J's Cafe Nette

Archive for September, 2008

There are two things I abhor in any election. Any exploitation of children and of our military is off limits in my book.

This video crosses a line which should concern all who will soon be electing our next President. Should Barack Obama be the majority choice it is one I know I will not soon forget.

I don’t care to hear the excuse that his campaign did not produce it, they have to power to have it pulled at any given moment.

I’ve read much of what has been written today on this topic but the one post which I would like to share is the following from Roger Simon:

Watching this video has disturbed me more than almost anything I have seen in recent years. It is the kind of exploitation of children that reminds me of Young Pioneer Camps I saw when visiting the Soviet Union in the Eighties. You could say, as some have, that this is much like what happens with children in churches and synagogues across America, but this is about a political figure – one of two current presidential candidates and the one leading in the polls. The Drudge headline references the “Dear Leader.” Quite apt. Here for you edification are the words of the people who saw fit to put this together (there’s more at the link):

Also writing on this topic:
The Anchoress
Ace
Confederate Yankee who tells us what should come as no surprise:

Here’s a partial list of those who helped produce this “grassroots” effort:

* Jeff Zucker — American television executive, and President & CEO of NBC Universal.
* Post-producer (former choreographer?) Holly Shiffer.
* Motion picture camera operator/steadicam specialist Peter Rosenfeld (appropriately enough, worked in “Yes Man,” a movie about ” a guy challenges himself to say ‘yes’ to everything for an entire year.”
* Darin Moran, another motion picture industry professional, who just finished filming — how appropriate — Land of the Lost.
* Andy Blumenthal, Hollywood film editor.

I’d like to think Senator Obama would call for these videos to be taken down but I won’t hold my breath. Using children in a manner such as this is reminiscent of far too many not so pleasant events in history. Anything to feel adored and whatever it takes to win. Pathetic.

Tweet This Post

After trashing the President, the administration and the Republican party on the floor of the House yesterday, the Speaker is rethinking her position. She’s decided to play nice:

Dear Mr. President:

Yesterday’s defeat of the Economic Emergency Stabilization Act resulted in additional severe economic impacts both on Wall Street and on Main Street. The consequences of yesterday’s vote – an historic drop in the stock market and the loss of $1.2 trillion in savings, investments, and retirement funds – had a major impact on American families, small businesses, and others that demonstrated the imperative for Congressional action.

We have already made much progress in improving the plan originally sent to Congress. After many days of discussions, we reached bipartisan agreement on key additions, including strong measures to protect taxpayers from the costs of this program; to impose tough accountability on Wall Street through strong oversight and transparency; to limit excessive executive compensation and golden parachutes; to reduce home foreclosures to help families remain in their homes; and to sequence the funding of the program to ensure appropriate cost controls and independent reviews.

Read the rest. Maybe we can guess her next move before she makes it.

Sorry, I have no kind words for the Speaker of the House. She has proven herself arrogant and untrustworthy as the Karl Rove interview of yesterday aptly points out.

If the Democrats remain in control of the House following the November election they should consider a challenge and attempt to replace Ms. Pelosi. Not only Congress but the country would be better for it.

Tweet This Post

Seems those who watch the Vice Presidential debate this Thursday will have a little help determining if either candidate is lying:

Have you ever wanted to know when politicians are lying? A startup called RealScoop thinks it can nail it down for you in real-time with the help of voice analysis technology that it claims is used widely in law enforcement and fraud prevention.

Dubbed the Believability Meter, RealScoop’s analysis technology analyzes over 100 vocal elements of the human voice and performs over 1,000 calculations per second to find out if a politician or celebrity is telling the truth. On Tuesday, RealScoop will cover the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, putting each one’s statements to its Believability test.

Technology is great but I like my common sense and gut instincts a whole lot better. I suppose that means I concur with Mr. Reisinger when he states:

I’m sure the highly political among us will find value in this to help prove their point that the candidates they support are telling the truth and those they do not are lying, but the more objective among us will see this for what it is: pure rubbish.

