Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

Jimma Carter signed the Bill into Law in 1977.

"The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations, and commercial loans to small businesses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Here's another act by Democrats which sabotages our Capitalist system. Lending Institutions were essentially forced to lend money to sub-prime borrowers, be they home buyers or small businesses.

Democrats today are blaming Republicans for the Economic turmoil our country is facing. Is it any wonder that Progressive Politics is the real reason we're watching hundred plus year old institutions disappear overnight? When banks are forced to loan to people who cannot afford the home they're trying to purchase, it's common sense the person will eventually default.

Democrats created the Federal Reserve under Woodrow Wilson. Democrats created the Glass-Steagall Act under FDR. Democrats created Fannie Mae under FDR. Democrats created the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimma Carter. Democrats undid parts of Glass-Steagall under Bill Clinton. Now Democrats want to bail out Wall Street with $700 Billion. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times will we let Democrats fool us into believing they have a better plan for our Economy.

Ten Planks of Communism

Is our country communist?

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in the mid 19 century. He outlined ten steps a capitalist society must take in order to switch to communism.

1. Abolition of Private Property
2. Progressive Income Tax
3. Abolition of Inheritance Rights
4. Confiscation of Property
5. Centralization of all credit by means of a centralized banking system
6. Centralization of communication and transportation
7. Central control of factories, means of production, cultivation of land
8. Equal liability of all to labor
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries
10. Free education for all children by means of government schooling

Numbers 1 & 3 are somewhat related in that private property can be confiscated by means of taxing inheritance. If a farm is worth $1 million, and the government demands 15% estate tax, and the inheritor has no means of paying the 15% estate tax, the land is sold and the government collects its tax. The private property is thus confiscated. You can further extrapolate that the government would collect more taxes when new property owners acquire the land at an appreciated value.

Number 2 in the US is self explanatory. The more you make, the higher percent income tax you pay.

Number 4 in the US is what we call eminent domain. The government can seize your land, though sometimes justifiable to build infrastructure, most cities abuse this power to attract a more lucrative tax base.

Number 5. In 1913, Bankers met in secret on Jekyll Island to come up with legislation that would be signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Known as the Federal Reserve Act, the US Treasury, as mandated by the Constitution, took its Constitutional directed authority to print money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Bank. Look on your dollar and you'll see "Federal Reserve Note." The Federal Reserve Bank gladly prints our money and charges us interest. To this day, we owe more than $900 billion to the Federal Reserve for printing our money since 1913. Centralization of credit and banking? I think so.

Number 6. How about U.S. Department of Transportation which includes the FHWA, FAA, FRA and the FTA? How about the Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934 by the Communications Act? That seems centralized to me. Ask Howard Stern how he likes the FCC fining him, or as I call it, violating his Freedom of Speech.

Numbers 7 and 9. How about the Federal Department of Labor? The Federal Department of Agriculture? Have you ever tried to run a business, whether manufacturing, selling/buying goods, construction, farming, grocery store, etc. and not comply with Department of Labor or Department of Agriculture regulations? Hire children or pay less than minimum wage and see how quickly you end up in jail. Conversely, try and work without a permit when you're a teenager.

Number 8. Welfare? Social Security? Medicare? Disability? All those are taxes you pay, which by the way, taxes are confiscation of private property (No. 4).

Number 10. Federal Department of Education. State Department of Education. Local Unified School District. All three entities collect taxes too, or as I said in number 8, confiscate private property. Property taxes for instance help fund USD's, Income Taxes help fund the Federal Department of Education, States use Income Taxes or Property Taxes or Sales Taxes to fund their programs. Even if your child is home schooled, and you don't partake in government education, you still pay those taxes. Try not paying them, along with any other tax, and see what happens. If you think government education is necessary, think again. The US never had government education until the turn of the 20th century. The US actually had higher literacy rates before public education. Private schools cost half what public schools do, and have 100% more accountability, your checkbook. You don't even have the right to transfer your child out of an under performing school. That's one area Liberals think you don't have the right to choose.

