tenientemikeopinions.org

THE SOLUTION FOR THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS

2008-11-07T22:53:00.002-08:00

This guest post was written by my good and dear friend Dr. Kurt Lehovec.

THE LEHOVEC SOLUTION FOR THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS
by: Dr. Kurt Lehovec, Prof. Emeritus, USC.

1. BACKGROUND

The present financial crisis originated from sub-prime lending of home mortgages by financial institutions. “Sub-prime” refers to non-qualified borrows. The lenders benefited from these mortgages by charging higher interest rates. The easy availability of mortgages generated a housing boom and ever increasing house prices – for a while. The rising home equity led some home owners to refinance and withdraw money increasing their mortgage debt.

When the supply of would-be home buyers was exhausted, house prices began to fall. With the equity less than the outstanding mortgage, many home owners opted for abandoning the property to the lending institution. The lenders had to write off the difference between mortgage and equity as bad debt, depleting the capital of the lending institutions to an extent leading some to bankruptcy. The foreclosures of the property by the lending institution depressed further the house prices in the neighborhood and inflicted a great hardship on the owners, now, in theory, homeless. The government, that is the people, provided cash to some institutions saving them from consequences of their past mistakes, from which they had benefited for some time. No government money was provided to home owners on main-street and a drop of the stock-market. Initial attempts by the government have failed to restore confidence so far.

2. MY SOLUTION FOR DEFAULTING SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES

My solution is restricted to sub-prime mortgage home owners who live in their property and saw their equity decline below their remaining mortgage debt. My solution does not apply to speculators who bought the property in hope for further appreciation and plan eventually to sell and to investors who acquired the property to rent.

I propose the following steps to be taken:

i. The government removes the sub-prime mortgages from the lenders by buying these mortgages from the lenders at the present remaining mortgage value. This would improve the balance sheet of the lending institutions and provide them with liquidity for further loans.

ii. The government, i.e. the people, now owning these sub-prime mortgaged houses, would let the sub-prime mortgage owner to stay in their former houses as tenants of the government, at a rent equal to the present interest rate for their former mortgage paid to the lending institution before the take-over by the government.

3. A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE

The following numerical example illustrates the proposed transactions. The numbers are not necessarily typical. Consider a sub-prime house bought for $300.000 at an interest rate of 9% annually. Assume that the sub-prime owner has paid off already $100.000, so that his remaining mortgage is $200.000. His present monthly interest payment is thus $1500.

If the present monthly repayment of the mortgage principal is $2000 (This depends on the duration of the loan), the sub-prime owner would have to pay $3,500 each month, which he cannot afford.

According to my proposal the government would pay to the lending institution $200.000 from the already approved 700 billion rescue fund and would assume ownership of the property. The sub-prime former owner would remain in the property as the tenant of the government at a monthly rent of $1,500, which he can hopefully afford. By losing his ownership of the property he would have lost his $100,000 mortgage payment prior to the government’s take over. However he should be very happy to stay in his former house at the low rent of $1,500. The government, i.e. the people, should be happy with an investment providing a return of 9% minus local real estate tax and insurance and with a potential added capital gain if house prices recover.

4. CONCLUSION

The mortgage lender receives the full mortgage value, thus erasing a bad debt and gaining liquidity and should be very pleased. The sub-prime borrower now pays as a tenant only the former interest and no more a down payment of the loan and should be very pleased to remain in his home.

The government, that is the people, should be pleased with a cash investment paying the high interest rate of the former mortgage minus real estate tax and insurance. And the neighborhood should be happy of having avoided another property depressing foreclosure.

Dr. Kurt Lehovec
Los Angeles, CA.
213-384-8921

BYE-BYE HILLARY!

2008-11-04T19:47:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton can kiss her chances for being President good-bye.

This economic situation is going to ruin Barack Obama during his 4 years and when it's all said and done...Mr. Obama will be the next Jimmy Carter. A laughing stock!

Then the Repulicans will be primed to take over congress and the White House by the time Mr. Obama and the Democratic Senate and Congress take this country into even more of an economic crisis...then this generation of kids who voted for Mr. Obama will be older and wiser. Then they'll come to their senses and we'll see another 8 years of Rebublican rule.

That's because it's going to take time to forget what Mr. Obama and the Democrats (They'll have no one to blame) did to the country...just like it took time for America to forget what Jimmy Carter did to the country.

PALIN 2012

mike t.

COLIN POWELL THE COWARD!

2008-10-17T11:01:00.000-07:00

I've always been a big fan of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. I thought for sure this guy would be a shoe-in for the White House if he decided to run. This man, to me, was the perfect candidate for representing minorities in the political big picture. The man, to me, seemed to be a level-headed conservative with a clear understanding of social issues concerning minorities in the context of this country's center-right Presidential political philosophies.

Now, from what I'm hearing, Mr. Powell is on the verge of endorsing Mr. Obama for the Presidency? My, my, my...how the mighty have fallen!

If this rumor is true, I only have one thing to say to Mr. Powell: HOW DARE YOU!

As a high profile minority, Mr. Powell, is going against tradition by being labeled a conservative in the first place. Why would a high profile minority even be siding with the Republicans in the first place?

The answer to that question is pretty simple: Mr. Powell is an educated man. He understands the differences between the Republican and Democrat's philosophy on economics. He understands what the ramifications of tax proposals are. That's part of the reason why he's considered to be a conservative.

Mr. Powell understands the dangers of the world we live in. He understands the danger that Iran and North Korea pose to the world if they're allowed to obtain nuclear power. He understands these things clearly. That's another reason why he's considered to be a conservative.

Mr. Powell also understands the philosophies of this country's religous freedoms. I believe Mr. Powell is a "believer". As a believer, I think, that means Jesus-Christ. Now how, pray tell, can Mr. Powell be a supporter of abortion when it comes to that type of life issue?

It's clear to me that Mr. Powell, as it turns out, is a coward! First for not running for the Presidency himself and second for selling out his core beliefs for a candidate like Mr. Obama. That is a coward through and through.

Mr. Obama's wealth redistribution tax plans should bring outrage from Mr. Powell but instead we're hearing rumors of a Mr. Obama endorsement from Mr. Powell? What is it in Mr. Obama's own words that Mr. Powell doesn't understand? "I want to spread the wealth around"? Is Mr. Powell now endorsing this philosophy?

FROM MR. POWELL'S OWN WORDS:
_________________________

Colin Powell Tells Republican Delegates [1996]:

"We Republicans believe that the family, fueled by values, must be restored to a central place in American life if we are to keep the dream alive!

I come before you this evening as a retired soldier.- a fellow citizen who has lived the American Dream to its full, as one who believes in that dream and as one who wants that dream to come to a reality for every American. My parents came to this country as immigrants over 70 years ago. They came here as did millions of others with nothing but hope and a willingness to work hard and a desire to seize the opportunities given to them by their new land.

They found work that enabled them to raise a family; work that allowed them to come home every Friday night with the fruits of their labor - a decent wage that brought sustenance, and more importantly, brought dignity into our home. They raised two children to whom they gave precious gifts - a set of core beliefs, a value system founded on a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and a belief in the Almighty. Integrity, kindness, doctrines that were right - lying, crime, violence, intolerance, drugs were wrong, and even worse than wrong in my family - they were shameful! We were taught that hard work and education were the keys to success.

My sister and I were taught to believe in ourselves. We might be considered poor, but we were rich in spirit. We might be black and considered second-class citizens, but stick with it because we were Americans! Justice will eventually triumph and the powerful series of promises of the founding fathers will come true. We were taught by my parents - always, always, always believe in miracles!

My parents found here a compassionate land, with a compassionate people. They found a government that protected their labor, educated their children and provided help to those of their fellow citizens who were needy. They found their dream in America and they passed that dream on to their children. Here tonight over 70 years after they landed on these shores, their son has been given the privilege of addressing the Republican party, assembled in convention to present to the American people our vision of how that dream can be passed on to future generations.

Our vision first and foremost rests on values - values, because values are the conscience of a society. Values that must be lived, not just preached. Children learn values by watching their parents in their homes, values that are then re-enforced in their churches and places of worship, in their schools and in their communities in which they live. Values fuel families, families that are bound together by love and commitment, families that have the strength to withstand the assaults of contemporary life, to resist the images of violence and vulgarity that flood into our lives every day. Families that come together to defeat the scourge of drugs and crime and incivility that threatens us. That's why we Republicans believe that the family, fueled by values, must be restored to a central place in American life if we are to keep the dream alive!

Yet, families cannot thrive and pass on these beliefs if parents cannot bring home a decent living wage from a hard day's work. We Republicans believe that a good job, needed to sustain families, come from a faster growing economy where the free enterprise system is unleashed to create wealth, wealth which produces more good jobs."
_________________________

That section of Mr. Powell's speech tells me that he's about to sell out his own core values to endorse Mr. Obama. Again, Mr. Obama's tax proposals should be enough for Mr. Powell to stay away from anything that has to do with Mr. Obama's policies.

Why would Mr. Powell even consider endorsing Mr. Obama? Everything Mr. Obama has done in this campaign has it's roots in class warfare. Mr. Obama, to me, is exploiting the poor for power. That goes against everything Mr. Powell said his parents taught him. I thought soldiers were supposed to stand up to injustices.

Why doesn't this old soldier, Mr. Powell, secure his role in history by telling the American public, especially the black community, that what Mr. Obama is doing is called class warfare and exploitation? Not to speak out against this type of philosophy that all Democrats seems to practice is something prominent black men will regret one day. Class warfare and exploitation is only crippling the black community and if Mr. Powell was a true soldier he would point this out this coming Sunday.

If Mr. Powell doesn't point this out but, in fact, goes on to endorses Mr. Obama, well, I only have one thing to say to Mr. Powell: HOW DARE YOU! But my real question is this: How can an educated man like Mr. Powell, who knows the difference between right and wrong, just sit there and not say anything about the black community being exploited and still call himself a soldier? To sit there in silence over an issue like this is one thing but to act blind to the point of endorsing Mr. Obama...well, that's just a sold out soul.

I mean, how can you say something like this: "Our vision first and foremost rests on values - values, because values are the conscience of a society". If Mr. Powell truely believes this, then what he is doing is selling out his own conscience. Is that what it's come down to? How can Mr. Powell do something like that?

The answer to that question is simple: Mr. Powell is a coward and nothing more!

And you wonder why this great society is in a decline. When men of conscience sell their souls...that's not a good thing.

SHAME ON YOU, MR. POWELL!

mike t.

THE DEBATES...

2008-10-15T17:07:00.000-07:00

Over and over I hear one thing. So and so needs to do this and so and so needs to do that. Mr. McCain needs a knock-out blow. Mr. Obama just needs to not over react to Mr. McCain. I mean when people are looking for a "soundbite" to determine who won the debate...that's pretty shallow.

Polls, a few days later, will say who won the debate and why.

ALL OF IT IS PURE BS!

Why is it pure BS? Because nobody wins a Presidential Debate. A Presidential Debate is based on two different philosophies. Either you buy one or you buy the other. But the idea that an election can be "won" with a clever saying is just ludicrous.

The only people who count in Presidental Debates are the Independant voters. The question that has to be asked now is this: What do Independants look for in these debates. I'm an Independant who leans right. What do I look for? I look for what makes sense. And here's why:

I had an old friend who just to lecture me many many years ago. He was an older gentleman but he taught me one good thing that serves me well to this present day.