HT: Instapundit

Tweet This Post

Another school of thought (in plain English) on the current Wall Street issues:

Pouring 700 billion of our money into failing financial institutions seems akin to throwing spaghetti against the wall. Keep throwing until something sticks. They tell us that credit will dry up if we don’t inject cash. No credit would be disastrous for the economy, but they have not explained well enough why the banks have failed so suddenly and drastically that emergency room surgery is required. Knowing why would help us poor taxpayers feel better about how the problem should be solved. Ever wonder how many other bank failures are out there waiting behind the curtain to take their bows? Are we going to throw even more money at them too?

Should we consider a solution that requires no money, or at least a lot less? Here’s one. Have the SEC suspend the accounting rule called mark-to-market. By a relatively simple accounting adjustment, troubled banks’ assets and capital could be increased and credit kept available. Accounting purists, cover your ears. Eyes glaze and minds wander when I say balance sheet, so let’s use the acronym BS, a more appropriate description. BS’s have two sides: assets on the left, liabilities and capital on the right. Banks are required to maintain certain levels of capital (the difference between assets and liabilities) in order to make loans. When assets shrink, capital shrinks. When the ratio of capital to assets drops to a certain level, (think ten-to-one), banks are not allowed to make loans. And if it drops too low, they can be classified as insolvent. This can happen overnight, and it did.

[emphasis-mine]

Perhaps the highlighted section is one of the major problems Americans have with this entire concept.

Check out the rest of the article at American Thinker.

Tweet This Post

To see a complete list go here.

By the way, the sun is still rising in my neighborhood today.

Tweet This Post

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit is someone I respect.

If he trusts this information from one of his readers then I believe it is worthy of note.

Nah–no media bias..none at all.

The Anchoress offers this:

I suppose this is why print media and the press in general don’t care about their tumbling revenues; when The Pelosi gets the regulated internet and restricted Congress that she wants, and Obama gets his thugs and his Justice Department monitoring, intimidating and shutting down alternative media (and the dissenting voices we’ve been told are “patriotic” when a Republican is in the White House) the incestuous mainstream press will go back to being the only game in town. Pravda West.

Tweet This Post

I’ve got to hand it to those Democrats and Speaker Pelosi. They sure knew how to game this whole issue on the Wall Street bailout.

First, they come out smiling and announcing how they have reached a deal:

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., center, and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., left, Secretary of the Treasury
Henry Paulson, second right, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-
Nev., right, announce a tentative deal. (AP)
HT: For the photo above toGateway Pundit

Then, after 40% of their own members do not vote in favor of the legislation, they blame everyone but themselves:

So now Barney Frank answers for the Speaker of the House? His tone and demeanor towards his fellow House members will certainly make it easier for dialogue to begin again..sure it will.

The Speaker used a tone and showed a disdain for both the President and the opposing party today in her remarks prior to the vote (not at other times on the House floor) which I do not believe I ever remember seeing in all my years of observing Congress.

Why would she want to sabotage this legislation? In my opinion, the answer is simple. The longer this remains an issue in front of the public and the press is hammering away at it, the more she believes it helps Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress running for re-election.

Frankly, I am reaching the point where I just don’t care anymore. Will it really make any difference who is elected to any of these offices come November?

Obviously, all the decency and honesty is evaporating faster than a bowl of jello set over an open flame.

I concede, Obama good, McCain, bad..Democrats, perfect..Republicans..unpatriotic, crybabies.

Think I’ll just go off and have a good cry now and maybe take down my American Flag. After all, wouldn’t want anyone to think I really jumped ship.

What shameful behavior on the part of our elected officials (and The Speaker in particular),when they hold the future of so many Americans in their hands.

Update: An Absolute Must Hear!! HT:Johnny Dollars Place

The best explanation on this vote I have heard yet! Listen to Karl Rove explain how the legislation was killed on the floor of the House.

Welcome, Anchoress readers.

Tweet This Post

After calling House Republicans unpatriotic for not attending a meeting they never knew about and then getting on the floor today to make a partisan speech, it seems the “unpatriotic” Republicans joined quite a few of the “unpatriotic” Democrats in opposing the bailout bill. Final vote total: 205-228. Seems the extra dozen votes she could have received if she hadn’t been so partisan would have passed it for her.

Opponents said part of the reason for the opposition from Republicans was what they termed a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said one GOP source. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he thinks Republicans could have provided a dozen more votes had Pelosi not given her speech. [Emphasis mine.]

Pelosi had said that Congress needed to pass the bill, even though it was an outgrowth of the “failed economic policies” of the last eight years.