The say anything Democrats

On a daily basis, I read to what new lows the Democrats have sunk in order to attack John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Democrats started with Jimmy Carter, that John McCain talks too much about being a Prisoner of War during Viet Nam. Is it that he talks too much about a real experience unlike John Kerry who went to Cambodia, but really didn't? Or is it more than John Kerry who talked incessantly about being the Captain of a Gunboat during the Presidential debates in 2004?

Second, Democrats started in on Sarah Palin, criticizing her "lack of political experience" and continously refer to her as the Mayor of a small town in Alaska, willfully neglecting that she's the Governor of Alaska and has served as Governor longer than the number of days Obama served in the US Senate (140 days). Then they criticize her for being the Governor of a small state, but again willfully neglect that Obama was one of 59 State Senators, representing approximately 12.9 million people, or approximately 220,000 people per State Senator. Hmm...

Democrats then went back to attacking McCain on economic issues. If you read one of my previous blog entries, you'll see that it was Democrats under Clinton who overturned the parts of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated Investment Banking from Banks that handle Deposits. Today it's being reported (http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/story/440776.html) that Bill Clinton, when he was President, also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to absorb higher-risk loans from low income earners. Hmm... what happens when a Bank, or any loan institution for that matter, guarantees high-risk mortgages and they start to go bust? How about the current Economic crisis? Now Democrats are bringing up the Keating Five Scandal, which three DEMOCRAT Senators were found guilty of having interfered with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), but John McCain was exonerated. Robert Bennett, who investigated the scandal for the Senate Ethics Committee, also testified that there was no evidence tying John McCain to improper interfering in the FHLBB investigation into Keating. Robert Bennett is also the same lawyer who defended Bill Clinton during Monica Lewinsky.

Now Democrats are back on Palin. ABC news (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/florida-congres.html) reported that on Wednesday, Alcee Hastings, a Democrat Representative from Florida, said Palin doesn't care about black people or Jews. "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through." This is the problem with ignorance. Blacks all too soon forgot what the Party of Lincoln did for them, Abolition of Slavery. A higher percentage of Republicans also voted for the Civil Rights Amendment. Democrats was the Party that spun off the segregationist Dixiecrats in 1948. Robert KKK Byrd, amongst many of the 35 that split, eventually rejoined the Democrat Party after the Dixiecrats 1948 failure. Furthermore, the base of the Republican Party is Evangelicals, most of which are ardent supporters of Israel. Palin has constantly spoke out in favor of Israel. It's anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson who called Jews "Diamond Merchants" and Al Sharpton who incited blacks, because of Tawana Brawley, that led to the death of an innocent Jewish man, both Democrat contenders for the White House, that Jews should fear. Democrats constantly exploit fear and race mongering in order to scare Voters into supporting their candidate. Read Fatimah Ali's article (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/27755834.html) in Philadelphia Daily News where she states, "If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!"

Obama maligns truth yet again

At a Campaign Rally in North Carolina Obama stated, "We're now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us on Wall Street as well as Main Street. And yet, Senator McCain, who candidly admitted not long ago that he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, wants to keep going down the same, disastrous path."

What Obama doesn't tell his followers is that he's second to Chris Dodd for the amount received in Campaign Contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, over $125,000 reported on Bloomberg's news service.

Why do the Campaign Contributions matter?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were involved in a series of accounting scandals. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee created a Bill that would have provided regulatory oversight on the $388 Billion that Freddie and Fannie managed.

Alan Greenspan told Congress in 2005 that if Freddie and Fannie "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road."

However, despite the warning from Alan Greenspan, despite the fact that regulatory powers over Freddie and Fannie could have averted the Economic turmoil we're now facing, Democrats opposed this Bill along Party lines.

Does Obama tell his followers what he did? No, of course not, he attacks John McCain as 'out of touch.' Does Obama tell his followers that McCain was one of the first co-sponsors of the Senate Banking Committee Bill that would have provided regulatory oversight on Freddie and Fannie? No, of course not, it's an inconvenient truth.

This is the second time Obama has maligned truth in order to make himself look better. The first being his political attack ad linking McCain to out of context comments from Rush Limbaugh.

$700 Billion Bailout

The 1929 Stock Market Crash was created by speculation in the Stock Market. People bought shares with 10% of their own money and 90% borrowed from the banks. When stocks began to plummet, and banks made calls for their 90%, borrowers were unable to pay back their loans thus banks became insolvent. Eventually the Stock Market lost 89% of its value by 1932. In 1933, in result to the Pecora Commission, the Glass-Steagall Act was created, part of which separated Investment Banking from Deposit Banking.

