"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

DAVID BROOKS: THE CHUCK HAGEL OF "CONSERVATIVE COLUMNISTS"

  • RIGHT NOW, DEFEATING OBAMA IS THE MOST CRITICAL THINGS WE CAN DO FOR AMERICA, DAVEY - NOT JUST FOR CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS.
  • AND YOU'RE NOT HELPING ONE BIT.
  • DAVID BROOKS IS PROVING HE BELONGS AT THE NYTIMES WITH THAT IDIOT TOM FRIEDMAN AND THAT MORON KRUGMAN AND THAT SLEEZEBAG DOWD AND THAT LOON HERBERT.
  • YIPES: WHATTA CREW!

PHOTO-OP: COMPARE THE SOCIALISTS MCCAIN "HUNG OUT" WITH TO THOSE OBAMA HUNG OUT WITH

... AND COMPARE WHY:




ON THE ONE HAND... AS A YOUNG MAN - AND FOR HIS WHOLE LIFE, MCCAIN WAS DEFENDING US FROM THEM...


THESE ARE THE ONLY SOCIALISTS HE EVER HUNG OUT WITH - AND IT WAS AGAINST HIS WILL:


























ON THE OTHER HAND... OBAMA WAS BEFRIENDING THEM.















































REPEAT: WHILE MCCAIN HAS BEEN DEFENDING US FROM SOCIALISTS, OBAMA HAS BEEN BEFRIENDING THEM.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

I have just one question for Barack Obama

Here's my question:

Senator Obama, when you first ran for Congress in 2000 you claimed your central experience was the Chairmanship of the $165 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Yet now that central qualification is missing from your resume. Is that because it was an utter failure... or because you worked closely with terrorist Bill Ayers for a half-dozen years?

In 2000 Barack Obama addressed the experience issue during his unsuccessful run for Congress.

Question: "One of the criticisms that arises in connection with your candidacy is you simply haven't been in the Senate very long, the State Senate. You have a limited track record in terms of time, what is your argument based on the one term that you've served so far? What makes you prepared for the Congress?"

Obama: "Well, I'm in my second term, but it's true that certainly both Senator Trotter and Congressman Rush have been in elected office longer than I have. I can't deny that. I would argue, though, that my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job. I have a background as an attorney, I've represented affordable housing organizations to build affordable housing, something that's a major issue in the district. I've chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that gave fifty million dollars to prompt school reform efforts throughout the city."

Possible answer #1: The CAC's $165 million boondoggle was -- by its own admission -- an utter and complete failure.

Possible answer #2: In 1995 Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- who advocate the overthrow of the U.S government to this very day -- launched Barack Obama's career by hosting a "Meet the Candidate" event in their home. Ayers, who founded the CAC, then hired Obama as Chairman of the Board and administrator of $165 million, even though he had no experience other than as a "community organizer."

Either answer explains why Obama tossed his CAC experience (arguably his only "executive" experience) down the memory hole.

It's two... two... two... screw-ups in one! Not exactly the judgment we're looking for in a commander-in-chief. And doesn't that phrase ("Commander-in-Chief Obama") send a shiver down your spine?

Update: Obama's website has engineered several delightful evasions. His biography somehow omits his vaunted experience with the CAC and its ill-named "Fact Check" ostensibly explains the Obama/Ayers relationship without mentioning the Chicago Annenberg Challenge or the Woods Fund boards they served on for years.

A BLACK REPUBLICAN SPEAKS OUT - ON VIDEO... RIGHT ON!