“When was the last time someone asked you for $700 billion?” she asked. “It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration’s failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”

House Republican Conference Chairman, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., said “he was disappointed that the process that yielded a bipartisan approach took a very marked, partisan tone at the end of the debate.”

This is not a partisan crisis, this is an economic crisis,” said Deputy Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, who said that 94 Democrats also refused to go along with the bill. He described the vote as the result of “Speaker Pelosi’s failure to listen and failure to lead.”

Pelosi said that Republicans have not received the message from the White House that bipartisanship was needed.

“We delivered on our side of the bargain,” Pelosi said, congratulating Democratic leaders for getting 60 percent of the caucus to support the White House bill. “We extend a hand of cooperation to the White House, to the Republicans so we can get this issue resolved”

95 of her Democrats voted against the bill, along with 66 Republicans.

With all the documentation we have given you over the past couple of days as to how this mess began in the first place, it seems we don’t want the same people who got us here to try to get us out.

Pelosi made a mistake of gigantic proportions if she wanted this bill to pass. She should have stayed in her office and not said a thing and could have picked up enough votes to pass the legislation.

Her whip should have counted noses. She has enough Democrats in the House to pass anything she wishes to get passed, but even her own party went against her. Maybe they don’t trust Barney Frank to do the negotiations now either.

It is ludicrous to try to blame the president for the financial mess this country is in as far as this crisis goes since the record clearly shows it was Democratic House members who put in the faulty rules and refused to regulate Freddie and Fannie as long as seven years ago.

I think her days as Speaker are numbered, whoever is in charge of the next House.

I get no satisfaction from this outcome, except I hope the next bill will be negotiated by different people and be a truly bi-partisan bill from beginning to speeches in the debate.

Let’s see how they spin this now. I started to watch when she was speaking and got so disgusted I just turned it off and walked away.

Tweet This Post

A Presidential candidate or a character in a steamy romance novel.

Which best describes the following sentence?

The rain pouring down, his jacket off, his white dress-shirt clinging to his body,…..

Geeze, if it was the romance novel at least I could put it down and walk away. On the other hand, I’m not one of those “young people” anymore so maybe it is true…maybe I just don’t understand:

“Sometimes the skies look cloudy and it’s dark. And you think the rains will never pass,” Obama preached, “The young people understand that the clouds -– these too will pass, that a brighter day will come.”

Only five more weeks folks, five more weeks.

HT:Drudge

Tweet This Post

This is scary. My husband has a degree in accounting and could never explain so I could understand why the market crashed in 1929.

After the last couple of weeks I’m learning more about economics than I care to know.

The AP notes the President spoke to the nation today and Senators Dodd and Gregg appeared on some morning shows to explain the package as written.

By the way, if you want to read all 106 pages of the bill in PDF format you can get it here. I’m going to try to save it to my desktop so I can absorb it as I go along. Here’s hoping nothing else gets thrown in during conference.

Bush argued that jittery U.S. taxpayers will benefit from a number of safeguards that lawmakers wrote into the pending legislation during weekend negotiations on Capitol Hill, including checks and balances on the operation of the program.

The president spoke shortly after two leading players in the Hill bargaining went on television news shows to urge passage, even as both acknowledged the necessity of this action represents a sad day for the nation.

Asked if the compromise bill indeed will go through Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., replied: “We hope so.”

But the Connecticut senator, chairman of the Banking Committee, also said the bill is not a panacea for all the problems that have bedeviled the U.S. financial markets. He also said, though, that failure to act would spread the contagion of frozen credit markets even further. “This is not just about Wall Street,” Dodd said. He said that it’s “potentially going to hurt other people across the country.”

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who represented fellow Republicans in the weekend talks, called it a “tourniquet” for the ailing financial industry and slow-moving economy.

The latest assessments of prospects for passage came as investors worldwide and in early trading in the United States continued to show doubt about whether the bill would go through, much less go a long way toward curing the systemic problems that have unnerved financial markets across the globe for weeks.

The House was slated to vote later Monday on the deeply unpopular rescue package for the stressed financial industry. Bush on Sunday conceded this was a difficult vote in an election year – and repeated that sentiment in his statement Monday morning.