In 1999, the parts of the Glass-Steagall Act created to separate Investment Banking from Deposit Banking was undone by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As a result, the US saw unprecedented growth in the DJIA, from approximately 9,000 in 1999 to 14,000 in 2007. Part of this unprecedented growth also occurred in the housing market, from a median income to median housing price ratio of 1:4 in 1999 to 1:11 in 2006.

The Housing Market was in part driven by sub-prime borrowing through various ponzi schemes such as Alt-A or Interest only loans. Unscrupulous lending practices by the banks and greed of borrowers to buy properties they couldn't afford otherwise helped drive up median housing prices. The banks repackaged these sub-prime loans under securities and bonds and sold them off via the new Investment and Deposit Banking Industry.

When sub-prime borrowers began to default on their loans, due in part to the resetting APR which made their barely affordable mortgage now unaffordable, an unraveling disaster was let loose. Investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc. bought these bonds and securities. When that security is backed by sub-prime borrowing, and those borrowers default, the bond/security becomes worthless. As a result these investment firms kept writing down loss after loss and investor confidence decreased in their ability to remain solvent. Banks that were involved in lending to sub-prime borrowers, such as Countrywide or IndyMac, went belly up due to sub-prime mortgage defaulting and their inability to remain solvent.

Democrats and Republicans are both seeking a Federal bailout of Investment and Deposit Banks and Firms hurt by the collapsing sub-prime housing market, which also bought bonds and securities backed by sub-prime debt. DID WE NOT LEARN FROM 1929?! Undo the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, NOW! Let the bastards that borrowed money for a house they couldn't afford lose their house! Let the damned banks that lent money to these people fail! FORCE ACCOUNTABILITY INTO THE MARKET!!!

Democrats and Republicans are destroying this country with their deleterious economic principles. A free market system functions without the intervention of government. If people don't wake up and see what Democrats and Republicans are doing to this country, we're going to owe more than the approximately $30,000 EACH that we already do. The Federal Government is about to add another $2,300 to that $30,000 tab with this current bailout, and that's if it doesn't get bigger than the proposed $700 BILLION it currently is.

Rush Limbaugh addresses the race baiting Obama political ad

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178554189155003.html

"Mr. Obama's campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.

Much of the media that is uninterested in Mr. Obama's connections to unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have so far gone along with the attempt to tie me to Mr. McCain. But Mr. McCain and I have not agreed on how to address illegal immigration. While I am heartened by his willingness to start by securing the borders, it is no secret that we have fundamental differences on illegal immigration.

"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.

As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government's double standard -- i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.

Here's the context for that sound bite: "And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail."

At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government's hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise."

What does Obama think?

Barack Obama said the following at a fundraiser held by Barbara Streisand, "A lot of people have gotten nervous and concerned. Why is this as close as it is and what's going on? Well, we always knew this was going to be hard. This is a leap for the American people."

The setting is Obama speaking to the Hollywood actors, actresses and other celebrity personalities. "We" would refer to him and them. But why the distinction between them and the "American people?" What does Obama think about the American people when he distinguishes himself from them in his comments?

I've believed from the get go that Obama has an internal conflict over race. He has spoken of his own grandmother regarding perceived racial sentiments of hers; he's written in his book about how it is one should speak to white people in a social setting; he attended a black-centered church for 20 years under Rev. Jeremiah Wright who espoused bigoted and prejudiced sentiments; he ran a race-baiting Spanish language ad yesterday trying to tie John McCain to out of context statements from Rush Limbaugh regarding illegal immigration; and now this latest comment about how it would be a "hard" election and a "leap" for the American people to elect him.

Bill & Hillary Clinton faced the same underlying racist statements from Obama during the Primary Election. Now John McCain will face the same statements, only worse now that Obama has Liberal elitists and pundits excusing him.