He said to me: Michael! I preach the gospel of mathematics.

I said to him: The gospel of mathematics? What do you mean?

He said: Michael...there's only one rule in this life that you have to pay attention to.

I said: And what rule is that?

He said: If it doesn't add up...then it just isn't true! And you can apply that to anything in life. And, Michael, that's the gospel that I preach!

_______________________________________

Over the years I've come to realize how wise this simple perspective really is. The only difference between me and the old man is that I've changed his term: "The Gospel of Mathematics" to "The Law of Mathematics". The principle is the same. If it doesn't add up...it just isn't true.

Let's now apply this philosophy to this Presidental Debate or better yet, the Presidential campaign.

Mr. Obama's promise to give 95% of the population an income tax break...how does that add up?

From what I understand, close to 40% of the population doesn't even pay income taxes. So right there, according to the law of mathematics, this doesn't add up.

Now I can go into breaking this down according to my own perspective but I think I'm going to use something I found on the Internet just about 1 minute ago.

Obama's Tax Plan Charade
By AC Writer, published Oct 09, 2008

Barack Obama has repeatedly stated on the campaign trail, and in two debates with John McCain, that his tax plan would provide an income tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans. Just yesterday on CNN I saw Joe Biden repeat this claim. There's only one problem. The claim is a false one.

Think about this for a minute. How is it possible for 95 percent of working Americans to receive an income tax CUT when only 67 percent of working Americans pay income taxes? The numbers just don't add up.

According to the National Tax Payers' Union, citing IRS statistics, 32.6 percent of Americans filing income tax returns do not pay any income taxes at all. So how do they get a tax cut? You can't cut from zero. It's impossible.

Here's a look at who pays income taxes. A review of data compiled by the National Tax Payers' Union (of course, you can go to the IRS web site and examine the tables for yourself if you wish) reveals the following:

Percentiles by AGI AGI Threshold Percent of Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$388,80639.89

Top 5%
$153,54260.14

Top 10%
$108,90470.79

Top 25%
$64,70286.27

Top 50%
$31,98797.01

Bottom 50%
2.99

So the question remains, how do you cut income taxes for those Americans who do not pay income taxes? You can't. But you can give them a rebate and call it tax relief, which is exactly what the Obama plan does. It's simple: you redistribute wealth. You take money earned by some American citizens and you give it to others who did not earn it.

According to a report by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, the 60 percent burden already being borne by the top 5 percent is going to get much heavier if the Obama tax plan is enacted. The Foundation says, "In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combines. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined."

___________________________________________

Now that was pretty simple but still a little technical. What I want to do is bring in some common-sense language to the matter.

People, on the right, can say that all they want about taxing the rich will only cause a depression. They might be right. But why isn't that resonating with the people who actually play the polls?

My feeling is that it's because people have a tendancy to let things go into one hear and out the other from day to day.

Mr. Obama's tax proposal should be in the face of the voters everyday so that it can stay in thier ears up until November 4. But what needs to be done is that his tax proposals need to be put into everyday language, which the common man understands.

This is how I would word it.

When you tax the rich you tax yourself!

The rich are not rich because they're stupid. When you tax the rich they will increase the price of their products and services. So you will be "taxed" with that price increase. Technically, you aren't being taxed by the Government but you'll be paying in the supermartket, gasline and everything else that makes over 250,000 dollars per year.

250, 000 dollars per year isn't really where the price of product and services go up. That's the place where jobs are created. The price of products and sevices for big cooporations is where you'll see the increase. And when they increase the price for those products and services that's where "95%" of the people getting those "tax breaks" will be getting TAXED!

So, we put these two ideas together and what do we get? For 250,000 small business we get job cuts. For big cooporation we get a price increase for products and services. Put together that's called inflation.

What is inflation? That's when the price of products and services go up and the money in your pocketbook is staying the same or going down.

That's what Mr. Obama's tax proposals will do. It's common-sense. It goes right along the lines of "The law of mathemathics". It can be looked upon in two ways.

Do "95%" of the population get a tax break? That doesn't add up!

Will people at 250,000 dollars a year cut jobs because they can't grow because of Mr. Obama's tax proposals? That adds up!

Will big cooporations increase the price of products and services if they get a big tax increase under Mr. Obama's tax proposals? Propably yes! That adds up, too!

So, who do you think is telling the truth? Both parties are telling the "truth" but there is a clear differance in their philosophies.

The question is this: Which philosophy do you buy into?

mike t.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

2008-10-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

Take a good look at this face and tell me what do you see? Take a good look at that sly little smile. And take a look into those sincere blue eyes and tell me what do you see? A writer for the N.Y. Times? Yes, he's that for sure. An intellectual? Isn't that how all major journalist see themselves? They take their intellectual ability and combine it with a marketable photo of themselves and they try to convery the idea that you can trust them.

I mean, really, take a good look at the photo and tell me that's not what this guy is trying to do.

Now read his piece in the opinion of the N.Y. Times.

The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

For this post I'm going to pull one paragraph from this opinion he wrote about. It's not really about Mr. Obama...it's about Mr. McCain.

About 2/3 of the way down in this article you'll come across this paragraph.

"The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals."

__________________________________________________

Through all the intellectual twists of this piece we have this little gem where the "intellectual" really outsmarted himself.

That one little paragraph correctly points out that Mr. Obama and other Democratic leaders are legitimatley responsible for the economic crisis that is hitting America and the rest of the world. That, to me, is pretty big news. That, to me, is EARTHSHAKING NEWS! That, to me, is reason enough to bring these people to justice for manipulating our system to the point where we don't know if we're heading into another great depression. That's the kind of thing that should have people outraged and calling out for justice. But instead of outrage, this guy, Frank Rich, is accusing Mr. McCain of some superfical charge of...I just don't know what! Compared to this economic crisis what he's talking about or trying to point out seems like nonsense, to me.

American's have every right to be very very angry with Mr. Obama and the Democrats over this economic crisis. And this guy, Frank Rich, seems to think there's another issue at play here. My question to Mr. Rich is this: If you know that there's a legitimate connection between Mr. Obama, other Demorcratic leaders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the economic crisis...then why aren't you angry at the deception of Mr. Obama's campaign? If you know the connection between Mr. Obama and the economic crisis is legit...then that would make everything Mr. Obama is saying about economic crisis a lie. Tell us, Mr. Rich, why aren't you angry about that?

Is this economic crisis not serious enough to break through partisan politics and "reporting" to make people angry enough to hold those responsible and to bring them to the "light" of the media? Isn't that what a journalist is supposed to do? Watch out for the American people by reporting on issues that would hurt the overall well being of the country?

I mean, here we are spinning out of economic control and everyone in the media knows it's because of the Community Reinvestment Act. And everyone in the media knows it's the Community Reinvestment Act that lead to the swindling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac applied to their corrupt business practices. That's common knowledge. But does Mr. Rich do an indepth report on that? Why not?

Read this man's article, and if it wasn't for his slip up in writing that one little paragraph, you would think Mr. McCain is playing the part of the devil or something. Where, pray tell, is the intergrity?

I mean is this guy doing his "white - forgive me - duty" to the black community by playing the race card for them in his article?

THERE'S AN ECONOMIC CRISIS GOING ON and this guy is playing the race card for Mr. Obama, who is legitimatley connected to the cause of the crisis! I mean how politically correct are these people trying to be? Are they so sensitive to the black plight that they willing to give a blind eye to the likes of Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership who are responsible for this economic crisis?

America needs to be angry at these people! And especially at the likes of Mr. Rich and the N.Y. Times for twisitng this economic issue around so bad that Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership, it seems, are going to get a free pass for this economic crisis. Mr. Obama, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Demorcratic leadership should be under investigation and not leading in the polls for the Presidential election.

So, with that, I say unto you, again. Take a good look at that photo of Mr. Rich, again.

Now tell me: What do you see? Behind the friendly eyes. Behind the friendly little smile. I'll tell you what it is you should see. It's called INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION! That, my fellow Americans, this what Intellectual Corruption looks like. Tell me: Do you trust that guy? I don't know if you do or if you don't but I can tell you this for sure. I DO NOT!

He insults my intelligence.

mike t.

KNOWLEDGE IS UNDERSTANDING AND POWER

2008-09-28T18:53:00.000-07:00

I watched this youtube video and followed their links to get the following information for this post.

If people are going to be honest then you have to acknowledge the facts of what that youtube video is saying. What it breaks down to is "class warfare". What is class warfare? That's when the Democrats use the ignorance of the poor to blame the Republicans for everything without providing the facts. In other words: They rely on the poor's lack of an education.

Do your research!

SIMPLY PUT…THE DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

___________________________________

THE ROOTS OF THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was established by Congress in 1977 (President Jimmy Carter). The Act requires that deposit-taking financial institutions offer equal access to lending, investment and services to all those in an institution's geographic assessment area-at least three to five miles from each branch. In the case of large banks with many branches, the geographic area may encompass an entire county or even a state.

Before the CRA, many bankers excluded low-income neighborhoods and people of color from their lending products, investments, and financial services - a practice known as "redlining". Community activists coined the term when they discovered that the failure of banks to make loans in some low-income neighborhoods was so geographically distinct, that it was easy to draw red lines on maps to delineate the practices.

In the 1970s, activists in Chicago and across the country brought strong pressure on banks to lend equitably to all those in their communities. Since its passage, the CRA has been used across the United States to win tens of billions of dollars in new lending, investments, and services for communities. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition tracks more than $1 trillion dollars in community reinvestment pledges nationally. These pledges are explicit investments in equitable development goals, and finance many tools in this toolkit.

Original Act

The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions after the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed restrictions on interstate banking. However, until 1995 the Act was laxly enforced and banks only were required to advertise in local minority newspapers or sit on the boards of local community groups. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), and the Federal Reserve System).

The bill encouraged mortgage lending through two government sponsored enterprises ("GSEs"). The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, enables mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, buys mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. It also charged the Federal Reserve System to implement the CRA through ensuring banks and savings and loans met their CRA obligations.

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were ‘SUBPRIME LOANS.’ Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.

Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.

Bush Administration Changes of 2005

In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered. In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.

The new CRA regulations proposed in early 2005 were put into effect in July and September of 2005. They included new definitions for "small" and "intermediate small" banks which were subject to less restrictions than formally. The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being. (That's Class Warfare)

BOTTOM LINE?

It's the Democrats who started this mess and now they're blaming the Republicans? Is that the change that Mr. Obama is preaching?

President Bush, Senator McCain and a huge number of Republicans warned about this economic crisis up to 5 years ago.

The following video link shows the hearings, when Democrats lied about what was going on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Watch the Black memebers of congress play the race card when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's administrators are being called into question over their questionable business policies. That was then and because of that "denial," this financial crisis is what we're facing today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The bottomline is this: What does it all mean? It mean that when Mr. Obama uses the phrase: Mr. McCain is tied to the failed Bush economic policies...well, what he's not saying is that it is the Democratic economic policies, especially under President Clinton, that led to this economic crisis.

MR. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

And for what? Power? During this time of economic crisis? They shouldn't be running for President. They should be sent to jail!

mike t.

WHO'S IN DANGER HERE?