But he called a vote for the bill “a vote to prevent economic damage” to communities across the country.

He also said the legislation addresses the root cause of the problem – “assets related to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline.”

And the president noted that under provisions of the pending bill, “the federal government will be authorized to purchase these assets” and said that will help financial institutions to resume lending to individuals and businesses.

“I know many Americans are worried about the cost of the bill,” Bush said. But he also said the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the federal Office of Management and Budget expect that the “ultimate cost to the taxpayer” will be much less.

Tweet This Post

Ran across this over at RedState.

How much proof is needed (in their own words) before folks realize Congress had the heads up long ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by corrupt individuals and headed for serious trouble?

This is a bit long but the comment at the very end from President Clinton is most telling.

Tweet This Post

While Senator Obama is claiming it was he alone and John McCain had nothing to do with the bailout deal, the Washington Post, no friend of McCain’s, haswritten a piece that gives the inside look of what happened on Thursday in Washington.

When Sen. John McCain made his way to the Capitol office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) just past noon on Thursday, he intended to “just touch gloves” with House Republican leaders, according to one congressional aide, and get ready for the afternoon bailout summit at the White House.

Instead, Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, was waiting to give him an earful. The $700 billion Wall Street rescue, as laid out by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., was never going to fly with House Republicans, Ryan said. The plan had to be fundamentally reworked, relying instead on a new program of mortgage insurance paid not by the taxpayers but by the banking industry.

McCain listened, then, with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), he burst into the Senate Republican policy luncheon. Over a Tex-Mex buffet, Sens. Robert F. Bennett (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) had been explaining the contours of a deal just reached. House Republicans were not buying it. Then McCain spoke.

“I appreciate what you’ve done here, but I’m not going to sign on to a deal just to sign the deal,” McCain told the gathering, according to Graham and confirmed by multiple Senate GOP aides. “Just like Iraq, I’m not afraid to go it alone if I need to.”

For a moment, as Graham described it, “you could hear a pin drop. It was just unbelievable.” Then pandemonium. By the time the meeting broke up, the agreement touted just hours before — one that Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 GOP leader, estimated would be supported by more than 40 Senate Republicans — was in shambles.

An incendiary mix of presidential politics, delicate dealmaking and market instability played out Thursday in a tableau of high drama, with $700 billion and the U.S. economy possibly in the balance. McCain’s presence was only one of the complicating factors. Sen. Barack Obama played his part, with a hectoring performance behind closed doors at the White House. And a brewing House Republican leadership fight helped scramble allegiances in the GOP.

It is unclear whether the day’s events will prove to be historically significant or a mere political sideshow. If the administration and lawmakers forge an agreement largely along the lines of the deal they had reached before McCain’s arrival Thursday, the tumult will have been a momentary speed bump. If the deal collapses, the recriminations spawned that day will be fierce.

But if a final deal incorporates House Republican principles while leaning most heavily on the accord between the administration, House Democrats and Senate Republicans, all sides will be able to claim some credit — even if the legislation is not popular with voters.

“If there is a deal with the House involved, it’s because of John McCain,” Graham, one of the Arizonan’s closest friends in the Senate, said yesterday.

In truth, McCain’s dramatic announcement Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign and come to Washington for the bailout talks had wide repercussions.

Democrats, eager to reach a deal before McCain could claim credit, hunkered down and made real progress ahead of his arrival. Conservative Republicans in the House reacted as well, according to aides who were part of the talks.

[Emphasis mine]

There were specific things the House Republicans did not want in the package and since Pelosi and Reid didn’t want to take full blame for the bill, even though they had enough votes to pass it and excluded the House republicans “by mistake” it appears the House Republicans got things cleaned up a bit and with the backing of Sen. McCain.

It looks like Boehner and Company had more sense than the Republican senators or the Democratic representatives and that’s why they were not invited to the negotiating table.

In walks McCain, he makes a statement that even if he has to stand alone he will, and out comes a better proposal. No one is happy about it, but one candidate shouldn’t be taking all the credit for it. Look at the table in the link Sue provided here and see how much worse it would have been without the House Republicans sticking to their guns.

Tweet This Post

The truth is always in the details and until this is committed to paper we won’t know exactly what is going on. I did hear on the news today that the written proposal will be put on the internet for us to read before passage.