Obama invokes bigotry in ad distorting Limbaugh comments

Obama pulls a Hillary Clinton and invokes the name of Rush Limbaugh in his latest political attack ad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Limbaugh_hitting_back_over_usage_in_ad_says_Obama_stoking_racism.html

The commercial, to air in Limbaugh's home state of Florida as well as Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, features a picture of the conservative talk show host and shows his words on the screen: "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." It was first reported by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe.

The first, "stupid and unqualified," was from the NAFTA debate of the mid-90s, he recalled. Limbaugh, a NAFTA proponent, said in the fall of 1993 he got a call from a listener who was upset at the potential loss of American jobs.

In response he said, "If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Explaining his comments, Limbaugh writes: "I was referring to jobs in MEXICO. I was not discussing immigrants, illegal or otherwise."

On "shut your mouth," Limbaugh produced an April 2006 transcript from what he described as a parody of Mexican immigration laws.

The talk show host read a list of stringent rules, adding "shut your mouth and get out," before revealing to listeners that the guidelines were those set by the Mexican government for immigrants.

The Abomination continues...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palins-e-mail-account-hacked-published-on-web-site/

"In the latest of a series of invasions into Sarah Palin’s personal life, hackers have broken into the Republican vice presidential candidate’s private e-mail account, and a widely read Web site has published screen grabs from it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/17/mccain-camp-seeks-investigation-over-reported-e-mail-hack/

"FBI Spokesman Eric Gonzalez in Anchorage, Alaska confirms to CNN an investigation is underway. 'We are aware of the allegations and we are coordinating with Secret Service as far as the allegation that someone has hacked into Governor Palin's personal e-mail account,' he said. 'We are going to be working a joint investigation with Secret Service on this.'"

When will the invasion into a Candidate's personal life end? This is an abomination.

Democrats and Liberals can't discriminate

Discriminating, for the sake of argument, is defined as: To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: To make or constitute a distinction in or between (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2006, Houghton Mifflin Company).

Over time, it's become a matter of observation that when engaging a Democrat or Liberal in debate, eventually they resort to using pejoratives. I wonder why it is that when one disagrees with them, they resort to pejoratives rather than discuss the subject. Ad hominid fallacies are all too common as a means to attack the speaker in order to distract from their argument, thus circumventing the need to discuss their arguments. I've come to the conclusion this is necessary for Democrats and Liberals because they're incapable of stating something is wrong or evil, thus they lend a hand to it for their inability to condemn it and for their unwillingness to call a tiger a tiger.

Airport Security. With the exception of the Oklahoma City bombing, terrorist activities have been committed by Islamic Terrorists. 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, all were Muslim. The bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were committed by Muslims. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, committed by Muslims. The first bombing of the WTC was planned by Sheik Omar Rahman, a Muslim. The leader of Hezbollah, a Terrorist Organization, is headed by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a Muslim. The bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's was carried out by Hezbollah, a Muslim Organization. The bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was financed by Muammar Gaddafi, a Muslim. The killing of the 1972 Israeli Olympic Team by Black September, a branch of Yasser Arafat's Fatah Organization, of course carried out by Muslims. Despite all this evidence that Muslims carry out a disproportionate amount of terrorist acts in the US and around the world, Democrats and Liberals insist that we don't profile at airports and screen each and every single Muslim, Arab or Middle Eastern person wishing to travel in the U.S. Instead, we have this insane policy of dressing down white grannies and treating them the same as possible suspects. If you disagree with this policy, you're an Islamophobe despite all evidence pointing to the undeniable fact Muslims are the ones committing the acts of terrorism, not white grannies.

If we're a Nation of Laws, then all laws need to be enforced, including Federal Felonies. But Democrats and Liberals rationalize breaking this law when it comes to illegal immigration. They go so far as to create Sanctuary Cities where illegal immigrants can live without fear of being questioned over their status. If you disagree with their policies, as I noted earlier, you're a racist/bigot/xenophobe/nativist/etc. Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge or debate the fact that illegal immigrants broke our Immigration Laws by their very act of illegally entering the country or overstaying their visa.

Democrats and Liberals believe in living in a secular society, free from religious interference. We see this every year around Christmas with the renaming of Christmas Trees to Holiday Trees. The invention of Kwanzaa. The secularization of Easter with bunnies and eggs and candy. The removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. The challenge towards the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase "One Nation under God." How soon before we challenge "In God We Trust" on our currency? Any person that challenges Democrats or Liberals about their challenge against religion in the public sphere is a Right-Wing-Christian-Fundamentalist, a Bible-Thumper, a Jesus-Freak, etc. Whatever happened to the First Amendment that no Governmental Agency has the right to prevent "the free exercise thereof" of religion?