2008-09-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

Something is terribly wrong here. Nobody seems to know what to do about our economic crisis. The blame game is in full swing.

The economic crisis brought a quote to rememberance that I want to touch on. It goes something like this: "The Free Market will Correct Itself...". Or something close to that.

So, I went to the Internet and starting looking up that quote in association with Alan Greenspan. I wanted to see in what context Greenspan was using that saying.

I didn't really find anything I could use but I did find this interesting article.

____________________________________________

Alan Greenspan's Meaningless Statistics
by: Michael Steinberg posted on: August 14, 2008

The Wall Street Journal's “Greenspan Sees Bottom In Housing, Criticizes Bailout” shows just how stubborn the former Federal Reserve chairman has become. Endlessly out to defend his record, he even wrote a new chapter for his book. The paperback version will be out next month.

The Journal reports Greenspan studying endless statistics, charts and graphs: 800K vacant homes, the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index, and his old time favorite “owners’ equivalent rent”. At a certain price it will be rational to own a home, according to Greenspan. When the market finds that rational price, equilibrium will be achieved and the excess inventory will be used up.

Once we have price discovery, we will know home equity value and mortgage related assets can then be accurately priced. At that point financial institutions will stabilize. Doesn’t Greenspan sound rational? I wrote "Foreclosures will Moderate as Home Prices Continue to Fall" disagreeing; financial institutions will stabilize well in advance of price stabilization.

Greenspan believes that supply and demand will be in balance with a bottoming in the first half of 2009. But, he qualifies that does not mean home prices stop falling. He just means that the supply and demand will be in balance. Greenspan enforces his argument by relating homes to commodities, and reminding us that he traded copper 50 years ago.

Why do I say that Greenspan’s analysis is meaningless? First, homes do not behave like commodities. They are not as fungible as one pound of copper is to another, and industrial markets are different than consumer markets. Second, statics do not take into account the increased cost of operating a home, stagnant wages of the last decade, tighter lending standards, and weaker consumer balance sheets. Third, statics do not take into account that much of the overstock of housing created during the boom is not consistent with current lifestyles. McMansions built during the boom are now about as valuable as SUVs. Therefore, many vacant homes are either worthless or might take years to sell.

_____________________________________________

What does it all mean? Lets isolate one section of that article.

"At a certain price it will be rational to own a home, according to Greenspan. When the market finds that rational price, equilibrium will be achieved and the excess inventory will be used up.

Once we have price discovery, we will know home equity value and mortgage related assets can then be accurately priced. At that point financial institutions will stabilize."

That little section right there is basically saying that the Free Market will correct itself. But the problem with that is the government bailout. Once the government gets involved, then the Free Market isn't allowed to correct itself.

OK, we know that! We know that! The real question is what are we going to do?

Well, first we have to identify who's in danger here? The people? I don't think so. People will survive one way or the other even if they have to eat beans and rice everyday, 3 times a day. Hey, it fills you up!

The nature of the economy is for it to go up and for it to come back down. That's just life. So, what's really in danger here, with all the bailouts, is the Free Market philosophy.

I am convinced that the Free Market will, indeed, correct itself...except for one little thing. GREED! The Free Market is at the mercy of the business community. The business community is filled with too many people who have spend their lives trying to manipulate the system instead of appreciating the Free Market philosophy. In other words: They practice Corruption!

A perfect example of this is the Board of Directors of institutions like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. They took the system for all they could.

What's to be done about it? That's an easy question to answer: REGULATON!

Regulation in the business community is a four letter word, but due to the greed on Wall Street it is a word we have to use to get this economy back on the right track.

But we're not talking about Regulation across the board in the business community. We're talking about Regulation for businesses that take advantage of what people are reliant upon for their everyday use.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Big Oil
Power and Electricity
Insurance
Banking Institutions
Telephone Companies

These are the businesses that are in need of regulation because people are forced to buy or use the products provided by these institutions because of their practical everyday use. There really isn't a Free Market when it comes to these institutions. These institutions have the market sown up and therefore they do as they please. And what they do, as we are witnessing, is apply their greedy practices to defraud and cripple the Free Market philosophy.

There's no way for the Free Market Philosophy to survive as long as these institutions are allowed to manipulate the system with their greedy practices. With the corrupt and greedy practices that are being applied to the Free Market, the survival of its philosophy would be impossible to maintain.

So, again, who's really in danger here? The Free Market Philosophy! In other words: We are witnessing is the decaying of our society's philosophy right before our very eyes.

What to do? Mandate Regulation on Big Oil, Power and Electricity, Insurance, Banking and the Telephone Companies.

These institutions are the ones who are gobbling up huge profits at the expense of the consumer in a Free Market society. Regulate them and the Free Market will surely correct itself.

For those who don't know why and how regulations work. Here's a link to get an idea.

In December 2001 Enron became the center of another scandal when its bankruptcy, the largest to date in the nation's history, revealed that the company had used deceptive accounting practices to inflate its earning reports and stock price. This was the first in a series of corporate bankruptcies to involve fraudulent bookkeeping that shook an already weak stock market in 2002. To restore investor confidence, the federal government exercised its regulatory authority to promote greater scrutiny of the securities, accounting, and power utility industries.

In other words: They were practicing corruption! And with that type of corruption the Free Market cannot correct itself.

With that said: The fundamentals of our economy are strong! No, wait! The fundamentals of our economy are very very strong! But the fundamentals are being stressed by the greed of Wall Street, who don't even work for a living. They speculate with money that isn't even theirs.

The working people of America are the fundamentals of our economy. The fundamentals will hold. But the structure which are built upon our fundamenatals have got to come down! If this greed isn't checked then it's quite possible that America is headed for a Paradigm shift and who knows exactly what that will lead to.

What is a paradigm you ask?

Paradigm: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated ; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind. (The Free Market fits this definition of paradigm.)

What that means is this: Everything you see with your eyes and is registered in your mind as "normal" is the paradigm that you're operating in. Now if the Free Market were to collapse then the American paradigm would change and how you think would also be effected. What does that mean? We don't know because we're so used to thinking in a certain way that we would be in shock if something like that happened to us. But if the greed of the business community continues...we'll be forced to have to reevaluate everything we believe in.

This is the type of thing that has led to the destruction of every world power in the history of mankind. When world powers collapse due to corruption then that is what we call a "World Paradigm Shift". If this were to happen in the United States of America then the Constitution itself would also become vulnerable.

Believe it or not but the constitution of the United States of America isn't going to last forever. Corruption will and has destroyed every world power in the history of mankind and the United States of America is not above the history of the world.

REGULATION BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

mike t.

SOME OF MY OLDER POSTS: THE ECONOMY

2008-09-17T13:03:00.000-07:00

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Oh, It's Coming: This Recession is Going to Bite!

"This is going to go down in very historic terms," said Peter Dunay, chief investment strategist for New York-based Meridian Equity Partners. "This is about credit being overextended, and how bad it is for major financial institutions and for individuals. This is why we're probably heading into a recession."

Do regular people understand what is happening? The gimmicks are over. The prosperity over the last 20 years is coming to an end. The computer/software has reached its peak. Let me explain how I it think this happened.

The housing market overextended itself by giving people with poor credit history money to finance their homes. The people with poor credit history took the money they did have in hand and paid cash for all the computer gadgets. The cash purchases of computer gadgets allowed the economy to flourish. What that means is that there’s a lot of cash flow in society.

The problem is this: The computer gadgets that are used for common purposes have been intergraded into society across the board.

Lets follow the history of how that works.

1. In the 1980’s the P.C. was the thing to have. This thing hit the market and hit it big. Everybody wanted one. It was the thing to have. And it was a practical investment.

2. The software to go with the P.C. hit the market. Namely: The Microsoft Operating Systems. ’95, 97, 2000-Me-XP.

3. The Microsoft Office software. Namely Microsoft Word.

Everyone rushed to the stores to get the latest updates to these programs. And the money spent just flowed into society. That was a good thing because the Operating System’s and the business applications were practical for everyday use from large business corporations to the personal use at home. The biggest money stimulator, in my opinion, was from the individual buyer who took the computer home.

A side economy stimulator was the Apple Corporation. The Mac had its own niche by marketing to the creative industry. Software like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Flash got a late start but came on from the late 90’s to the mid-00’s.

That software evolved from being almost exclusive to the Mac Operating System to being able to be used with the P.C. Now there is no difference between how the software is used in either operating system.

But the money that flowed while all these software programs were being developed was huge. And that’s not to mention the Internet and high-speed access to it. That was a lot of money that was going into huge corporations and then hitting the streets. Then the telephone and all its gadgets kicked in. That’s the economy, baby!

All these things, combined, boosted the economy because most of these things were short-term investments and very practical for everyday use. In other words: You didn't need to make huge financial sacrifices to obtain these gadgets. The American dream still revolved around the idea of having a family, house, and car.

Family, house and car are the things that require a serious finacial commitment. Those things require a lifetime commitment. But the underbelly to those dreams, during the 80's to the mid-00's, was the obtaining of the technology to provide your family with every opportunity to succeed. At first the technology gadgets were very expensive but people made the investments because they weren't as expensive as a house and car. And if you mastered the technology, that could get you to the point of obtaining the American dream. Again, that technology created a lot of cash flow. But now, all of these programs have reached their peaks and they’re almost common.

In other words: People aren’t going to spend a lot of money on things that don’t make a great improvement on the gadgets they already have. Maybe the elitist, of society, can go get the latest version of all the programs I mentioned but not the common-man. The common-man isn’t going to spend huge amounts of money for what meets his needs for everyday practical use. That’s a huge slowdown of actual money hitting the streets.

With that part of the economy slowing down big time, that leaves the housing market.

From the news article link above:

“In June, two Bear-managed hedge funds worth billions of dollars collapsed and lost all their money. The funds were heavily invested in securities backed by subprime mortgages — loans given to customers with poor credit history. Until that point, subprime mortgage-backed securities were immensely popular with investors because of their profitability.”

Wow! Where did the “subprime” people come from? Or how did they get their foot in the financial door of banking institutes like Bear Stearns? Creidt, of course! Credit has become the American way of survival for the common-man. It has provided beautiful homes and nice cars for a lot of people with “poor” credit history. Now combine that with the slowdown of the actual money that was being spent from the early 80’s to this present day and what do you get?

In other words: What goes up must come down. The American Standard of Living has gone way up from the 70’s to this present day and it went up on the back of banks like Bear Stearns who were handing out credit like it was candy.

All of this is common knowledge. But the silent killer in all of this, in my opinion, is the credit that was being handed out not for just home mortgages but for automobiles. Have you seen the amount of cars on our streets? Have you ever thought about just how many of those cars are being driven on credit? Almost all of them! How ridiculously absurd is this situation? Just look at the gas prices. That’s how much cars we have on our streets. The demand is too high from a bunch of people who are living on credit. This is the silent killer.

Most people don’t buy their gas on credit. They pay cash. That cash at the pump is taking away from having loose money to spend on gadgets. That’s not to mention the price of food.

Here’s the question: How many people with poor credit history can really afford both a house and a car? And how wide spread is this situation?

“In June, two Bear-managed hedge funds worth billions of dollars collapsed and lost all their money…”

Yikes! That’s how wide spread it is.