Here is the summary of the highlights as put out by Speaker Pelosi:

IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections.

• Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street

• Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets

• Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN.
Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

• Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review

• Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies

• Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails

• Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit

• Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives

New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:

• No multi-million dollar golden parachutes

• Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking

• Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate

Strong independent oversight and transparency

Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer

• A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress

• A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse

• An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions

• Transparency — requiring posting of transactions online — to help jumpstart private sector demand

Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions

Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy

• The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year

• Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures

• Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisis — allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks

Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi – September 28, 2008

*Update:

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt’s office provides this side-by-side comparison of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original Wall Street bailout proposal with the final compromise agreed to over the weekend by congressional and Treasury negotiators:

Go here to read.

Tweet This Post

According to the Washington Post:

Congressional leaders and the Bush administration last night struck a historic accord to insert the government deeply into the nation’s financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.

Negotiators emerged from a marathon session in the Capitol about 12:30 a.m. to announce that they had reached agreement on a proposal to give Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. broad authority to organize one of the biggest government interventions in the private sector since the Great Depression.

Tweet This Post

Is civility disappearing totally from government?

Has this financial crisis created an atmosphere so unhealthy that we now have the Speaker of the House referring to Republicans as “unpatriotic” for their not attending a scheduled meeting?

Perhaps she should have conferred with Senator Dodd prior to uttering those words:

More from the House GOP offices:

Well, we didn’t go to yesterday’s meeting because they didn’t invite us. Dodd even said on NBC nightly news last night that they just forgot.
It’s pretty infuriating.

[emphasis-mine]

Interesting that the Democrats were so anxious to pin the failure of the original deal on the financial bail out on the Republicans and John McCain when it appears it was their own Presidential candidate who inflicted the damage at the White House meeting:

…..This according to Bob Schieffer of CBS.[emphasis-mine]

Paulson called Lindsey Grahamnesty and said, “Look, I need the House Republicans. I need Republicans on this. We can’t get anywhere without them. You’ve gotta call McCain. He’s the only one that can do it.” So that’s why McCain goes to Washington, and they end up having a four o’clock meeting at the White House yesterday. They all think they’re going into a negotiating session. The president, in order to let everybody be heard, deferred to various Democrats, and every one of the Democrats — Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank — declined to speak and deferred to Obama. So Obama became the official Democrat spokesman in the meeting. This was to hype Obama’s leadership and presidential aura and so forth. What happened next, the first thing out of Obama’s mouth — Paulson is in the meeting — is he starts ripping the House Republican proposal and asks Paulson what he thinks of it.

This led Boehner and the other Republicans in there to think they have been sandbagged. We found out this morning that Obama had no clue — because he was in transit doing other things, he had no clue — what the House Republican position was. What happened was that on the way to the meeting sometime during the day, Obama’s staff received an e-mail from Treasury Department employees who work for Paulson detailing the House Republican plan. So when the Democrats deferred to Obama, he launched into that. He had no clue what it was. That’s why he asked Paulson for his comments. I don’t know what Paulson said, but this is what led to the fireworks. This is what led to everything breaking down in there. This is why Dingy Harry walked out, ’cause it didn’t work.

[All references to Senators by other than their proper title are those of Rush Limbaugh]

Remember it was the Democrats who insisted the insertion of presidential politics was not helpful in this debate yet they allowed their candidate to speak on their behalf.

If this is indeed what transpired, then not only did the Democrats stretch the truth at the completion of the meeting, but it was extremely disrespectful to the President of the United States.

What egos these Senators and Congresspersons must have to place themselves and their politics above the Executive and the country which it serves.

If memory serves, both McCain and Obama are Senators first candidates second and they should be in Washington in their official capacity as such in an attempt to move this process forward, not garner political points.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this financial mess but deliberately falsifying facts (on either side of the aisle) and calling members of the opposing party “unpatriotic” serves no purpose and the effects will no doubt be long lasting.

*For those who would like to read the thoughts of an international auditor in the insurance industry regarding this crisis check out the piece at the link. Quite an interesting and enlightening read.

Tweet This Post

I live a hop, skip and a jump from Charlotte, NC, and we have seen gas lines for the past week for the first time since the seventies.

It seems the refineries that supply our area are still not at full capacity after the hurricane in Texas a couple of weeks ago.

