interject themselves in the regulatory process regarding requests by banks to open new branches or to merge with other institutions. Initially, the Federal Reserve Board gave little weight to these activist claims but, as the Congress criticized the Fed to enforce the CRA (and thereby to STOP discrimination in home lending, of which there was little or no evidence), banks were forced to enter into contracts with ACORN and other activist groups under which they committed to make billions of dollars of subprime loans.
The CRA was used more recently as a cudgel to force banks to make loans the banks would not make on their own. How could a bank refuse to make a loan if it would be approved by applying the very low approval standards adopted by the gse's (Fannie and Freddie)? And, under Andrew Cuomo, the Chairman of HUD in the 90's, the then "normal" rules for rejecting loans were replaced by very lax standards intended to rapidly increase home ownership by those persons who could not afford to buy homes under the old rules. HUD permitted the charging of broker's fees, ALT-A loans, interest only, and whatever the market would bear. It created the subprime market we know today and induced lenders to participate. States and localities are adopting laws and ordnances to regulate the practices of mortgage lenders and brokers, with no real understanding of how the market got to this point.
The majority of CRA (subprime) loans are now performing. But, that fact seems to have no impact on their "market" value, at least to regulators, auditors and accountants. The market for subprime loans has quickly dried up because the "mark to market" rule adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board requires that all assets be valued and revalued based on their current market worth. If the secondary market for any financial product (such as a loan) tends to dry up, the mark to market rule comes into play to further devalue those products traded in that market. Thus, fairly quickly, an otherwise performing subprime loan secured by residential real estate collateral has a near zero market value. Even if a buyer wanted to purchase the subprime mortgage for what the buyer deemed its worth based on the performing stream of payments. interest rate, and the like, the buyer would be required to immediately mark the asset value down on its books and undermine its own stock market value.
So, if a buyer purchased a mortgage that, based on the likelihood of payment, remaining payments, interest rate, and credit worthiness of the borrower it valued at $100,000, it would then have to apply the mark to market rule to value the loan at near zero on its books. No publicly traded or regulated company or bank can do that. Moreover, in my experience, the bank regulators will soon demand that other loans, such as prime mortgage loans, car loans, installment loans, and the like, be written down as their marketability will come into question. The regulators can themselves bring a loan market to a standstill. They did it before and will do it again.
Thus, the net effect of the mark to market accounting rule is to create a downward spiral in valuation of all loans, without regard to their true worth. And, while the mark to market rule was supposed to create a better understanding of a company's (or bank's) value, which the cost basis somehow did not do (although it worked for a long, long time and there was no perceived need to change it), it has quickly been found to artificially undermine that net worth.
So, instead of throwing $700 Billion into a black hole, to be doled out at the discretion of some bureaucrat who will have no idea what he or she is doing, and thereby prolonging instability in the market and inviting a depression, we should simply rescind the mark to market rule and let buyers and sellers reach the price for loans that would allow them to value loans in the real world and use that cost or historical value for bookkeeping purposes. To do so will keep bank regulators, accountants and auditors at bay and open the market to market trading.
(It would be a positive on public confidence in the banking system to raise the cap on deposit insurance, too but, in my opinion, that is not as essential as rescinding the mark to market rule.)
Note that by requiring the use of the mark to market rule, the government that required that subprime loans be made, is now requiring that they be written down to near zero values that Secretary is advising the Congress are much less than their real worth. After all, his argument in selling his plan to the Congress is that the government can hold the loans for a short while and then sell them into the market for large profits. But, unless and until the mark to market rule is rescinded, The government will be able to sell subprime loans only to nonpublicly traded companies. So, to unload these loans for the promised profits, the mark to market rule will rescinded when it is in the interests of our government to do so.
In essence, the U. S. Government has required banks and other mortgage lenders to make imprudent subprime loans and, under Paulson's plan, gets to steal them and later sell them for a profit. This is not a bailout. It is highway robbery. And, we are now getting to see the Paulson plan for what it is. This is a very incompetent man who rose far above his capabilities.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
TONIGHT ON KFNX TALK-RADIO
[Image courtesy of Stogie]
Tonight, October 2, at 8:00 P.M. Phoenix time, Pastorius, webmaster of Infidel Bloggers Alliance, will host "Voices of Freedom," a one-hour weekly show on KFNX 1100. See this time-zone chart (Refresh the page!) if you are in a different time zone than Phoenix, Arizona; click directly on the word "PHOENIX" to get a world map of time zones.
The scheduled guests are Dr. Paul L. Williams and Kate Kroeger.
Tune in if you can! In addition to AM air time at the scheduled hour, KFNX offers live streaming at the station's web site.
VOICES OF FREEDOM: THE SHOW THAT MAKES JIHADISTS CRY.