The crunch is on!I don’t think the recession is going to bite this year. The prosperity from the 80’s to this present day was too great. We’re living with an excess of material gain. Once that gain is depleted, then the recession’s teeth will be felt.The next President of the United States of America has that to deal with. That should be the main concern of the American people.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Only A Fool Doesn't See This Coming!

I'm telling you! The American Standard of Living is way too high. This is a rare time, in the history of the world, when prosperity has been so high across the board. Everyone is doing pretty well.

For those who aren't doing well, it's only because it's compared to those who are doing well.

How long can this great prosperity last? It doesn't make sense. The history of the world tells you that there are good times and bad times. And the recent good times, from the time Reagan became President to this present day, they just can't continue.

I speak to a lot of old men who are "thrifty" and they are all concerned about what's coming. They say it unavoidable. And these old men are people who have invested in the market all their lives.

I know something is in the air because one day I went to buy some milk and it was $4.59 a gallon. Just the day before it was $3.99 a gallon. From one day to the next it went up 60 cents. Lettuce went up from 99 cents to $1.99 for a head. And since that happened, a few months ago, the prices haven't come down. And that's just milk and lettuce. (It really isn't that hard to figure out.)

For those who don't understand what that means, it means this: The combination of the price increase across the board indicates that people don't have as much money to spend on other things. And if people aren't spending money on other things then the economy slows down. When we have to spend most of our money on food, housing, heat, gas, and clothing then we can't spend as much on gadets.

Spending on food, housing, gas, and clothing isn't what makes the economy stay afloat. It's the spending on everything else that makes for a healthy economy.

Recession is in the air. And I don't think the next President of the United State of America is going to be able to avoid that. And if that's the case, then healthcare is the big thing to have available for all the people. You know the old saying: As long as you have your health, you're OK. Lets hope that's true if this country goes into recession.

mike

BIPARTISAN COOPERATION?

2008-09-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

With just the mention of the name of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; you'd think it would make both sides of the political parties come together in unity for a common cause. I would call that an issue of forced bipartisan cooperation.

It seems Senator Hillary Clinton doesn't think that Iran is a big enough issue to join the conservatives in protesting President Mahmound Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations.

Here's the article:

As Palin Joins Planned Protest Against Iran, Clinton Cancels
Updated 11:38 p.m.By Colum Lynch

NEW YORK -- "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of a planned rally outside the United Nations next week after learning that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would also be in the crowd protesting the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The rally -- which includes prominent political and religious leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel -- is being organized by a coalition of American Jewish organizations, under the umbrella group the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now.

Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, said that Clinton accepted the invitation to the rally back in August, before Palin was part of the Republican presidential ticket. "We had approached Republican leaders because we wanted to have this event on a nonpartisan basis." The Republicans offered up Palin today, he said.

Hoenlein said that Clinton had been informed of Palin's plans to attend the Monday protest, adding that she had no intention of pulling out.

But Clinton aides told the Associated Press tonight that they learned of Palin's involvement only when informed by reporters.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

Hoenlein did not immediately return messages seeking comment about Clinton's dropping out. Nor did other organizers of the rally.

A GOP campaign official said only that Palin tentatively planned to attend the rally."

_________________________________________

What make this article interesting is this: "Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

With both campaigns promising change or reform of Washington's political landscape, it seems to me that Mrs. Clinton is in breach of such a concept as change and reform. If there was ever a reason to come together, this is it.

It seems to me that Gov. Palin's reform nature and bipartisan cooperation is what she's bringing to the table as evident by her williness to participate in a worthy cause.

I know that Mrs. Clinton isn't the running for President, but she did endorse Mr. Obama. And she does have a large voting block supporting her. The question that has to be asked is this: Is this what the Democrats consider to be change? To me this situatation seems like the same old same old coming from the Democrats.

This brings me to my point. The Democrats definition of change is that they should be in power, while the McCain/Palin definition of change is working for bipartisan cooperation.

It's clear that Mr. McCain and Gov. Palin have a strong record for fighting against their own party to come to a benefitial understanding and legislation for their constituents by working with the other party.

Both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have extreme left voting records in their time in the senate. During these dangerous times, this is no time to run and hide behind your party's ideology. But this is exactly what Mrs. Clinton is doing when it comes to a issue that should bind us together.

Why in the world would anyone vote for these type of Democrats is beyond me. They have no intention of trying to reform Washington. They are just trying to change policies from Republican to Democrat and nothing more. In other words what they're saying is this: Give us another shot at it! Give us another shot!

That is absurd! Both parties are corrupt and the party to vote for is the party that is fighting for bipartisan cooperation. In this case the McCain/Palin ticket has a record of such work, while the Obama/Biden ticket is determined to fight for a strict Democratic idelogy.

The Republican ideology isn't the problem! The problem is GREED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE! The remedy is bipartisan cooperation to fight that corruption. Again, the McCain/Palin ticket is the ticket that has a clear record of fighting against that greed.

mike t.

REWORDING MY "THE BUSH DOCTRINE" SECTION

2008-09-14T02:27:00.000-07:00

THE BUSH DOCTRINE
(REVISED VERSION: Mr. Obama the manipulator)

In this post I'm going to address some serious concerns about Mr. Obama's influence or tampering with the National media. To do this I have to repost my Bush Doctrine section from the previous post. It starts out the same but it changes less than half way through the original post.

I don't know but if what I'm writing is true we could have mediagate on our hands concerning Mr. Obama. This would be a very serious violation of the American people's trust, especially when an institution like ABC news is involved with such manipulation.
______________________________

What’s not to understand about this philosophy? If terrorist want to attack us or our interest around the world, we're going after them plain and simple. What intellectuals want us to believe is that we’re in violation of some sovereign Nation’s rights, according to treaties agreed upon through or sanctified by “governing” bodies such as, but not limited to, the United Nations. Great! But the United Nation's "governing" body isn't equipped or has a real interest in dealing with the best interest of the United States of America. They want to deal with the best interest of the rest of the world even at the expense of the United States.

In other words: These intellectuals want us to give up our position as a world power and to cooperate with the United Nations so that we can be "healed citizens of the world". In other words: We're sick and we need to admit to the world that we need their forgiveness and with that forgiveness comes acceptance with the likes of even of Iran. That's why Mr. Obama was so popular on his European trip.

The rest of the world wants the United States to come off their high horse and Mr. Obama wants to accommodate them. We are guilty! And, in Mr. Obama's theory, nothing does a better job of manifesting that guilt than "The Bush Doctrine". We need to repent of the "Evil Bush Doctrine" and allow the rest of the world to embrace us.

On the other end of the spectrum "The Bush Doctrine", to the logical people who put their country first, is about allowing the United States of America to exercise our sovereign rights to pursue our enemies, who threaten us or our interest, to wherever the hell we want. In other words: If terrorist want to attack us or our interest…then they should make sure they can find refuge in China or Russia because anything less, we’re coming for you. Such is the benefit of being a world power. We feel no guilt about our actions and we do not apologize for protecting ourselves and our interest around the world.

In the end, I think Gov. Palin said it best in her RNC acceptance speech:

“Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he (Mr. Obama) wants to meet them without preconditions. Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's (Mr. Obama) worried that someone won't read them their rights?”

That pretty much says it all. That is, basically, what Gibson was referring to with his definition of the Bush Doctrine.

It was a boobie-trap question!

Let me give you an example of the boobie-trap question:

Q: Do you understand the Bush Doctrine Gov. Palin?

A: To what degree?

Q: Do you agree that it's OK to pursue our enemies, who haven't attacked us, across a sovereign Nation's borders?

There's the boobie-trap! If Gov. Palin says yes, then Gibson and the "intellectual left media" say: Got you! Why? Because, in their minds, they conclude that such an action would be a violation of our very own principles described in the constitution.

This would have led to more questions, in the following days in the media, about wire tapping, an extension of the Bush Doctrine, and, again, a constitutional concern and questions about Gov. Palin's understanding of constitutional law. Mr. Gibson tried to make a fool out of Gov. Palin.

Since the interview, one Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term the Bush Doctrine, has pointed out that Mr. Gibson didn't even know the proper definition of the Bush Doctrine and, therefore, his question to Gov. Palin wasn't legitimate. In other words: The boobie-trap question turned out to be a dud. You know this statement is true because no one, in the "intellectual left media", is talking about it anymore. They don't have intellectual or legal standing here.

But, again, these "intellectuals" are concerned about the rights of terrorist as opposed to the safety of America as Gov. Palin pointed out in her RNC acceptance speech.

One more time:

"...Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's (Mr. Obama) worried that someone won't read them their rights?”

You see? The "intellectual left media" is all about questioning the legitimacy of the Bush Doctrine in regards to the constitution. So the Bush Doctrine question, to Gov. Palin, wasn't really about President Bush's foreign policy or world view. It was about Gov. Palin's stance or knowledge on constitutional law.

The question Mr. Gibson asked Gov. Palin is so sophisticated that it could have of only come from the mind of a lawyer. To be specific: A constitutional law lawyer or professor.

Constitutional law? Let me see...who do we know that is an expert on constitutional law? Ummm? Let me think! I got it! I got it! It's Mr. Barack Obama!

Here's a section from FactCheck.org, which contains a quote from Mr. Obama.

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor. Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

That, right there, tells you that Mr. Obama is playing the Chicago machine politics that he was brought up on. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Obama gave the Bush Doctrine question to Mr. Gibson, to ask Gov. Palin, himself. Now that is corruption. Influencing or using the national media to do your dirty work or to set-up your opponent for a media "hit"? That's straight from the streets of Chicago.

The problem with the set-up is that Mr. Gibson blew the question, according to Charles Krauthammer, by not knowing what the definition of the Bush Doctrine was himself. Man, talk about dirty politics! Mr. Obama is as dirty as they come.

But back to the question Mr. Gibson, in the context of his incorrect understanding of the Bush Doctrine, asked Gov. Palin. Are we going to violate someone’s rights, namely, a sovereign Nation’s borders, in pursuing terrorist before they actually attack us? The answer is, if we have to…YES!

Why? Because terrorist, who aren't Americans, don't have constitutional rights. Only American citizens have full constitutional rights. That's something Mr. Obama and the extreme left don't agree with. To them that's not constitutional and, therefore, the Bush Doctrine is unconstitutional.

And people talk about McCain's dirty negative politics? Again, and worth mentioning, Mr. Barack Obama is as dirty as they come.

_______________________________

Mr. Obama: Damn it, Charlie, you blew the question!

Mr. Gibson: You're the constitutional law professor. You should have told me which definition of the Bush Doctrine to use. So you're the one to blame.

Mr. Obama: Do I have to think of everything myself?

Mr. Gibson: You still have the N.Y. Times in your pocket. Well, technically, you're in their pocket.

Mr. Obama: Don't be a smartass or I won't give you exclusive interviews if I'm elected President.

Mr. Gibson: Sorry, boss.

mike t.

p.s. Don't forget to click on a couple ADs. I'm a poor guy who needs money.

AN EDU-MU-CATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS

2008-09-12T17:55:00.000-07:00

You have got to love this year’s Presidential Election. With coverage being at an all-time high with cable television and Internet blogging…there’s just no end to the information that is coming in. That’s great!

I’m really excited about the potential that is the blog. The blog allows everyday citizens to get involved in a way that before the Internet wasn’t possible. It, the blog, still has its shortcomings but I feel that the future of this powerful tool is going to be used in ways to determine what is truth and what is plain questionable.