Fortunately, yesterday my husband was able to find a gas station with only one person ahead of him and was able to fill up all three vehicles. His truck for emergencies and the two vans for day to day business and taking the grandchildren to or from school. Otherwise they stay parked.

In case you think we are gas guzzlers, we have not filled up in about a month on any of the vehicles. We try to do everything in one trip with one vehicle, but I hate to ride in that truck! It’s always such a mess.

Tweet This Post

Congrats to our own Philadelphia Phillies on clinching the NL East Division title. Lidge sure didn’t make it easy on the fans but they got it done!

We’ll know tomorrow if they will face the Brewers or the Dodgers in the first round of the playoffs..either being a very formidable opponent, but for today and for those of us who have remained loyal through thick and thin, we offer thanks to a great group of guys for providing a terrific finish to the regular season.

Tweet This Post

This is bound to upset Democrats in general and Obama supporters in particular, but I urge you to watch this video. It goes fast so use your pause button and use Google to see if the facts are right.

This is what my research on sub-prime loans and the economic crisis has led me to believe also:

Tweet This Post

I had a family member ask me the other night on whose watch this credit crisis happened to fall. I told him on President Bush’s, but that was before I learned a few more things such as the post just above this one.

Everyone is trying to blame the Bush Administration and Republicans in general for the fianancial crisis we now find ourselves in.

This video shows what Bush, his administration and John McCain tried to do to warn of the impending disaster we now face.

Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are still on the negotiating teams for the bailout. How comfortable do you feel with these two leading the charge considering their past record?

It’s no wonder the Republicans in the House won’t go along with the new bill as proposed.

Tweet This Post

What a week. Trying to keep up with who did and said what in Washington in an attempt to get ahead of the current financial difficulties the country faces has been daunting.

Take a break, take a breather and take a look at this. Hope it at least made you chuckle!

Add to that this video from BBC Worldwide and your weekend might be just a bit brighter.

There now, that explains it all!

Tweet This Post

Could it be you?

Have at it..who knows, maybe you could be the next ten million dollar winner:

(CNN) — Got an idea that could change the world, or at least help a lot of people? Google wants to hear from you — and it will pay as much as $10 million to make your idea a reality.
Google Inc. will award $10 million to solicit ideas it believes could benefit the world.

Google Inc. will award $10 million to solicit ideas it believes could benefit the world.

To help celebrate its 10th birthday, the ambitious Internet giant is launching an initiative to solicit, and bankroll, fresh ideas that it believes could have broad and beneficial impact on people’s lives.

Called Project 10^100 (pronounced “10 to the 100th”, Google’s initiative will seek input from the public and a panel of judges in choosing up to five winning ideas, to be announced in February.

Google announced the project live on CNN on Wednesday morning.

“These ideas can be big or small, technology-driven or brilliantly simple — but they need to have impact,” Google said in a news release. “We know there are countless brilliant ideas that need funding and support to come to fruition.”

Those are ideas such as the Hippo Water Roller, which Google cited as the kind of concept the company would be interested in rewarding. Developed in Africa, where it is most used, the Hippo Water Roller is a barrel-shaped container, attached to a handle, that holds 24 gallons of water and can be rolled with little effort like a wheelbarrow, making it easier for villagers on foot to transport critically needed fresh water to their homes.
Don’t Miss

People are encouraged to submit their ideas, in any of 25 languages, at www.project10tothe100.com through October 20. Entrants must briefly describe their idea and answer six questions, including, “If your idea were to become a reality, who would benefit the most and how?”

Tweet This Post

From Breitbart via AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Urgent efforts to lash together a $700 billion rescue plan for the national economy broke apart Thursday night, hours after key lawmakers had declared they had reached a deal.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sped to Capitol Hill to try to revive or rework the proposal that the administration says must be quickly approved by Congress to stave off economic disaster.

Congressional leaders were to meet with the economic chiefs into the night.

Tweet This Post

Congressman Murtha might find himself in a bit of legal jeopardy if this suit holds up and moves forward:

A slander lawsuit against Congressman John Murtha is expected to be formally filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh Thursday afternoon.

The litigation stems from a 2005 incident in Iraq and Murtha’s reaction to it.