Recently I've read and heard Liberals and Democrats attack Sarah Palin for her belief in Right to Life. They've said she doesn't represent the majority of women. That she would be a setback for "reproductive rights." That she would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and women would be forced to seek back alley abortions. I've read comparisons between Palin and Pontius Pilate and between her and Fascism. It's enlightening when you do some research and find out who the founder of Planned Parenthood was. Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist. She wrote (In a Plan for Peace, 1932, p. 106) that "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." She also wrote (What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, 1915, p. 140) that "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Her views are remarkably similar to the Nazionalsozialistische Deustche Arbeiterpartei or better known as the Nazi party of Germany and their favorable outlook on the Aryan race and purging Germany of non-Aryans. The Utopian notion that Democrats and Liberals share, intrinsically contains the notion via "Pro-Choice" that "an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Do Democrats and Liberals want to dismiss Pro-Life advocates as Nazis when their own Pro-Choice advocacy actually shares the Eugenicists roots of people like Margaret Sanger and the Nazi Party?

Next time you hear a Democrat or Liberal refer to an opponent's argument via a pejorative, not only are they most likely wrong on the position they're advocating, but the position they're advocating is one that given facts, would contradict a logical conclusion.

Liberal drive to make US more like EU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

I find it pertinent to share this article solely based on the notion that American Leftists display a certain affection for their European counterparts. Being the case, England has decided to institute courts that base decisions on Sharia (Islamic law). I find the idea repulsive, and would make a call to arms against any American politician that would advocate similar notions. I wonder what informed Americans would make of a similar decision here in the U.S. and what they would be willing to do about it.

Palin before she was VP Nominee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY

Maaat Daaamon

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/171553.html

Matt Damon on John McCain dying in office, "1 out of 3 chance he doesn't survive his first term"

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

John McCain is a male aged 72. Per an actual Actuarial Life Table from the Social Security Administration, John McCain has a 3.3% chance of dying within the next year. If he were to serve a full term, at age 76, he would have a 4.8% chance of dying within that year. With this in mind, Joe Biden who turns 66 in November, has a 2.0% chance of dying within the next year.

Regardless, McCain has decades more experience in the US Senate than Obama, and Palin has years more of Executive Experience than Obama. I suggest Democrats come up with a new reason why McCain-Palin shouldn't be the winning ticket and if age is an issue, Obama should dump Biden and pick a younger running mate with a much lower percent chance of dying within the next year.

Nationalization of US Industries

The US has set a terrible precedent for American Industries. Comparisons between the US Treasury Department's bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are comparable to Chinese and Russian Socialism. There is no need for a collective ownership of financial institutions in this country, the same as we don't need collective ownership of any other industry. The free market will correct the unscrupulous lending practices of the banks when they know there is a risk involved in making those loans. If there is no risk, there is no means of restricting them from making further reckless decisions. The Federal Reserve bailout of banks has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars upfront, plus the interest that will be paid down the line, not to mention the immediate effects of inflation on everything from gasoline to food to clothes.

Government intervention in the banking process strips the risks involved in banking. It rewards the bankers for their selfishness. It hurts those who were financially smart enough to not take out ponzi loans to finance homes they couldn't afford. How are they benefited now when the government is bailing out unscrupulous lenders with their tax dollars? How about those who were trying to save up for a home but due to the artificial inflation in housing prices their median income never caught up to the median housing price. How are they benefited when the government bails out unscrupulous lenders with their tax dollars? This reckless policy of bailing out banks will exacerbate the situation much like FDR's New Deal exacerbated the Great Depression by dragging out the time until recovery began.

This joint effort by Democrats and Republicans is just another reason to get a third party into power that represents the American people, that understands the limits of Congressional interference in a free market. We need a Barry Goldwater, an advocate for "out of my pocket, off my back and out of my way."