The problem with blogs today is this: The technology is still in its infancy. What that means is this: People haven’t really grasped what can be done with it. Instead of writing out complete thoughts, people seem to be satisfied with making a one or two line comment. That’s cool but it can’t be taken seriously because there isn’t a sense of who we’re dealing with when so little information is being expressed. And most bloggers don't use their real names to give an identity so we can know who we're dealing with. How many of the posts are actually a hoax perpetrated by just a couple of individuals?

It’s clear, to me, that for regular people to make huge informed differences in this world we live in…they need exercise their right to free speech using the blog technology. The problem, of course, is that a great deal of people who blog aren’t educated to the point where they can express detailed thoughts concerning issues they care about.

With main stream media in the tank one way or another during this Presidential Election it seem obvious to me that the people need to stand up and make their voices heard. There’s no way we can let main stream media manipulate the masses because they think they're in the position to do so. Main stream media has lost all credibility and cannot be trusted to provide the people with unbiased information.

This Presidential Election has given us bloggers an opportunity to provide information to the general public that is based on logic rather than manipulation. The opportunity in this Presidental Election, in my mind, revolves around three issues, which are: Earmarks, “The Bush Doctrine” and Taxes.

Earmarks

What is an earmark? Definitions vary, but on the FactCheckED.org site, it says earmarks are "allocations of revenue in a bill that are directed to a specific project or recipient typically in a legislator’s home state or district."

Earmarks are actually good because it’s money that is needed by states and districts for anything from research to infrastructure. What makes an earmark bad? If we listen to Gov. Palin’s answer in her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, she gives the most logical explanation when addressing the amount of earmarks her state requested or received.

"Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar.That's the abuse that we're going to stop..."

Here’s is where average Americans get a free education on some of the issues concerning this general election. Notice how Gov. Palin says: “Those requests, through our research divisions and fish and game and our wildlife departments and our universities, those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day…”

In other words: Earmarks are good! Earmarks are one way of getting a share of taxpayer money into their community. Again, that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing when we use “the system” to apply for that money. That’s what Gov. Palin means when she says: “…wanting it to be in the light of day…”

What makes an earmark a dirty word in today’s political arena is described in the second part of her answer to Gibson. “…not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar.”When lobbyists influence the amount of earmark money with behind the door deals…that’s corruption! And that’s what needs to be dealt with. So when people try to tie Gov. Palin into earmark money and call her a hypocrite for saying she’s going to put a stop to earmarks, well…that’s just political spin by her opponents. Unless new information comes out, Gov. Palin’s promise to REFORM earmark policies, well, there isn’t any real reason not to believe her. In plain English: She wants earmark money to be done in the light instead of behind closed doors brokered by lobbyists. That’s huge!

When people understand this type of information, it’s clear that the McCain/Palin ticket is the one that is on the up and up when they talk about bringing change to Washington.

THE BUSH DOCTRINE

What’s not to understand about this philosophy? If terrorist want to attack us or our interest around the world, we're going after them plain and simple. What intellectuals want us to believe is that we’re in violation of some sovereign Nation’s rights, according to treaties agreed upon through or sanctified by “governing” bodies such as, but not limited to, the United Nations. Great! But the United Nation's "governing" body isn't equipped or has a real interest in dealing with the best interest of the United States of America. They want to deal with the best interest of the rest of the world even at the expense of the United States.

In other words: These intellectuals want us to give up our position as a world power and to cooperate with the United Nations so that we can be "healed citizens of the world". In other words: We're sick and we need to admit to the world that we need their forgiveness and with that forgiveness comes acceptance with the likes of even of Iran. That's why Mr. Obama was so popular on his European trip.

The rest of the world wants the United States to come off their high horse and Mr. Obama wants to accommodate them. We are guilty! And, in Mr. Obama's theory, nothing does a better job of manifesting that guilt than "The Bush Doctrine". We need to repent of the "Evil Bush Doctrine" and allow the rest of the world to embrace us.

On the other end of the spectrum "The Bush Doctrine", to the logical people who put their country first, is about allowing the United States of America to exercise our sovereign rights to pursue our enemies, who threaten us or our interest, to wherever the hell we want. In other words: If terrorist want to attack us or our interest…then they should make sure they can find refuge in China or Russia because anything less, we’re coming for you. Such is the benefit of being a world power. We feel no guilt about our actions and we do not apologize for protecting ourselves and our interest around the world.

In the end, I think Gov. Palin said it best in her RNC acceptance speech:

“Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he (Mr. Obama) wants to meet them without preconditions. Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's (Mr. Obama) worried that someone won't read them their rights?”

That pretty much says it all. That is, basically, what Gibson was referring to with his definition of the Bush Doctrine. Are we going to violate someone’s rights, namely, a sovereign Nation’s borders, in pursuing terrorist before they actually attack us? The answer is, if we have to…YES!

TAXES

I took this information from a poster on one of politico’s blogs.

“A little education for Owen. 40% of workers in the USA pay no income tax at this time (thanks to Bush). The top 10% of wage earners already pay 70+% of all income taxes. Obama's "tax cuts" are checks that he'll give to workers who already pay no income tax at all - pure wealth redistribution.”

Wealth redistribution...what does that mean? It means the “rich” are going to be taxed and their money is going to the 40% of the people who don’t pay taxes. That sounds pretty good! Who doesn’t want free money? The problem with this philosophy is that Mr. Obama seems to think the rich are rich because they’re stupid.

The rich aren’t stupid. They’re rich because they know how to budget their money. If the rich makes enough money to hire employees, what they’re doing is taking money out of their pocket to pay the employee. But when government takes money out of the rich’s pocket, what do you think the rich are going to do? The money they took out of their pockets to pay the employee is going to stay in their pocket. What that means is this: NO NEW JOBS! But worse than that: WE’RE CUTTING OLD JOBS! And on top of that the price for product and services goes up, too.

What Mr. Obama is trying to do is buy the votes of the 40% who don’t pay taxes to begin with. But what the people who'll get that money don’t understand is this: You will vote to take money, which should add up to a couple of thousand dollars a year. But you lose the job that puts steady money in your pockets throughout the year. You get money at the end of the year but suffer until the end of the year comes. You're voting to have the 15-25 thousand dollars a year jobs peeled off of the job market for a couple of thousand dollars at the end of the year? That doesn't make sense. But that's what wealth redistribution really is when it's done working out in society.

What Mr. Obama should do is explain to his supporters what a recession is. And then explain what inflation is, too. And then let Mr. Obama try to convince them to vote for him because of the tax breaks he’s going to introduce.

So, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I love the blog because it gives you the opportunity to participate in our political system in ways that has no limits. If you dig deep enough you can get a real live edu-mu-cation, here on the Internet.

You may or may not agree with my general explanation of Earmarks, The Bush Doctrine and Taxes. That's OK with me. I just want to encourage you to keep on digging until you get to the truth on these issues. But more than that, find out how these issues are implemented into our society. That way you can make an informed decision when deciding who to vote for this November 4th.

If you actually do the digging, I'm sure it will be a McCain/Palin ticket you'll be voting for.

mike t.

p.s. Hey, click on some of the AD so I can make a couple of dollars! LOL!

SARAH PALIN: "YOU CAN'T BLINK"!

2008-09-11T18:57:00.000-07:00

The woman knows exactly what is on her mind!

Q: But this is not just about reforming a government, this is also running a government on a huge and international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your your national security credentials he cited the fact you have commanded the Alasken National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

A: But it is about REFORM of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people and that has much to do with foreign policy and national securtiy issues. Let me speak specfically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with energy independence that I've been working on for these years as Governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I've worked on as Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; overseeing the Oil and Gas development in our State to produce more for the rest of the United States.

Q: National security is a whole lot more than energy.

A: It is but I don't want you to lose sight of the fact that energy is the foundation of National Security. It's that important. It's that significant.

WOW!

Sarah Palin put Charles Gibson on his ass right here! She did not let him just slide over the REFORM issue. She put it in his face. Then she kept him on point by making him not lose sight of the importance of energy being the foundation of National Security. Why is that? Because if we become less oil dependent, with more and or different energy resources, then we don't have to be reliant on foreign oil/engery. If we aren't reliant on foreign oil/engery then our need to keep our eye on security issues is lessened, in theory. I say in theory because our enemies are crazy and it really doesn't matter. But, again, in theroy, she's right.

I love the way she didn't blink about her task of bringing REFORM to government.

"But it is about REFORM of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people..."

You can't beat that! In other words: Don't mess with me idiot! Quit trying to sidestep the issue that has America in the shape it's in. Political corruption! And REFORM is what it's all about.

That, baby, is NOT BLINKING!

She is wired in a way that is so committed....

Her answer about Russia, Georgia, Israel and Iran...I have no problem with her at all. She came off as tough-minded. She doesn't hesitate about where we stand on these issues.

I like the way Gibson tried to ask the same question over and over but she always came back with the same resolve in what she believes in as her answers. Her answers are in her DNA. She has a strong sense of what is right and is what is wrong.

You see Gibson said it from the start in his questions: "But this is not just about reforming a government, this is also running a government on a huge and international stage in a very dangerous world..."

After Sarah reminded Gibson that it was about REFORM; her answers on National Security are in context of this Nation's need to be concerned with a "...very dangerous world..." You're damned right I don't think we need anyone's permission to cross border lines when we have intelligence about some terrorist group who has plans on trying to attack us or our interests.

This is a no-brainer! This is a perfect example of the Sarah Barracuda mentality. That's what this nation needs right now. And the beauty of all this is that she's only running for the V.P. of this nation. Perfect!

As for the "Bush Doctrine". I like her answer, once she understood what it meant. (The woman is quick on her feet.)

I'm paraphrasing here, of course.

Again, You're damned right I don't think we need anyone's permission to cross border lines when we have intelligence about some terrorist group who has plans on trying to attack us or our interests.

That answer is common sense. You don't have to call it the "Bush Doctrine" when it's common sense. Call it whatever you want! We are crossing those borders when we're threatened. End of story, whether you call it the "Bush Doctrine", the "Michael C. Teniente Theory" or just common sense. So she didn't know the "official" name of Bush's common sense approach to dealing with terrorist. Only elitist/intellectuals would put a "doctrine" heading on what is common sense. Here's the question: Did Bush name his common sense approach to terrorism the "Bush Doctrine"? Or did some elitist/intellectual get stumped by the simplicity of the common sense approach that he had to intellectualize the approach with a fancy doctrine title to justify his intellect? ELITIST!

You don't have to be intellectual to understand that when you know your enemy is just across a certain border...we're coming in with or without anyone's permission. Again, that's common sense. You can't fault her for that.

Sarah Palin is one tough minded individual.

Obama want's to make the government "cool", again. What?

More coming as the interview develops.

mike t.

FROM AN EX-DEMORCRAT

2008-09-10T19:53:00.000-07:00

My story as a moderate who leans right is as follows:

I don’t have a formal education. I have a past that I’m not proud of. But when I decided to turn my life around I thought that part of the change was about going to church. After all, the foundation of my new life was based on my conversion to Christianity from Criminality.

So I decided that church was the right thing to do. My choice of church…I left to the Lord. In other words I went to the first church that I came across, which just so happened to be a mainstream church. I won’t mention the name of that church because this piece isn’t about that church but about my experience or my education into my politics.