At that time, a group of Marines were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in a raid in Haditha. Shortly after, Murtha appeared on various news broadcasts and characterized the Marines as cold-blooded killers.

The Marines were later cleared or wrongdoing in the incident.

One of the Marines, 24-year-old Cpl. Justin Sharratt, of western Pennsylvania, is suing Murtha for slander.

Murtha’s comments about the incident have also served as the campaign focus for the man who wants to unseat Murtha in November, retired military officer William Russell.

Russell said, as a career military officer and 911 Pentagon survivor, he has a personal interest in seeing the record and reputations of the Marines cleared. He said a right to justice goes beyond politics. Even so, within the last couple of weeks, Russell’s campaign launched a 60-second ad that focuses solely on Murtha’s widely reported comments of the eight Marines at Haditha as “killing innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Russell said on Thursday he has met with Sharratt and his parents, and said the federal lawsuit has been a long time coming. A legal fund was established when Sharratt was exonerated of the charges.

If there has ever been an important race here in Pennsylvania, this is the one.

I hold no real hope though that Russell can overtake Murtha as the Congressman has both a wide lead in the polls and the support of the state party leaders.

Tweet This Post

Direct quote from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee said House of Representatives and Senate negotiators have reached “fundamental agreement” on a set of principles guiding a Wall Street bailout bill.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, emerged from a morning-long meeting on Thursday with top House and Senate lawmakers to tell reporters that he thought Congress could act within the “next few days” to pass a bill.

Dodd did not provide details on the major areas of contention that have been under negotiation.

Tweet This Post

It’s not common for us to quote Bill Clinton, but he is discussing the upcoming debate and the current financial crisis.

Let’s hear what he has to say:

Here’s another quote by the former President, courtesy of Breitbart and the AP:

Former President Clinton says if Democrats want someone to dump on John McCain, he’s not the guy.
Some members of his party have been complaining that Clinton has not been enthusiastic enough in his support for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, who defeated Clinton’s wife in the primary campaign, and heaping too much praise on McCain.

But Clinton told CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Wednesday that he doesn’t think “dumping” on McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin, is a winning strategy. He said undecided voters aren’t interested in attacks but solutions for the problems they face.

“I just don’t believe that getting up here and hyperventilating about Gov. Palin, or Sen. McCain for that matter, is a productive use of a former president’s time and is not a vote-getter,” he said, adding that he admires McCain even though he disagrees with several of his positions.

Tweet This Post

There has been much made of this statement by former President Clinton:

“No. But I think it would be — if we’re trying to win in Florida, it may be that,” Clinton began, before discussing his real Florida target: “You know, they think that because of who I am and where my politic[al] base has traditionally been, they may want me to go sort of hustle up what Lawton Chiles used to call the ‘cracker vote’ there.”

(emphasis mine)

I wonder though if the explanation for this quote is as simple as this definition:

Florida Cracker refers to the original colonial era American pioneer settlers of the State of Florida. The first Florida Crackers arrived in 1763 when Spain traded Florida to Great Britain. The British divided the territory into East Florida and West Florida, and began to aggressively recruit settlers to the area, offering free land and financial backing for export-oriented businesses.

Given he was speaking of Florida it would seem so.

Tweet This Post

Do people honestly think this is funny?

Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

“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,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. Hastings, who is African-American, was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race. “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,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.

I’m sure glad Mr. Hastings offered proof to back up that statement. Has anyone out there heard Governor Palin (or John McCain) say anything at all about the Jewish or African American communities which would prompt a remark such as this?

It’s not about Sarah Palin but rather the tenor of our politics. Hard fought campaigns are great to watch, this sort of nonsense is not.

HT:Gateway Pundit

Tweet This Post

While I appreciate the fact we are in a national turmoil regarding our economy, the fact is we still have a presidential race on our hands with the first presidential debate scheduled for Friday night.

John McCain has decided to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to try to work out a deal with other members of Congress on the economic crisis.

While I admire his putting country first I have to ask myself if it’s a political stunt. (I don’t think so as this type of thing is what has earned him the “maverick” label.) But I can see how others can see it that way.

He invited Sen. Obama to join him and Sen. Obama has declined, saying a president must deal with many things at one time. I agree, and that seems to be what McCain is doing if he attends the debate.