51 seconds of Barack Obama's Military Strategy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

• CUT tens of Billions of Dollars in "wasteful spending" (pertaining to the military)
• CUT investments in "unproven" missile defense systems
• NOT weaponize space
• SLOW our development of future combat systems
• Develop a Committee to CUT future military funding
• Set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
• NOT develop new nuclear weapons
• Take our nuclear weapons off alert
• Take deep CUTS in our current nuclear arsenal

So basically he proposes three different methods of cutting funding, he will stop research on missile defense on the assumption it's unproven, he won't weaponize space even though others are, he'll "slow" our development of future combat systems which would take away our military edge over our enemies, he won't develop new nuclear weapon technology despite the Russians creating bigger bombs, he'll take our nuclear weapons offline which will give our enemies a strike first advantage, and he'll cut our arsenal to put the cherry on top.

Obama has no business being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. His policies are fanciful at best, at worse they're absolutely naive of the evil of this world.

Salem... err SF Witch Trials

Is it just me or is there a witch hunt going on in the Press?

Sarah Palin has been Gov. of Alaska for 20 months, as long as Obama has been a US Senator. She has Executive experience, he has none. In addition to being Gov. of Alaska, she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Be it a small town, it's still executive experience. Yet she's tauted as being inexperienced by Media Pundits and Liberal blowhards.

Sarah Palin is Pro-Life. Her child with Down Syndrome was born, known to her to have Down Syndrome beforehand. Does that conflict with a Pro-Life position? Nope. Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant, five months at that. Being that she's pregnant, she hasn't had an abortion. So, does this conflict with a Pro-Life position? Nope. So, exactly what does this make Sarah Palin? A bad parent? Perhaps.

She's also been attacked for her Christian views, such as teaching Abstinence and believing in some form of Creationism. Obama on the other hand must not support these positions otherwise it would be a non-issue. Why is it that when someone holds contrary opinions to what Liberals believe, they always have to resort to pejoratives to dismiss the contrary opinion? Why is it if that you believe in God having created the Universe (uni=one verse=spoken sentence) you're labled as a Bible Thumper or if you believe in teaching Abstinence you're a Right Wing Nut.

As reported in 2007 by the State of Georgia, when Abstinence programs were mandated by the state, in the following 11 years, Teen Pregnancy for 15-17 years of age dropped 46%. In an April 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, teenagers after one year of an abstinence program compared to a control group that didn't receive the abstinence program, only 14.5% had sex compared to 26.5% of the control group. In the same study, 9.2% lost their virginity compared to 16.4% of the control group. Additionally, students that underwent the abstinence program were 8.1 times less likely to us illegal drugs, 1.9 times less likely to use alcohol, and 2.4 times less likely to smoke.

Sarah Palin is running as McCain's Vice Presidential Nominee. She's not running for President. She's not running for Best Mom of America award. She is pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Life, believes in God, believes in teaching an abstinence program, has a record of breaking the Establishment and removing from Office corrupt officials, she was Gov. of Alaska which is responsible for 20% of America's Energy Independence, and comes from a simple background.

The fervent attacks on her these past few days, from attacking her for her pregnant daughter, to attacking her for JUST being the Gov. of Alaska, to attacking her for a corruption investigation into her, which btw she opened on herself to prove her innocence in the matter, all leads to the appearance of trying to derail the McCain Campaign by focusing on his Vice Presidential Nominee. By making a stink about her "lack of experience" Obama is opened up to further ridicule on his own lack of experience. By attacking her family, Obama should also receive the same attention for his ties to his Pastor, whom for 20 years he sat in his pews and listened to his racial politicking and "God damn America" speeches, who praised Louis Farrakhan (a rabid anti-Semite and leader of Nation of Islam) and his constant black-centered sermons. The implied ridicule of her beliefs in Creationism and Pro-Life positions, opens Obama to how much faith does he have in the infallibility of the Bible and his pro-Abortion stance on late term abortions in which baby's skulls are pierced with scissors or other sharp objects and their brains sucked out.

Now what egregious error has Sarah Palin committed other than having the audacity to run as the first female Republican Vice Presidential Nominee?

Overt Liberal Radicalism of the Obamas

"Barack stood up that day, and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be." And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be. And isn't that the great American story?" - Michelle Obama 2008 DNC Speech

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be." - Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals Chapter 2