So, I went to this church regularly and sat there and listened to them speak. The people there, in the mid-80s, were mostly the teacher types and other professional people in Los Angeles. All I had to bring to the table was my knowledge of the Bible, which they had no clue that I possessed.

Anyway, I remember saying to one of the Pastors there, in one of our conversations, this comment: You know, I’m a liberal! He responded to me: Yeah, I know you are. And that was pretty much it. It wasn't an insult on his part. He was just saying that he understood.

Well, after a few years of sitting and listening to those people, I remember thinking to myself: Hey, I don’t believe that. I was usually thinking that thought about some social issue they were discussing. Well, to make a long story short, I realized that I was opposed to almost everything they stood for socially. Or better yet, I was opposed to their remedies to the social issue that they were discussing. It dawned on me that I was a conservative.

That was some 20 years ago. Today I still have my roots in conservative thinking as a foundation but I like to think of myself as open minded to a good idea no matter who suggests it. Be it man, woman, right, left or independent. So I like to think of myself as a moderate who leans right. I’m sophisticated, you know. LOL!

Anyway, I consider myself a philosopher type thinker who didn't attend college. What that means is this: I came to my beliefs by observing the world we live in, with a Biblical foundation of how society was created. It was in this context that I listened to people. In other words: I studied the structure of old Israeli society and how they came to their inheritance (their lifestyle). That’s a long story that has a life of its own. But what that study gave me was a good understanding of the structure of government.

But let me give you an example of what I’m referring to:

Ecclesiastes Chapter 5:8

“If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.”

When I read that verse many, many years ago, this is how it spoke to me:

A province is old speech for a city or district. What does it mean in today’s time? Well first you have to look at it in retrospect and then bring it to today's time right after. This is how that's done for this case. In retrospect, from the time that verse was written...there was no United States of America. So we take a look at the philosophical structure of verse and we say: Justice in a province, that's government! Justice has to do with legal matters in a civilized society. A province is like a city. So we’re talking about the structure of a society and the legal matters in a given city of that society.

Now we take that ancient philosophy and put it in the context of the United States of America. It would go like this: This verse is referring to the legal/court system. The legal/court system in California goes like this: City (municipal court), county and state level (superior court). When we take it a step further we have the federal level. What does all that mean? Again, it’s the court system from city courts, which are under jurisdiction of the county they reside in, to the county court. The county court represents the state it resides in, while the municipal court represents the county it resides in. Simple, huh? And, of course, the state belongs to the Union. So were talking from the city court to the Supreme Court. “…and there be higher than they.” But I won’t get into that part just yet. This was just an example of how I obtained my education into the structure of American politics. Just a small example, believe me, there’s a whole lot more.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I listen to people and judge what I’m hearing according to my Biblical knowledge. Especially when they're talking about moral issues, which should be the foundation for writing law. Writing law? Say it! Say it! Politics!

Well, in over a 25 year period I’ve accumulated quite a bit of knowledge on a number of subjects. I consider myself a philosopher. But this is the first general election that I’m putting my knowledge to use, thanks to the blessing that God has given to me by allowing me to be born in America. Isn’t the Internet a powerful tool?

Anyway, so I’m tuned into this general election guns loaded and all. So I decided to jump from my regular television newscast here in Los Angeles, which is KCAL 9 to another version of the news. So I went to MNBC to listen to cable’s version of the general election. I was familiar with Keith Olbermann from his early local sportscaster days. I listen to him but I thought he was a pretty sarcastic guy and didn’t really like his style. Then he went to ESPN…I didn’t watch much. Then I heard he went to MNBC. I never watched until this presidential election. I listened for about 3 weeks before I said to myself: What the heck is this?

But I stuck around for a bit longer because of Chris Matthews’ show Hardball. I liked the title of the show. But, again, after 3 or 4 weeks I said to myself: Hardball my ass! This guy is straight out showing favoritism for the left. How in the hell can that possibly be considered “hardball”? (By the way I like listening to the opposite view to get a feel of how the opponent is thinking and reacting to legitimate questions or remedies to the issues that we don’t agree on.)

So, I turned to CNN and watched for about 2 weeks. My goodness gracious! Have you ever heard Donna Brazile speak? That woman is in complete denial. The look on her face after the Palin convention speech pretty much said it all. But then she tries to downplay the power of the speech by saying this kind of stuff: Well, I don’t think the American people will agree and so on and so forth. She should have given credit where credit is due. But she’s so in the “tank” with Mr. Obama that she has no credibility as an objective contributor to CNN news. I considered that station an embarrassment to objectivity.

So, I felt kind of forced to try FOX. I had heard about FOX and their far right biases, especially about that old Bill O’Reilly. But I had no choice because MNBC and CNN were clearly on the left with almost no objectivity to their reporting. What that means is this: When they asked questions to the Obama supporters, it’s like a set-up question to make them look as they’re legitimate contributors to their news programs. What a joke.

Well, after a few day of FOX, I can tell you right now that it’s obvious that they lean right. But the way they report the news is a world apart from MNBC and CNN. They actually ask tough questions to both sides of the party. I come away with the impression that they are far more objective when it comes to reporting the news concerning this general election.

What’s my point to this post? Nothing really other than to say that when I heard Olbermann and Matthews had lost the anchor spots for the general election over at MNBC…well, it was no surprise. I mean, really, who could possibly take them seriously?

Well, I sure don't. And I'm an ex-uneducated-liberal who now considers himself a moderate who leans right.

mike t.

p.s. That O'Reilly fellow...that really is a no spin zone. If a politican doesn't do the O'Reilly show, they're hiding something.

As for Donna Brazile, she makes me feel ashamed to be a minority. Why? Because after listening to her speak, all one can really ask is this: Are the rest of you minorities that stupid?

WHY THE LEFT IS SCARED OF PALIN

2008-09-09T17:54:00.000-07:00

The Democrats have every reason why to be scared of Sarah Palin. She’s the real deal! That’s why they’re basically bypassing John McCain and going straight for Palin in their attacks.

Here’s a very detailed example of why the Democrats are in a state of panic over the Palin selection:

McPalin rattles Team Obama
By Jonah Goldberg:

“Palin's more sober critics, mostly on the right, worried that picking her would undermine McCain's claim to "experience." Almost the exact opposite has happened. Thanks to the double-team strategy, Obama has found himself in the awkward position of sounding as if he's running against the GOP's vice presidential nominee. When Obama compared his own experience to Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla (leaving out her current job as governor), he ran right into the pick the McCain campaign had set, leaving McCain a clearer path to victory.

The more Obama has to explain why being a community organizer -- or a state legislator, or a one-term senator with few accomplishments under his belt -- is better preparation for the presidency than being a mayor or governor, the more he volunteers his own shortcomings when compared with McCain.

Besides, on paper, Obama doesn't stand up very well against Palin. All of the mythic themes of Obama's political narrative -- the ethics reformer, the bipartisan, the new kind of politician -- all look like press-release material next to Palin's accomplishments. Obama voted the Democratic Party line more often (97%) than McCain voted in accord with President Bush (90%). In Washington, Obama's supposedly "sweeping" ethics reform -- which forces congressmen to eat lobbyist-provided meals standing up instead of sitting down -- and his feckless reforms in Illinois make him look the Bambi to Palin's Godzilla.

Obama's idea of ethics reform is to mandate clean sheets in the brothel. Palin's is to tear it down.”

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

Well, it goes like this. Decades upon decades have pasted and Washington politics have become a joke! America wants changes. Again, that’s why Barack Obama has gotten as far as he has. But, again, his message of change was barely enough to get past the primaries against Hillary Clinton.

To understand why Barack’s version of change barely beat out Clinton in the primaries, you have to understand the context of his version of change. What Mr. Obama was and is still trying to sell is the idea of change that is defined as follows: He wants the White House to go from Republican to Demorcratic control. That's it! That’s why he never considered his extreme left voting record in the senate as a liability. He probably thought it was his biggest asset as an agent of his version of change. And at first, he may have been right as his strong poll numbers had shown until very recently. OK, so let’s go to the other side of aisle so that we can see how shallow that version of change really is.

John McCain has a long history of “fighting” for reform, often butting heads with members of his own party. The problem for Mr. McCain is this: More often than not…he lost those fights! Mr. McCain has taken a beating over his maverick ways. He couldn’t convince anyone that he could be effective as a president. This year he kind of “backed” into the GOP nomination. And even when he had secured the nomination his support among the base was questionable at best.

At that point it was Mr. McCain’s image/reputation as a maverick vs. Mr. Obama’s message of change. And clearly the polls were indicating that Mr. Obama’s campaign was what America was leaning towards. The question, at this point, has to be this: Why wasn’t America behind a reformer like Mr. McCain? Mr. McCain is a real live war hero! Mr. McCain has a proven record of fighting for reform. Why not McCain? The answer is simple! America didn’t believe. When it comes to Washington politics, American’s are very cynical, especially when you’re trying to buck the system with rhetoric about bipartisan cooperation. Yeah, right!

THE GAME CHANGER

Sarah Palin! Why? America is truly stunned by what Sarah Palin brings to the table. She took on big oil and won. She took on her own party and won. She has bipartisan cooperation on her resume and with that cooperation she pushed and enacted laws on ethics reform. She is the real deal! Ouch!

What did that resume do to this general election? It redefined what change means. And for Obama that isn’t good news because his version of change is just exchanging one political party's ideology for another in the White House. What changes is policies, but the corrupt political system remains.

When Mr. Obama caught wind of the Palin selection and did his research…that was over his head. Talk about something being above his pay grade. Actual political reform? What the hell you talking about, Willis? Mr. Obama, in this matter, is in way over his head. We’re talking about a shallow version of change vs. a woman who won fights against the very thing America is appalled with, which is the “good old boy” network.

But here’s the beauty of the Palin selection. It legitimizes John McCain. All those years of fighting for bipartisan cooperation and coming out it the wounded soldier…well, it had to have left Mr. McCain feeling a bit discouraged. America is long past discouraged. Again, America is cynical towards Washington politics. Well, that was until they heard about this regular girl who goes by the name of Sarah Barracuda. What? You’re kidding me! She took on big oil and won? She took on her own party and won? Ethics reform? Clearly, you jest!

But as we find out more about her…it’s no joke! That American cynicism is melting away for a chance at history. Is that chance to define history based on seeing a woman getting elected vice-president of the United States of America? No! No! No! It’s the chance to see actual reform in Washington politics. The idea of successful reform coming in the image of a woman is just like icing on the cake. To see this “little woman” bring down the machine has America smiling. Why? Because America is aching to believe that their country is on the up and up. And if it takes a woman to make us believe that we are who we say we are…we will gladly get up and cheer! Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!

What does this do for Mr. McCain? America now sees Mr. McCain as he sees himself. A real maverick! But now American sees that reform isn’t something to be cynical about. No! America now sees, with Palin’s reform record…is it possible? YES! We believe! And that belief is so strong that it is pushing John McCain to go forward! It's like America is saying to John: Everything you fought for in the past but came out of the wounded soldier…try it, again, John! If it can happen in Alaska…it can happen in Washington.

The change America wants is ethics REFORM presented by the McCain/Palin ticket. The change team Obama is talking about is party ideology. Again, that’s from Republican to Democrat but there’s not a scent of reform in his version of change. It's all policy and nothing more.