VIA DR. SANITY:

LEFTIES BELIEVE IN OBAMA THE WAY CHILDREN BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS


  • OBAMA HAS ACCOMPLISHED ZERO IN HIS LIFE.
  • HE HAS MADE NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY LASTING IMPROVEMENT TO ANYTHING.
  • NOT A SINGLE MAJOR BILL OR LAW.
  • NOTHING.
  • BUT THE LEFT BELIEVES IN HIM, DESPITE THIS - AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE'S PLAYED BALL WITH THE CHICAGO MACHINE, AND NEVER ONCE TAKEN ON ANYBODY OR ANYTHING - BESIDES HILLARY.
  • AND: OBAMA WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SURGE; IS A STOOGE OF FANNIE MAE; AND A PAL OF AYERS AND WRIGHT.
  • BUT THE LEFT PERSISTS IN THEIR BLIND FAITH IN OBAMA. WHY!? ARE LEFTIES DUMB!?!?!?



  • NO, THEY'RE GULLIBLE CHILDREN WHO WANT GIFTS SOMEONE ELSE PAYS FOR. THEY THINK HE WILL TAX THE RICH AND GIVE THEM GOODIES.
MAYBE THAT MAKES HIM ROBIN HOOD, AND NOT SANTA CALUS?

SAME DIFFERENCE.

OBAMA PELOSI AND REID GOT US INTO THIS MESS, SO DON'T REWARD THEM!

FACT:

  • THE DEMOCRATS OF CONGRESS GOT US INTO THIS MESS: BY BLOCKING PROPER OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE.

FACT:

  • SINCE HE GOT INTO THE US SENATE, OBAMA WAS THE SINGLE BIGGEST RECIPIENT OF FANNIE MAE MONEY.

YES: THE BIGGEST!

DON'T REWARD THEM WITH MORE POWER.

OBAMA WILL BE AMERICA'S CHAVEZ - IF ELECTED...


OBAMA IS A DYED IN THE WOOL SOCIALIST. HE LEARNED IT FROM MOMMY AND DADDY AND FRANK DAVIS AND ALINSKY.
  • CHAVEZ ONLY ADMITTED HE WAS A SOCIALIST AFTER HIS ELECTION.
  • OBAMA WILL TOO.
  • IN EUROPE MAJOR PARTIES ARE UNASHAMED ABOUT CALLING THEMSELVES WHAT THEY ARE: THEY ARE SOCIALISTS AND THEY CALLS THEMSELVES SOCIALISTS.
  • BUT OBAMA KNOWS HE MUST LIE TO GET ELECTED IN THE USA.
  • ALL WE SAW AT LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY LIAR.
  • OBAMA IS A BIGGER BADDER LIAR THAN BILL CLINTON.
  • AND HE REGULARLY CHATTED WITH LEFT-WING TERRORISTS AYERS AND DOHRN UNTIL 2005!
DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU...

More on Obama's terrorist associations

A great video with 1970's news footage of these communist punk terrorists making their revolutionary plans known and bragging about their atrocities. Then it switches to some modern interviews and coverage of the ties between Obama and Ayers. At the end is an interview Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn gave to Connie Chung, where they repeat on camera that they wish they had done more damage.

That interview was done during the time Obama was associated with Ayers.



If this stuff doesn't take a chunk out of Obama, I could be convinced that Ayers and his kind actually won the war against America they started back in the '70s.

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

Most media "fact-checking" is just pro-Obama bias

In a September 1984 campaign speech, Walter Mondale, the Democratic presidential nominee and former vice president, asked, "Do you really want Jerry Falwell to pick the next two judges to the Supreme Court?" What reminded us of this was a story from yesterday's New York Times, written by Patrick Healy, which begins as follows:
There is no way, of course, that Senator Barack Obama would ever nominate three controversial figures from his past to serve on the United States Supreme Court: the convicted felon Antoin Rezko; the former Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers; or Mr. Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Yet the names and faces of the three men appear in a new television advertisement--running in Michigan and Ohio this week and nationally on Fox News on Monday, at a total cost of $500,000--arguing that Mr. Obama's judgment about his associates shows that he cannot be trusted to pick justices for the Supreme Court.

We wondered if the Times had thought it necessary back in '84 to point out that only the president has the power to make nominations to the federal bench, that Falwell was not running for president, that there was no way he would end up holding any office that would put him in the line of presidential succession, and, therefore, that the premise of Mondale's question was false.