Web site for VOICES OF FREEDOM
Tonight, October 2, at 8:00 P.M. Phoenix time, Pastorius, webmaster of Infidel Bloggers Alliance, will host "Voices of Freedom," a one-hour weekly show on KFNX 1100. See this time-zone chart (Refresh the page!) if you are in a different time zone than Phoenix, Arizona; click directly on the word "PHOENIX" to get a world map of time zones.The scheduled guests are Dr. Paul L. Williams and Kate Kroeger.
Tune in if you can! In addition to AM air time at the scheduled hour, KFNX offers live streaming at the station's web site.
VOICES OF FREEDOM: THE SHOW THAT MAKES JIHADISTS CRY.
Web site for VOICES OF FREEDOM
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
FYI: THEY LIT THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING IN GREEN LIGHT TONIGHT - FOR AN ISLAMIC HOLIDAY
Eid al-Fitr.
- In NYC.
- Home of GROUND ZERO.
- This sucks.
- And it's a BAD OMEN...
- MORE ON THIS KIND OF DHIMMITUDE HERE.
OBAMA BASICALLY ADMITS THAT THE CENTERPIECE OF HIS FOREIGN POLICY IS A SHAM
OBAMA HAS MADE TALKING TO OUR ENEMIES THE CENTERPIECE OF HIS FOREIGN POLICY; HE HAS ARGUED THAT THIS IS WHAT WILL MAKE HIM DIFFERENT AND BETTER THAN A "BUSH THIRD TERM".
But yesterday, Obama admitted he isn't very persuasive with people who are merely on the other side of the aisle in Congress; you know, Republicans:
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
But yesterday, Obama admitted he isn't very persuasive with people who are merely on the other side of the aisle in Congress; you know, Republicans:
Berman: You're a very persuasive man, you have a certain amount of influence with your own party, could you have done more, should you have done more, before the House vote yesterday to lobby for votes?
Obama: Oh, absolutely, not because -- if you think about it, there was a deal struck between [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Republican [Minority House] leader [John] Boehner.
The Democrats were supposed to get 120 votes, they got 140 so there was no sense on the Democratic side that we weren't following through on our commitments and apparently there were some problems on that side.
I don't think me calling House Republican members would have been that helpful,
I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle.
Despite admitting he can't persuade Republicans, Obama has made TALKING to America's ENEMIES the centerpiece of his foreign policy: he wants to TALK more to Iran; he wants to TALK more to North Korea; he wants to TALK more with Chavez - and so on:
WELL, ER UM... IF OBAMA BELIEVES THAT CAN'T PERSUADE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS ON ANYTHING, THEN WHAT MAKES HIM THINK HE CAN CHANGE OUR ENEMIES OVERSEAS!?
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK OBAMA CAN IF HE STATES HE CAN'T!?!?!?
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
PALIN-REYNOLDS 2012
A BIG TENT TICKET WITH A CONSERVATIVE AND A LIBERAL!
A BIG TENT TICKET WITH A REAL PERSON AND A LAWYER!
A BIG TENT TICKET WITH AN EXPERIENCED EXECUTIVE AND AN EXPERIENCED BLOGGER!
LET'S GET IT ON!
A BIG TENT TICKET WITH A REAL PERSON AND A LAWYER!
A BIG TENT TICKET WITH AN EXPERIENCED EXECUTIVE AND AN EXPERIENCED BLOGGER!
LET'S GET IT ON!Until Glenn takes the Sherman Pledge I betting he's interested...
And er um ... yes, this is a shameless attempt to get an instalanche.
*******UPDATE: Glenn emailed: He's taking the Sherman Pledge.
Oh well. AND NO INSTALANCHE! I shoulda nominated ALLAHPUNDIT or ACE!
And er um ... yes, this is a shameless attempt to get an instalanche.
*******UPDATE: Glenn emailed: He's taking the Sherman Pledge.
Oh well. AND NO INSTALANCHE! I shoulda nominated ALLAHPUNDIT or ACE!
A firsthand report: Must not speak ill of Muslims
The following is an email received from a reader, Jonathan Lewin, published with his permission:
I must say I had a laugh at the feminist's comment: Quite deranged.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH (2), POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
"I am a (practicing Jewish) professor of mathematics at Kennesaw State University which is a unit of the University System of Georgia. About two weeks ago, on seeing yet another totally uncritical invitation to an MSA (Muslim Student Association) event (some sort of dinner and fund raiser), I wrote a faculty-wide letter that indicated my sense of unease with the torrent of "hate speech" and even occasional condonation of violence that has been spewed by campus MSAs across the nation. I said that I would be more comfortable if our local MSA told us that they did not go along with the activity of the network of MSAs of which they are a member.