If America pays close attention to the details…this is a no-brainer. It’s the McCain/Palin ticket! The idea of change presented by the McCain/Palin ticket is truly “change we can believe in”. But more than that, it’s “change we want to believe in”. We are tired of being cynical.

SARAH! SARAH! SARAH! As the poll numbers show...WE BELIEVE! And that is something that should have the Democrats scared. And that's why team Obama is going after Palin and not John McCain. Destroy Sarah Palin and John McCain is nothing but the wounded soldier fighting an uphill battle for bipartisan cooperation.

The situation for the Democrats is so bad that Mr. Obama has abandoned his promise to not go negative in the campaign. He has abandoned his promise to introduce a new brand of politics. Heck, when is the last time you've heard his campain say: "Change we can believe in"?

It's now down and dirty for the Democrats!

What does it all mean? Barack Obama is back peddling more and more, which can only mean that he's on the ropes, and he knows it.

mike t.

p.s. How's this for a strategy? Mr. McCain is keeping Gov. Palin under wraps and just letting the left do damage to themselves. Palin hasn't said a word different other than what we heard in her convention speech. But why should they say anything else? The left is so eagar to get at Palin with loaded questions that they're tripping over themselves and shooting themselves in the foot. Why should McCain have Palin do interviews when this is working just fine. LOL!

If you think about it carefully, you could come to the conclusion that Mr. McCain is probably going for another poll bump when they finally allow Palin to do her interviews. Then they'll go for another bump when the debates come around. They have a plan.

BARACK’S BACK-PEDDLING?

2008-09-07T15:27:00.000-07:00

It’s clear to me that time is finally catching up to Barack Obama’s campaign. Let’s make a list of the things that have happened over the past several days:

1. The GOP selects Sarah Palin as their V.P. nomination.
2. Sarah Palin “rocks” the GOP convention with her “smashing homerun speech”.
3. John McCain gets a bigger viewing audience than Barack Obama in their respective conventions.

Now, let’s see how all of this is affecting Barack Obama’s run to the White House.

Number 1: When the GOP selected Palin as their V.P. nomination they took the wind out of everything Obama was trying to sell. Namely: The message of change. The message of change is what got Barack to the point where he is right now. But his message of change was only good enough to barely beat out Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in the primaries.

Still, that was all fine and dandy! Barack still had the numbers in the polls.

Number 2: Once Palin gave her acceptance speech at the RNC, well, my suspicion was that Barack knew he was dealing with a force to be reckoned with. The energy that came out of the RNC had to have had Barack rethinking his strategy. With Palin’s reputation as a reformer, Barack was kind of stuck in no-man’s land because, in reality, both McCain and Palin have a record of bipartisan cooperation, while Barack doesn’t. And if you want to talk REFORM in Washington politics, that's means working for bipartisan cooperation.

Number 3: John McCain's RNC viewing numbers had to reinforce the idea that this wasn’t going to be a slam dunk for the Democrats, who thought the White House was theirs for the taking.

What does it all mean? Well, just look at Barack’s recent statements:

TAXES:

Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts
AP

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

Clearly, Mr. Obama is starting to see the folly of his tax policies. Taxing the rich would only plunge an already fragile economy into a very deep recession. Once again! If you tax “the rich” starting at 250,000 a year, what you’re really doing is hitting small business. Small business in not “rich”! 250,000 a year is where a lot of the jobs are created. Tax small business and up and they will raise the prices on product and services to cover that tax. That means cut backs in jobs, while prices go up. That’s inflation and recession. Only the middle-class and the poor suffer when you tax the rich.

You see, when he says: “…we’re fragile.” What that means is this: If he taxes the rich, there’s no telling how far the economy will fall. The economy, right now, isn’t something you want to “mess” with, in our fragile state, by taxing the “rich”.

The comments from Mr. Obama, that I posted above, are his way of saying: Hey, maybe my idea on taxes aren’t too well thought out. But I can’t go back on my word. I better do a little back peddling but somehow keep the idea that my priorities are still there.

But here’s the real question: Why has Mr. Obama back peddled on his tax promises? Well, for starters, his plan on taxing the rich doesn’t make any type of sense. And second: He sees the polls and understands that America is finally telling him that they’re not too impressed with his ideas of change.

ABORTION:

Obama considered joining military, regrets abortion answer
By MIKE ALLEN

Barack Obama says his answer about abortion at the Saddleback Church forum was “probably” too flip.

During separate televised interviews last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while John McCain won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

Again, Mr. Obama must have his eyes on the polls because he’s now saying things that he thinks are important to the public. And these issues are important to the public. That’s why McCain has been moving up in the polls ever since he pegged Sarah Palin as his V.P. selection. My feeling is that Mr. Obama is finally “getting it”. Americans are moderate and they lean right!

But besides that, what’s so hard to understand about this: When a sperm cell enters into an egg…that is the beginning of everyone’s life!

Mr. Obama is trying to make these feeble attempts to try to “rethink” what he has already said, which had pointed to an extreme left way of thinking. Extreme left is never going to win the White House. I think Mr. Obama’s education in this general election is going to benefit him greatly in the future. But I think it’s too late for Mr. Obama to be seriously thinking he’s going to win the White House.

What’s my point for this post? With John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s record as a Maverick and a Reformer, Mr. Obama has lost the essence of his “change you can believe in” message. Without that message, all that’s left for Mr. Obama is to back peddle on issues that moderate America, which leans right, consider important.

If my suspicions are correct, Mr. Obama is going to lose the election in a landslide. And it’s not because he’s black. It’s because he’s out of touch with America.

One more time: Americans are moderate and they lean RIGHT!

Mr. Obama, if you don't believe me, maybe you should go ask Bill Clinton.

mike t.

THE LOWLIEST OF STATIONS

2008-09-05T21:12:00.000-07:00

Here I want to take a spiritual look at the Palin selection for the 2nd most powerful position in the world. To introduce this point of view I’m going to use a verse found in Daniel 4:17:

17: This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.

In this case/verse the key phrase is: “the basest of men”. Everyone knows that when the Bible uses the word “men” or “man” its usually as a reference to “mankind”. So, it can be referring to either a male or female depending on the content.

So from this phrase we want to look at the word “basest”.

The Hebrew word for basest is: שפל

The translation is this: 1) low, lowliest (of station)

Now when you think of our American society, I think it’s safe to say that we are the most powerful/influential society/Nation on the face of the earth. Now we understand that China is probably a threat to be equally as powerful and influential. But the reason why we can’t, really, consider China to be in the same league with America, is because China, for decades upon decades, has isolated itself from the rest of the world. The opposite is true for America. America is engaged all over the world.

In other words: America's power position in the world is what God uses to "rule the kingdom of men..." And God, if he wanted to, can put the basest of men over that system to carry out his will.

Now with the Palin selection for V.P., I think we can see the potential for the Daniel 4:17 verse to be in play here. The lowliest (of station) has the potential to be used by God to "rule over the kingdoms of men".

What does it mean? People talk about Palin’s lack of experience because of her "lowliest of stations"…i.e. Mayor of a city that had a population of 10 thousand, give or take a hundred or so. Then Governor of Alaska, which has a population of less than a million, right? Not too impressive to the naked eye, is it? But God doesn't see things as man does.

1 Samuel 16:7 "...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

It's Sarah's heart that people need to consider, and not in some sappy version of what people think Christian fundamentals are all about. In the verse I just mentioned, the Prophet Samuel was annointing David to be King/Leader over Israel.

To understand the context of what is being said in that verse, lets take a little time to do a quick study on the name Israel. This way we can get a clear view of what is being said:

Genesis 32:28 "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

This is where the name Israel originated. The key phrase is: "...for as a prince hast thou power with God and men,...". From this phrase we can see the name Israel is a reference to a "prince". In other words it means: A prince of God.

Q: Well, what is a prince?

A: A child of a king, of course.

Q: Who is the king?

A: God, of course.

So the name Israel means: "a child of God", "a Prince", with power with God and men. Now I can get all into this, about what the name implies, but I'm going to write about that in another section of my blogs at a later date.

Right now, all I want to do is to point out what the name means in context of the 1st Samuel 16:7 verse, where Samuel annointed David to be the ruler/leader of Israel (God's children), and how it can be compared to Sarah Palin's selection as V.P. of the United States of Ameria. God choose David because of David's strong heart compared to Saul's cowardly heart. Saul was cowardly because he obeyed the people rather than the principles/commadments of God.

In other words: The heart has to be one made of conviction, ideas and beliefs that is strong enough to lead or be ruler over the children of God. And if we recall the story in 1st Samuel 16, correctly, we know David was choosen from the "lowliest of stations". He was a shepard boy who was way out there in the middle of nowhere, taking care of his father's sheep. What a insignificant job, at best. Who could take him seriously? Sounds kind of fimilar doesn't it? That sounds like Sarah; way out there in the middle of nowhere and called to leadership over the "big" flock just as David was called.

Isn't that what the liberal media has been saying about Sarah Palin? That she doesn't have experience? She's from the middle of nowhere! Well, if they're correct, that "lowly station", to their naked eye, would fit the description of what Daniel 4:17 is talking about. Alaska is one of “the lowliest of stations” in the context of our Nation’s states. A real live outsider coming to Washington politics.

But here’s the real question: Why would the Lord do something like that? The answer is simple. Our political system is totally corrupt right now. And the Lord, I believe, is going to use this person from “the lowliest of stations” to address that corruption and to remind everyone that the "kingdom's of men" belong to the Him and He'll do with it whatsoever pleases Him. If you studied the Bible you would know how God, time after time, has used the lowly to accomplish His purposes.

People, this is about REFORM and I don’t think our society can afford to let this opportunity pass by not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket come November 4.. We're in need of addressing the corruption in our political system. I am totally convinced that John McCain is who he says he is. He is a Marverick! He has worked to get bipartisan cooperation in his time in the senate. And Sarah Palin is an actual REFOMER who took on her own party in Alaska. That was just practice! She was being prepared for a bigger purpose.

Hey, I’m not going to get all into this, but the Obama/Biden ticket is trying to sell an idea of change based on policies that were introduced in the 1970s that failed drastically. It was so bad that Jimmy Carter was practically kicked out of office in favor of Reagan.

Right now Barack Obama is nothing more than your typical liberal candidate who wants to tax the rich. That never works! Well, I’ve explained all that already in previous posts so I won’t belabor the subject.

There’s really only one issue that the American public should be concerned with and that is: POLITICAL CORRUPTION. That’s the real issue. That issue is what’s holding us back from addressing our domestic issues, especially education. We need people with a track record of bipartisan work on their resume as opposed to people who preach the idea of utopia, while voting 95 percent of the time right down their own party's line.

The McCain/Palin ticket is the real deal when it comes to reaching out across partisan lines. And I believe the Lord has sent Sarah Palin to us so that He, through John's and Sarah's vision, work and determination, can address the corruption that has infested our political system. He is going to use this “lowliest of stations" to root out what ails this Nation.

Let me put it this way: In John McCain, well, his experience in foreign affairs is what this nation needs so that we can be on guard against our enemies, while Palin can be his eyes on domestic issues. In other words: John will address our position among the nations and Sarah will be his whip on the domestic front.

Now when the Lord does something like that, it's usually sealed with these words:

Daniel 4:34: " And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"

The section that reads: "...and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" In other words: He isn't asking for your approval or permission.