Nope. Times reporter Fay Joyce merely quoted Mondale, apparently confident that her readers would be smart enough to distinguish political hyperbole from fact.

So why, a generation later, does the Times begin an article by rebutting an assertion that the ad in question (watch it here) does not even make? Because 2008 is the year in which "fact checking" of political ads and statements became a full-blown journalistic fad. May it soon go the way of streaking and Mexican jumping beans.

The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars.

Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican). Example: USA Today has a "reality check" of a McCain ad whose script runs as follows:
Narrator: "Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are . . .

Obama: ". . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

Narrator: "How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops, increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals: too risky for America."

The USA Today headline reads "Quote From Obama Taken Out of Context." In a way this is a tautology, since a quotation by definition is taken out of its original context (and placed in a new one). But of course the phrase out of context usually connotes "used in a misleading way." Is that the case here? Here is a longer version of the Obama quote, per USA Today:
"We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

One the one hand, Obama was making a broader argument, which the McCain ad ignores: that America should send more troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama clearly did assert that America is "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" (the subsequent clause makes that undeniable), though one could argue about whether he was asserting or merely worrying that we are "just" doing so. USA Today's "reality check" quotes another news organization's "fact check":
After Obama made that statement, the Associated Press produced a "fact check." It concluded that "Western forces (in Afghanistan) have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians."

This certainly raises more questions than it answers. Given that the enemy in Afghanistan does not distinguish itself from the civilian population, how many of the putative civilians who have died in attacks by the West were actually enemy combatants? And on what basis does one assign blame for civilian casualties when the West attacks terrorists who are hiding among civilians?

A look at the original AP "fact check" shows that it is based on number from . . . the Associated Press! The AP admits that "tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task," but it takes its own numbers as definitive, although it apparently makes no effort to deal with the questions we raised in the preceding paragraph.

In any case, the AP's dubious numbers are hardly relevant to the truth of the McCain ad's assertion about what Obama said. And why is it necessary for USA Today to have an opinion on the latter point anyway? Why not just report what the McCain ad said, report what Obama said, and let the reader make up his own mind?

Somehow these reportorial "checks" almost always seem to come out in Obama's favor. Is that because he is the more honest candidate, or because he is the candidate reporters find more attractive? Here's an example that strongly suggests the latter, again from the Associated Press:
Corsi's book claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors--that he was raised a Muslim and attended a radical black church.

Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Web site FightTheSmears.com.

It is a "false rumor" that Trinity United is a "radical black church"? It's hard to see how anyone could believe this even as a matter of opinion, but for the AP to present it as fact makes a mockery of journalism.

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

MUSLIM IN EAST JERUSALEM INDICTED FOR PLOTTING SHOOTING

This seems to be related to this story, as the culprit in this case was a friend of the BMW villain, who tried to buy a gun with which to carry out an assault:
An east Jerusalem Arab was indicted on Wednesday in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court for connection with acts of terror.

Hadad Ja'abis, 28, of Jebl Mukaber, was a friend of Kassem Mughrabi, who was killed when he rammed his BMW into a group of soldiers and civilians at Jerusalem's Kikar Tzahal two weeks ago.

The 28-year-old was accused of attempting to purchase a hand gun in order to carry out a terror attack in the city, allegedly in either the suburb of Neve Ya'akov, or at the Haas Promenade in Armon Hanatziv, also in Jerusalem.

According to the charge sheet, Ja'abis went to console mourners at the Mughrabi house, and was asked to acquire a weapon "to murder Jews." He apparently made the decision to plan an attack shortly after his friend perpetrated the Kikar Tzahal attack.

The court ordered Ja'abris to house arrest on Tuesday, and he was remanded again on Wednesday until proceedings continue next week.
I think I can guess how "sequel crimes" can occur if we let down our guard.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

IF OBAMA SUPPORTS INTERVENTION TO STOP GENOCIDE, WHY DID HE OPPOSE THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ?