I have called the McCain campaign and begged them to go on with the debate. I see no reason Sen. McCain cannot attend the Senate to try to work out a deal and still be in Mississippi on Friday night for the debate.

Otherwise, he is giving the entire debate to Sen. Obama to say whatever he wishes to say with no opposition to his statements.

I can’t believe John McCain is not prepared for this debate so I have to believe he believes this is the best thing to do. But it’s only the best thing to do if both sides agree.

Right now his website is still showing the debate is scheduled.

Update from the AP

President Bush invited John McCain, Barack Obama and congressional leaders to the White House on Thursday to discuss his administration’s proposed bailout of the financial industry and press them to back the plan.

The invitation was extended Wednesday evening, and Bush called Obama personally to ask him to the Thursday afternoon meeting, which Obama accepted, his campaign said.

The latest development served as a prelude to President Bush’s TV address to the country at 9 p.m. EDT Wednesday, in which he was expected to rally support for his plan.

It also caps a day in which McCain said he was suspending his presidential campaign to focus on working in Washington on the bailout plan, while Obama called that decision unnecessary and rejected calls to postpone the two candidates’ debate Friday night.

The proposed $700 billion bailout plan, in its original form, has faced strong opposition on Capitol Hill this week. By Wednesday, Congress seemed open to a less costly plan as Democrats won a key concession from the White House, which agreed to limit the pay packages of Wall Street executives whose companies would benefit from the proposed bailout.

Update 2: Via the AP:

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama issued a joint statement Wednesday night in which they said the American people are facing a moment of economic crisis.

Moments before President Bush’s scheduled address to the nation, the Republican and Democratic candidates said now is the time for both political parties to come together in the spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people.

They said the $700 billion plan the administration has proposed to bail out the financial industry is flawed, but that the effort to protect the U.S. economy must not fail.

Bush has invited both candidates to a meeting at the White House on Thursday with congressional leaders to discuss solutions to the economic crisis

.

Tweet This Post

This is not a post I had hoped I would ever write and it is written with a great deal of sadness.

I’m going out on a limb here with an assumption as to the piece used as a reference so I hope to be corrected quickly if I am mistaken.

“White Privilege” was addressed yesterday in our comment section which piqued my curiosity. In doing a Google search this is what I found.

What Privileges Do McCain and Palin Receive Because They’re White?

Mr. Wise’s website is available here.

Let me be as clear as I can be. Supporting John McCain is not something I thought I would ever be faced with. He was certainly not my first choice in the GOP field but he now is one of two candidates who have the opportunity to become President. I did not make my decision to support him following his selection of Sarah Palin (and yes I do like her, flaws and all) and most certainly did not make my choice based on race and find it insulting that anyone would suggest that were the case.

Mr. Wise says:

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women and made them give your party a “second look.”

This makes the assumption that white women are what? Stupid? Illiterate? No! Maybe they are just searching for a reason to feel they made their vote count in this election with candidates for the top office who are far less than inspiring in my opinion.

He speaks of Sarah Palin coming from a state with a small population yet makes no mention of the fact that Joe Biden is from Delaware with a population of only 200,000 more, certainly not a hugh gap given the population of the United States.

The authors assumption that all “whites” are of the same mind when it comes to race is sorrily mistaken. Do all those from other races view this election through some sort of racial mirror?

I hate, yes, hate what this election cycle is doing to us as a people. If Mr. Wise has his way, the divides along racial lines will widen so he can continue to earn a good dollar explaining to people how they should feel.

I am not going to fight a racial fight here or anywhere else. But, I will not stand idly by and allow the likes of Mr. Wise to paint an entire race with a wide brush. What happened to phrases such as we are Americans first?

This site endorsed John McCain some while back, therefore, the writing here will be far more pro McCain, less so Senator Obama. That is the fact, plain and simple. No one has been told they cannot disagree and never have we broken anything down along racial lines.

Again, if I am quoting an incorrect source, please let me know and I will make the necessary corrections. Even if that is the case, I hope readers will check out the work of Mr. Wise as I believe promotes all that is wrong with the thinking not only in this election but in this country.

Tweet This Post

The following is the response of the John McCain campaign to this NY Times hit piece on campaign manager Rick Davis:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times’ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times — in the absence of any supporting evidence — has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain’s long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper’s reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

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.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Tweet This Post