Why isn't the Lord asking for permission?

Because: "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Praise ye the Lord!

mike t.

LO AND BEHOLD: THE RACE CARD!

2008-09-05T03:58:00.000-07:00

THE OBAMA TEAM POEM

Uppity, Uppity
We're about to fly!!!!!!!
Here we goooooooooo!

Down-ity, Down-ity
It's all gravity
We didn't knoooooooooow!

Here we come!
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwh!
Watch out beloooooooow!

mike t. September 05, 2008

UPPITY: THE RACE CARD, PLAYED!

Some guy from the Washington post named Robinson just played the race card over the use of the word "uppity". The use of the word "uppity" by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) was in context of how the democratic party is being labeled as "elitist".

Correct me if I'm wrong but "elitist" is a pretty fancy way of saying "uppity" isn't it?

Has it gotten to the point where people like Robinson are so sensitive that the word "uppity" should be taken out of the dictionary? Well, maybe that's Mr. Robinson's problem. He didn't look up the word in the dictionary.

Well, for those who won't go to a dictionary, I'll do it for you:

FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S ONLINE DICTIONARY:

Main Entry:
up·pi·ty
Pronunciation:
\ˈə-pə-tē\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
probably from up + -ity (as in persnickity, variant of persnickety)
Date:
1880
: putting on or marked by airs of superiority : arrogant, presumptuous — up·pi·ti·ness also up·pi·ty·ness noun

My personal opinion: I do think Barrack is arrogant and presumptuous and if those words are translated or defined by Merriam-Webster to mean "uppity", then you're damn right that Barrack is as "uppity" as they come! In "Plain English" Mr. Robinson, "uppity" means: "putting on or marked by airs of superiority..." That's the self same reason the McCain camp refers to Obama as "The One".

Anyway, as for playing the race card. This one is on the Obama side of the field. There should be a penalty for this offense because, as for using the race card, it's the Obama camp that is "The One" who used it.

Again, the democrats are playing or EXPLOITING the lack of education of the poor and misinformed.

REFORM means to quit using the lack of an education by the poor to stir up their passions. That is politics as usual.

Dang! The Repulican's convention must have made some serious points for Mr. Robinson to come out with the race card. Obama supporters who play the race card are showing a serious amount of fear over the speeches at the RNC.

I think that the fear (the race card) coming out of from the Obama supporters; I think it's really about them coming to the realization that it's the McCain/Palin ticket that truely represents change in this general election.

mike t.

THE McCAIN/PALIN TICKET!

2008-09-04T19:26:00.000-07:00

John McCain has a long history of being a "Maverick". I think with his vision and experience he has the perfect attack dog, in Palin, to get his agenda done. This is a serious REFORM ticket.

But when we speak of REFORM we have got to define it so that regular people know what that is. REFORM is all about getting bipartisan cooperation.

Now the difference between the two parties is this: The McCain/Palin ticket...it's whole history is based on REFORM. That's a Maverick and a Barracuda!

The Obama/Biden ticket is a "political" ticket and nothing more.

I've posted about how the democrats are not the champions of the middle-class and the poor. Thinking of it more, the whole idea is just a matter of EXPLOITING both the middle-class and the poor. How is that done?

Well, first the democrats say they're going to tax the rich. In my last post I explained why that doesn't work. Now here's the thing. The democrats know that it doesn't work, yet, it's still what they preach. Why? Because they rely on the middle-class and the poor not being informed on how taxes actually work. That's EXPLOITATION! Taking advantage of the misinformed.

In the past this wasn't something we really had to worry about. That's because since 1969 there have only been two democratic Presidents. That's Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. America already knows. And that's why they keep on losing in the general election.

But this year is different. There's a big push by the liberal media to get the 1st Black President elected into office. I want a President of color, too. But not at the sake of voting for someone with a EXTREME LEFT voting record in the senate. But the liberal media is dangerous and that's why I'm blogging about this general election. That EXTREME LEFT HANDED voting record is not a sign of being bipartisan.

The Obama/Biden ticket is DANGEROUS for this country because they will keep pushing failed ideas from the past. The Obama/Biden ticket is the same as the Carter administation. That Carter adminstation was embarrassing! And that's exactly what an Obama/Biden ticket will be to this country.

Just a few minutes ago McCain said the new civil rights fight is called: EDUCATION!

Now that's what it's all about. Education! And with the failing school system we can't leave our education system with the teachers union. There has to be competition or else these unions will get incompetent teachers tenure when they don't deserve it. That's a waste of money and a fundamental problem in the public school system. The failing public school system is too fragile, right now, to not make it a priority. Teaching has become a "job" instead of a cause amoung teachers. That it is hurting America right now but what the implications are for the future...we need to do something about it.

As for McCain's foreign policy...please! With terrorism being bent on getting to us as soon as we put down our guard...let me say this: This is no time to be "talking" to our enemies just to show ourselves reasonable. These terrorist are not "reasonable" people and they don't care about our reasonable point of view.

Barrack Obama is so educated that he expects everyone should be civilized. That's the logic, right? We can reason with them! That's how out of touch Obama is about foreign policy. The man is dangerous!

This general election should be a no-brainer!

McCain/Palin ticket all the way! John McCain is the widom and Palin is the enforcer!

The Maverick and the BARRACUDA!

mike t.

THIS IS ABOUT TAXES!

2008-09-03T21:17:00.000-07:00

How can people possibly think that raising taxes on the rich is not going to affect the poor?

If you tax the supermarket store owner…what do you think the store owner is going to do? Raise the prices on the goods! If you tax big oil then you’re talking business. But they are not taxing big oil. They’re taxing everyone over 200,000 - 250,000 dollars. That’s small business and up. Small business will be hit hard. But big oil can afford that without being hurt.

This is how it works: If you tax the rich then they raise the prices on everything to cover that tax. That means everything you buy will go up. That’s inflation. Only the poor suffer when that happens. The rich can bear the tax because they’re rich. It hurts a little but not to the point where they can’t send their kids to college.

The poor seem to think that by taxing the rich it’s like championing their cause. It doesn’t! All those taxes will come out of the poor’s pockets. When you tax the rich and give it to government programs…it doesn’t work. Jimmy Carter’s administration is proof that it doesn’t work.

What needs to be done is this: The poor need to quit acting “poor”. They need to start training their kids to go to college. The only thing that defeats poverty is an education. No amount of Government money will put a dent on poverty.

With an education…the sky is the limit. The democrats are not the champions of the poor. They enable the poor and in the process live a life of luxury as politicians.

Obama is going to raise taxes on the rich…but the rich are going to raise prices (taxes) on the poor. Only the “uneducated” fall for that type of thing time and time, again.

The democrats are not championing the cause of the poor.

The only champion for the poor is a proper education.

mike t.

BARRACUDA!

2008-09-03T20:36:00.001-07:00

I feel sorry for Obama and anyone else who gets in Palin's way. The beautiful thing about it is this: She's doing it for "THE PEOPLE". I literally have to get a copy of this speech. That was historical.

This woman will be the President of the United States of America one day.

I love this woman!

BARRACUDA!

mike t.

THE NERVE!

2008-09-03T14:39:00.000-07:00

"Republican consultant Mike Murphy and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan were caught on a live mike ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin.

"It's over," said Noonan, and then responded to a question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen.

"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullsh** about narratives," she said. "Every time Republicans do that ... because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it."

Murphy chimed in:

"The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.""

Here's my response:

This is perfect.

This is the exact same reason McCain choose Palin.

We've got to get rid of these old hardened politicans. And Palin is the one who threatens them.

The Palin picks is already doing what it is intended to do. That's to SHAKE UP THE PARTY.

And these two are the perfect picture of what's wrong with the Washington Insiders.

They should be disappointed with the Palin pick because the pick was intended to aim right at them.

REFORM!

mike t.

THE PALIN SPEECH!

2008-09-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

I'm ready for this one! Heck, I'm so excited that I'm here 6 or 7 hours early. LOL!

This woman is going to hit a homerun!

See you after the speech.

mike t.

HEY STUPID, IT WORKS THIS WAY!

2008-08-30T10:55:00.001-07:00

I have got to say that all those Hillary Clinton supporters (woman) have got to be the stupidest, eeer, I mean, most stubborn, yeah, that's it...the stubborn people in the world. They say they're insulted by McCain's V.P. choice?

Here's what these woman fail to realize.

1. If Obama wins the general election, Hillary won't be winning the White House for the following reasons:
a) If Obama wins and does well, he'll be reelected. That means no Hillary in 2012.
b) If Obama wins and doesn't do well, no Democrat will win the White House in 2012. Again, no Hillary in 2012.

2. If McCain wins the White house and the ecomony continues to struggle, he will be considered a failure. Then it would be back-to-back-to-back failed aministrations for the Republican party. It is then that Hillary will be able to come in and be the strongest candidate for the White House in 2012.

These hardcore femminst/lesbians will vote for Obama and kill Hillary's chances in 2012. Now is that or is that not STUPID on their part?

The economy is going to take a big hit in the next administration and the next President is going to take the heat for that.

What that means is this:

If Obama is the President, there's no Democrat who will be winning the White House in 2012.

If McCain wins the White House then it will be the end of a 12 year Republican run and the perfect time for Hillary Clinton to make her case.

But these female Hillary supporters are too stupid to realize that supporting Obama is the same as killing Hillary's chances in 2012. No way Hillary can wait until 2016. In other words: If they want Hillary in the White House in 2012 they have to support McCain in this election.

But what am I too expect from the Dumbass Democrats who have had only 2 Presidents since 1969? Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. That's it and that's all. That's 38 years!

These people can't even out maneuver the Republicans on the day of their own convention. The day Obama was making "history" with his speech the Republicans stole all the headlines with the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.

The female democrats don't have what it takes (mentailty) to beat the Republicans. They're too concerned with their lesbian rights to see that they're killing their girl now and for 2012, too. STUUUUUUUPID! I mean...STUBBBBBBBORN!

I mean: How stupid are these woman? They talk down about a woman who has fought big oil and won. These woman haven't accomplished anything close to that and yet they're insulted by McCain decision to make her his running mate? What in the world have these female Hillary supporters ever done that compares to Palin? NOTHING! They just talk about their "rights".

This woman, Palin, doesn't talk about her rights. She went after her own party for being corrupt. She is a real refomer in every sense of the word. Washington should be scared of Palin. And anyone who preaches reform should be getting behind Palin. Because the reform people really want is in the context of addressing corruption in politics. The changes Obama talks about has to do with the color of his skin. But he is nowhere near the idea of going after political corruption.

As for the hardcore female Hillary supporters...well, what are we to expect from a group of people who's whole life's purpose is caught up in their sexuality?

mike t.

MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS!

2008-08-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a real live "real" person! This is mindboggling. This woman may not be a great speaker but she has TRUTH written all over her. She has INTERGRITY written all over her. This woman is SPECIAL!

She may not dazzle you with her PRETTY SPEECHES but you can see that the TRUTH and INTERGRITY she exudes is marked with a sense of hard work and fair play, which isn't something that is dressed in a flash of charisma. The woman has SUBASTANCE and CONVICTION written all over her.

I'm voting the McCain ticket!

mike t.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?

2008-08-29T09:03:00.001-07:00

In one word: BRILLIANT!

mike t.