During tonight's "town hall" debate in Nashville, Senator Barack Obama opined that the United States should intervene militarily --even when our interests are not at stake-- for humanitarian reasons, such as to end genocide and ethnic cleansing. He said we had a moral interest in stopping mass killing in places such as Darfur, Somalia, and the Congo.

What a liar.

The Saddam Hussein regime was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites, and had used chemical and biological warfare against the Kurds.

Toppling the Saddam Hussein regime required boots on the groud for less than three weeks, and fewer than 200 Americans were killed in battle during one of history's most brilliant and effective campaigns.

And that stopped Saddam Hussein's genocide cold.

Moreover, Saddam Hussein had drained the Iraqi marshes, an act of ecological terrorism almost without parallel in history, whose intention was the genocide of the "marsh Arabs."

But that intended genocide was stopped cold by America's intervention, and the marshes are well on their way to complete restoration.

Yet Obama continues to trumpet his ill-conceived and wrong-headed opinion that the war to liberate Iraq from the genocidal tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a mistake.

What makes you think that he and his fellow defeatists in the Democrat Party would be any more supportive of American military action anywhere else?

What a lying hypocrite.

Vote accordingly.

UPDATE: Wednesday 10:30 AM.

Added from my response to a comment from a reader:

I should add that military intervention is always more attractive to the Democrat Party whenever American vital interests are NOT at stake.

If military intervention might actually do something to help our Country and the American people, it is always suspect in the eyes of defeatist Democrats.

But military action that will do nothing to advance American interests is automatically more attractive to them. If there is no chance that military action will actually help America, the Democrats actually like it better.

Since at heart, they are opposed to American interests. They have become anti-American globalists who see the United States as the problem rather than the solution.

UPDATE #2: TAB SCOOPS HOT AIR AND JEFF JACOBY:

PUNDITARIAN SCOOPED THEM BY A DAY. THEY WROTE ON THIS ISSUE HERE AND HERE.

REGULAR READERS KNOW THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US.

Obama's Father Figure

It is refreshing to see Sarah Palin going after Obama's radical, America-hating intimates. This is Obama's most vulnerable point, because it betrays more clearly than anything else his true attitude toward his country.

It is truly mind-boggling that so far McCain has not pressed this point. It almost seems as if he were engaged in a form of self-imposed political correctness whereby he has strenuously avoided pointing out the most embarrassing and damaging aspects of his opponent's background and candidacy.

I have put together a little video to remind us of the twenty-year relationship that Obama had with Jeremiah Wright. This friendship is an outrage and an offense to every America-loving citizen. Obama must answer for this.



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

Here's all you need to know about the financial crisis

Two British comedians get perilously close to the truth





The alarming thing is that the video is 12 months old yet it is totally up to date. Even comedians could foresee what the Democrat Congresscritters could not. (H/T Agmates)

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

MORE ELECTION FRAUD?

Because of my work schedule, I don't get to watch a lot of news programs right now. And with the computer problems I've been having, I don't get to spend much time on the web either.

Thanks to blogger The Educated Shoprat, I found and viewed the following news video this morning:



Is the Democratic Party desperate to win, or what?

(Note: Apologies if this video has already been posted here at TAB)

WHY FINANCIAL MARKETS CRASH - AND WHEN


If you haven't noticed yet the financial bubble has burst. And while everyone complains, and points the blame, let's remember no one I know was complaining when everything was on the way up! We can read how we got here - cheap and easy money - and why it burst - breakdown in bank interloan system. Many, especially left wing europeans, proclaim this the end of the American Empire. Many of these pundits also make comparisons to the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. If I recall correctly the United States survived that, and WWII, and came out in pretty good shape. The question is not what happens but how we respond to crisis.
Markets are always right - except when they're wrong! Price volatility is natural - it is the pump that enriches and impoverishes financial speculators. Why are the markets collapsing now? I am sure some financial interests benefit from a fall in prices: If they are short, then they will wait until a bottom is made. While billions of dollars of value has evaporated there are still piles of money waiting to buy. The banks are reloading with cheap money, and they will pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar. Others - like Soros and Obama - derive political and/or financial benefits from the crash. Finally, I am afraid many investors are afraid Obama will win the election - and they fear that would proove catastrophic.
Another factor: Anti-democratic forces have successfully influenced elections in the past. Sovereign funds could be imposing their weight upon the markets...so hold on to your hats! and vote!