I provided quite a bit of chapter and verse, including some links to U Tube videos and other matter, some of it I had traced beginning with some items that you have published in Tongue Tied.
I did expect (hope) to see a number of expressions of outrage that such activity could be occurring on the nation's campuses. I did hope that people would tell me how appalled they are.
As you can guess, I received, in place of what I hoped to see, a torrent of letters, all sent campus-wide with each one patting the last one on the back, saying how appalled they are with my letter. The material about which I was writing was never mentioned. What was "appalling" was that I dared to raise the issue.
I received a "request" for a meeting by the chief "diversity officer", a request I have ignored.
Then comes part 2 in the saga. A day or two ago, getting wind of a new policy on campus to require ALL full time students (commuting students) to buy expensive meal plans on campus. They said explicitly that "no groups will be exempt from this requirement".
I wrote again to faculty suggesting that this now is an actual diversity issue. There is no food on campus for observant Jews and I suspect that Muslims may be in much the same boat. Presumably, I said, all such people will be expected to pay for the meal plans and then to bring their own brown bags to campus.
This time (perhaps because I included the Muslims????) I got some positive response; except from a professor of "gender and womens' studies" (whatever that means) who wrote to me that she found my letter to be "invasive and oppressive". So now I am an oppressor.
I must say I had a laugh at the feminist's comment: Quite deranged.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, OBAMA WATCH (2), POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
A small compendium of skeptical comment on the bailout
Comment by Steven E. Landsburg, professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York: "We are embarking on the most radical transformation of the American economy since the New Deal, committing hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to save banks and other financial institutions from the consequences of their own bad investments. This, we are told, is the cost of averting a crisis. But I sure wish someone would explain to me exactly what crisis we're trying to avert. What's clear is that a bunch of financial institutions have made mistakes and lost money. What's unclear is why anyone (other than the owners and managers) should care. People make mistakes and lose money all the time. Restaurants fail, grocery stores fail, gas stations fail. People pick the wrong stocks, they buy the wrong cars, and they marry the wrong spouses without turning to the Treasury for bailouts.
Bailout marks Karl Marx's comeback : "In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the `centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.' If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favor the free market, agree with him."
Why I oppose the bailout, by US Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): "Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it."
A damn good defeat: "There is no disputing that financial firms have too much unidentified and unpriced, semi-performing assets on their books. To regain access to the credit and capital markets, all these firms have to do is identify and price those assets. The resulting write-downs will trim the share price and capital will once again flow in. It's that simple, kind of. You see, these firms don't just want access to the capital markets again, they want it at the share price they can command with those overvalued assets on their books. Hey, I want $30K for my `92 Accord with 200k miles on it, too, but I'm not holding my breath. The Billionaire Bailout scheme, in a round-about fashion, is to force you to take on these overvalued assets at book value or, in most cases, higher thus replacing ??? with cash on the books of financial firms. When the scheme fell apart this afternoon, the stock market resumed its one-and-only function: discovering the share price at which firms can access capital markets."
Economic laws of conservation: "One of the economic broad principles that I am familiar with is that, while the market can be wrong, you (whoever you are) are almost certainly unable reliably to do better than the market. Claims that the government will probably recoup its investment and even profit violate this principle. Another of the economic broad principles that I am familiar with is that the market works by no other means than rewarding wise investment and punishing foolish investment. That is how it works. A more general broad principle, upon which this relies, is that you get more of what you reward. The bailout violates this principle as well. Miron, and other economists who have spoken out against the bailout, have tended to make arguments that I find comprehensible and persuasive, because they appeal to broad economic principles that I am familiar with and have long since accepted. Those who have spoken out in favor of the bailout - well, for one thing, rather than see actual arguments from them I have seen appeals to authority, appeals to hidden knowledge, sky-is-falling warnings that have no actual content but serve merely to shift the reader into panic mode, vehement attacks on those who disagree, and the like".
If you're going to bailout anybody... : "It is not clear whether there would be a financial catastrophe if the bailout were not passed. Credit is still available; millions of people are still using their credit cards. Businesses are still getting loans. However, it is true that many firms can't obtain funds except at quite high risk premiums, or not at all. The credit markets are somewhat stuck, but maybe that is because lenders are waiting for the government to act. Any plan that bails out banks and mortgages is going to favor some at the expense of others. Many who have been dutifully paying their mortgage payments, or fully own their homes, will not get any aid. If there is a major liquidity problem, and if government has to step in to prevent financial chaos, the egalitarian solution would be to provide money to everyone equally. Money to the people!"
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Bailout marks Karl Marx's comeback : "In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the `centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.' If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favor the free market, agree with him."
Why I oppose the bailout, by US Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): "Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it."