Monday, October 06, 2008

OBAMA'S GALLERY OF ROGUES

I'VE BEEN VOTING IN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES & ELECTIONS SINCE 1976.

I'VE NEVER EVER SEEN A CANDIDATE IN ANY PARTY WITH A ROGUE'S GALLERY AS DEEP AND SCUMMY AS OBAMA'S:

MONEY-MEN DEEPLY CONNECTED TO THE CURRENT CRISIS:

AND THEN THERE'S CONVICTED SLIME-BALL REZKO - HIS BIGGEST FUNDRAISER FOR DECADES.

AND DONT FORGET HIS 20 YEAR ASSOCIATION WITH THE TERRORIST AYERS.

HERE ARE HIS LONGTIME ANTI-AMERICAN AND RACIST RELIGIOUS SUPPORTERS:
  • NOT ONLY MIGHT OBAMA BECOME THE LEAST EXPERIENCED LEAST ACCOMPLISHED PERSON EVER ELECTED, BUT THE SLEAZIEST, MOST LEFT-WING AND MOST ANTI-AMERICAN.
THIS GUY MAKES THE CLINTONS LOOK LIKE JOHN & ABIGAIL ADAMS!

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

SIMILAR THOUGHTS - AND MORE - HERE.

WHAT DID OBAMA KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

WHAT DID OBAMA REALLY KNOW AND WHEN DID HE REALLY KNOW ABOUT:
  • WRIGHT - HIS PREACHER FOR TWENTY YEARS.
  • REZKO. HIS PRINCIPLE FINANCIAL BACKER - FOR 20 YEARS.
  • AYERS. A TERRORIST ASSOCIATE - FOR 17 YEARS.
  • KHALIDI. A PLO FRIEND OF 17 YEARS.
  • DAVIS. A COMMUNIST AND HIS EARLIEST MENTOR.
  • JOHNSON - A CROOKED LOBBYIST HE MADE THE CHIEF OF HIS VEEP SEARCH COMMITTEE.
  • FANNIE MAE - WHICH GAVE HIM MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER SENATOR SINCE HE ARRIVED IN THE SENATE.
  • ACORN - WHO HE DID LEGAL WORK FOR AT HIS FIRST LAW FIRM.
OBAMA WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE TOTAL FREAKING MORON NOT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE CREEPS AND SHADY ORGANIZATIONS.

SINCE WE KNOW OBAMA IS NOT A MORON, WE MUST CONCLUDE HE'S A BAD PERSON.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

KNEE-JERK REACTION FROM BARNEY FRANK: CRITICISM OF FANNIE MAE IS RACIST

NYTIMES/AP:
Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated.

The Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the GOP is appealing to its base by blaming the country's mortgage foreclosure problem on efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act.

He said that blame is misplaced, because those loans are issued by regulated institutions, while far more foreclosures were triggered by high-cost loans made by unregulated entities.

''They get to take things out on poor people,'' Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. ''Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people.''

Frank also dismissed charges the Democrats failed on their own or blocked Republican efforts to rein in the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The federal government recently took control of both entities.

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called Frank's remarks ''a lame, desperate attempt to divert Americans' attention away from the Democratic party's obstruction of reforms that would have reined in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helped our nation avoid this economic crisis.''
I AGREE WITH BOEHNER, BUT I'D SAY IT A LITTLE MORE BLUNTLY:

B*RN*Y FR*NK IS A M*ND*CI*US AND C*RR*PT C*CKS**K*NG-T*RD-B*RGL*R WH* H*S N'T ANY SH*ME.

LIKE MCCAIN, CNBC'S CRAMER PREDICTED THE POTENTIAL FOR A TOTAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN OVER A YEAR AGO

MCCAIN - IN 2005 - SAW THE RISKS PILING UP AT FANNIE MAE AND WANTED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ACTION:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
CRAMER IN AUGUST 2007:



CRAMER WAS FOCUSING ON AND BLAMING HIGH RATES FROM THE FED AND TIGHT MONEY.

HE SAID THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TOOK OUT LOANS AT "TEASER" RATES AND THEN GOT HURT AS GREENSPAN - YES ALAN GREENSPAN - RAISED RATES 17 TIMES!
  • THE FIRST LEG ON THE STOOL WAS FANNIE MAE - AND ITS DEMOCRAT CRONIES IN CONGRESS.
  • THE FED IS THE SECOND LEG - BY RAISING RATES 17 TIMES FROM LATE 2004 TO 2006.
  • THE THIRD LEG IS EXORBITANT CRUDE OIL PRICES.
  • THESE THREE FACTORS HAVE WRECKED THE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
WE POSTED ON THIS LAST WEEK WITH THESE THREE CHARTS:
THE ROOT CAUSES [OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE REAL ESTATE MARKET] 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 CRUDE OIL PRICE CHART; NOTE WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2004:


FURTHER PROOF - AND WHY IT'S A GLOBAL CRISIS: LOOK AT WHAT THE ECB DID: THEY KEPT RAISING RATES. 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.


THESE FACTORS CAUSED THE CURRENT CRISIS AND THEY ALSO POINT THE WAY OUT, THE WAY BACK:

  1. LOWER THE COST OF MONEY - BY BRINGING DOWN RATES TO 1.5%.
  2. REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL BELOW $75/BARREL (BY DRILLING HERE NOW, AND BUILDING NUKE PLANTS AND COAL PLANTS).
  3. AND REFINANCE THE BAD MORTGAGES AND GOING FORWARD END SUBPRIME AND ALT-A MORTGAGES.
  • THE SOONER WE DO THE FIRST ITEM THE BETTER.
  • AND WE SHOULD ANNOUNCE WE ARE PROCEEDING TO ITEMS 2 & 3 ASAP.
  • THIS WILL SIGNAL THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE BOTTOM AND ARE NOW CLIMBING BACK.
WE CAN DO IT.

AND SOONER THAN YOU THINK.

CRITICAL IN THIS EFFORT WILL BE ELECTING MCCAIN.

OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

"Tell them about the real Obama"

Sarah Palin rally in Burlingame, Calif.



In conversation with various attendees, it unraveled to me that the profusion of California conservatives-who are in truth mostly libertarians-is not new; these are dormant Republican voters activated by either the simple goodness of the Governor of Alaska or the increasing feeling that the vaporous, vacant, "imperfect vessel" Barack Obama is a cipher hiding quite poisonous views.

So what played to this audience? What caused genuine applause? Well, one line, in particular: near the end of her twenty-minute speech, Sarah Palin told the audience that out on the hustings one comment from supporters has dominated, in frequency, all others: tell people about the real Barack Obama. She said this quietly, without drama. But: thunder, hoots, an ovation. It was the one real firework in her stump speech; yet from the cadence of the speech one could tell that it was not intended thus. Audiences know that standing up for one particular line in a political speech is reserved for positive lines-lines that honor someone, or declaim some principle, or express some affirmation, or promise some victory. Rarely are audiences moved to bolt from their chairs over a negative line. (They're more likely to boo affectedly.) But Mr. Obama's guile has created considerable resentment-so much, in fact, that even a flat recitation of his positions, with not a drought of oratorical flare, dazzles and refreshes and fires an audience.