A damn good defeat: "There is no disputing that financial firms have too much unidentified and unpriced, semi-performing assets on their books. To regain access to the credit and capital markets, all these firms have to do is identify and price those assets. The resulting write-downs will trim the share price and capital will once again flow in. It's that simple, kind of. You see, these firms don't just want access to the capital markets again, they want it at the share price they can command with those overvalued assets on their books. Hey, I want $30K for my `92 Accord with 200k miles on it, too, but I'm not holding my breath. The Billionaire Bailout scheme, in a round-about fashion, is to force you to take on these overvalued assets at book value or, in most cases, higher thus replacing ??? with cash on the books of financial firms. When the scheme fell apart this afternoon, the stock market resumed its one-and-only function: discovering the share price at which firms can access capital markets."
Economic laws of conservation: "One of the economic broad principles that I am familiar with is that, while the market can be wrong, you (whoever you are) are almost certainly unable reliably to do better than the market. Claims that the government will probably recoup its investment and even profit violate this principle. Another of the economic broad principles that I am familiar with is that the market works by no other means than rewarding wise investment and punishing foolish investment. That is how it works. A more general broad principle, upon which this relies, is that you get more of what you reward. The bailout violates this principle as well. Miron, and other economists who have spoken out against the bailout, have tended to make arguments that I find comprehensible and persuasive, because they appeal to broad economic principles that I am familiar with and have long since accepted. Those who have spoken out in favor of the bailout - well, for one thing, rather than see actual arguments from them I have seen appeals to authority, appeals to hidden knowledge, sky-is-falling warnings that have no actual content but serve merely to shift the reader into panic mode, vehement attacks on those who disagree, and the like".
If you're going to bailout anybody... : "It is not clear whether there would be a financial catastrophe if the bailout were not passed. Credit is still available; millions of people are still using their credit cards. Businesses are still getting loans. However, it is true that many firms can't obtain funds except at quite high risk premiums, or not at all. The credit markets are somewhat stuck, but maybe that is because lenders are waiting for the government to act. Any plan that bails out banks and mortgages is going to favor some at the expense of others. Many who have been dutifully paying their mortgage payments, or fully own their homes, will not get any aid. If there is a major liquidity problem, and if government has to step in to prevent financial chaos, the egalitarian solution would be to provide money to everyone equally. Money to the people!"
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH (2). Email me (John Ray) here
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
DEBATES COMMISSION MUST ASK GWEN IFILL TO STEP ASIDE
- GWEN IS PRO-OBAMA
- AND THEREFORE SHE MUST STEP ASIDE.
- HOW ABOUT A PANEL OF DOBBS, BRIT, AND COKIE?
- MORE HERE.
Is It 1938 All Over Again?
(Thanks to Scherzo at Infidel Bloggers Alliance.)
Children sing to Hitler.
Children sing to Obama.
Children sing to Hitler.
Children sing to Obama.
OBAMA ADMITS HE'S NOT POST-PARTISAN OR EVEN BI-PARTISAN
ANOTHER OBAMA MYTH BITES THE DUST - COURTESY OF OBAMA HIMSELF - (VIA HOT AIR):
Berman: Are you calling members today?Obama: I will be calling members and getting their ideas. The main thing is to just move away from this hyper-political environment and recognize the house is on fire, lets put the fire out first and we can figure out what caused it.
Berman: You're a very persuasive man, you have a certain amount of influence with your own party, could you have done more, should you have done more, before the House vote yesterday to lobby for votes?
Obama: Oh, absolutely, not because -- if you think about it, there was a deal struck between [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Republican [Minority House] leader [John] Boehner.
The Democrats were supposed to get 120 votes, they got 140 so there was no sense on the Democratic side that we weren't following through on our commitments and apparently there were some problems on that side. I don't think me calling House Republican members would have been that helpful, I tend not to be that persuasive on that side of the aisle.
YESTERDAY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADMITTED HE CALLED NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE TO URGE THEY VOTE FOR THE BILL - (MORE HERE):
Mr. Holtz-Eakin [A MCCAIN SPOKESPERSON] said Mr. McCain had made “dozens of calls” on the bill, some to House Republicans who opposed it.
Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure.
- EVEN OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR, JESSE JACKSON JUNIOR, OF CHICAGO - VOTED NO.
- OBAMA IS NOT A LEADER; HE HAS NO LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, UNLESS YOU CALL READING A TELEPROMPTER A LEADERSHIP SKILL!
- MCCAIN IS A TRUE MAVERICK AND A LEADER WHO HAS FORGED MOST OF THE BIG BI-PARTISAN BILLS AND LAWS IN THE CONGRESS THE LAST TWO DECADES.
OBAMA IS A PHONY; MCCAIN IS THE REAL DEAL.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.