Sarah Palin spent some time piquing the newsmedia, and thanks to a zealous tablemate who initiated them the New York Times earned decidedly unaffected boos from the Silicon Valley audience. But you understand that if the newsmedia were doing their job, it would not be enough for a political candidate merely to mention the opinions of her opponent. Some argument would be necessary. Not so, not so with Barack Obama. The free pass he has been given is felt-and felt widely. In the final analysis I suspect this will make the man's candidacy weaker, not stronger. It leaves him vulnerable, qual piuma al vento, to a late-October truth-squad attack.

There was, otherwise, little new in the stump speech. It was the same one given yesterday in Southern California (photo above) and reported on by the Associated Press, which dribbled into its dispatch some surrogate outrage because Mrs. Palin mentioned Barack Obama's relationship with a violent left-wing terrorist who once intrigued the bombing of the Pentagon. And portions of Mrs. Palin's speech today were recycled from the Republican National Convention in St. Paul last month. That, at least, is a letdown: Barack Obama today had a fresh stump speech that made able parry to yesterday's Palin event in the Los Angeles area. The McCain campaign is utterly unable to work as efficiently as that. But my sense was that few donors got that feeling: the excitation of Sarah Palin overshadowed easily any sense one might otherwise receive that the momentum is shifting away from John McCain.

And why not? The crowd of 25,000 she elicited yesterday is proof that Sarah Palin is attracting new voters. And today was further evidence of her effect: a ballroom flush with self-made men and women who, though accustomed to living the dreary life of a permanent political minority, now feel there's someone for them, too. They see Sarah Palin as a political Ghostbuster singularly able, by dint of her background, her charm, and her cool, to suss out the spectrous Barack Obama, holding him up for everyone to see. She should, soon.

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

A shattering moment in America's fall from power (?)

I rarely fisk Leftist ignorance but I will do so now because the article below is typical of the frantic self-congratulation that Leftists are trying to extract from the banking crisis. It relies heavily of course on a belief that empty assertion can replace the facts. A great combination of supreme self-confidence and supreme ignorance is excerpted below

OUR gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over. [Yet it was America that the world looked to to solve the global banking crisis]

You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity. [Why should America be worried by a Chihuahua?]

The setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalisation of crucial parts of the financial system [All that is happening in the main is that some banks are taking over others. The big bank nationalization spree has been in Left-run Britain, where they have a history of that sort of thing], the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. [So why are European banks in meltdown?]

In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed. Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy.

China, in particular, was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are going bust. [The Chinese banks are VERY shaky and have long been propped up by the Chinese government]

Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its overstretched military commitments. Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future. [Like how?]

The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment A typically Leftist reversal of the truth. It is Congressional regulation preventing normal market operations that led to the problems] that these same American legislators who have been debating a bail-out created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the mess.

In current circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government [All that has happened is that the Feds have bought a huge gob of undervalued paper which they will in due course sell back to the market at a profit] is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however, will be that America will be even more starkly dependent on the world's new rising powers. The federal government is racking up even larger borrowings, which its creditors may rightly fear will never be repaid. It may well be tempted to inflate these debts away in a surge of inflation that would leave foreign investors with hefty losses....

There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the past 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire [Heavy and stupid regulation = laissez faire?] has imploded. While the impact of the collapse will be felt everywhere, the market economies that resisted American-style deregulation will best weather the storm..... Yadda, yadda, yadda

More here


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

Sunday, October 05, 2008

WHY IS PALIN IN CALIFORNIA AND NOT PENNSYLVANIA!?

  • CARSON. COSTA MESA, BURLINGAME. I DON'T GET IT.
  • I'M GLAD SHE'S GETTING CROWDS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT CAN THEY WIN THE STATE?
  • IF NOT, THEY SHOULD BE IN MICHIGAN AND PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA AND - WELL... YOU GET IT.
  • IS MCCAIN THROWING THE ELECTION ON PURPOSE!?
  • OR CAN HE WIN IN AHNOLD TERRITORY?