Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Why the Left Needs Racism– James Taranto

April 21, 2010

What do you get when you cross a corny old joke with a network news report? Something like this:

A black guy walks into a tea party, and a white lady says to him, “You know, we don’t get many African-Americans in here.” The black guy replies, “And at these prices, it’s no wonder!”

The joke, at least as we originally heard it, involves a kangaroo and a bartender. The news report, brought to our attention by the fellows at NewsBusters.org, involved NBC reporter Kelly O’Donnell and tea-party activist Darryl Postell. O’Donnell approached Postell at a Washington rally, and hilarity ensued:

O’Donnell: There aren’t a lot of African-American men at these events.

Postell: [laughs] Right.

O’Donnell: Have you ever felt uncomfortable?

Postell: No, no, these are my people, Americans.

Another joke, attributed to our friend Rich Miniter circa 1991, goes as follows: What do you call a black man at a conservative event? Guest speaker. To the New York Times’s Charles Blow, this is no laughing matter. Blow visited a tea party in Dallas last week and didn’t like what he saw:

I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.

The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”

Blow was especially put off by Alphonzo Rachel, a black comic who spoofs the president by performing skits as “Zo-bama.” Blow sums up the experience this way: “Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.”

Blogger Conor Friedsdorf notes that there is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the Blow approach:

In any context except a Tea Party, the vast majority of liberal writers would praise the act of highlighting the voices of “people of color” even if they aren’t particularly representative of a crowd or corporation or university class. Let it happen at a rally of conservatives, however, and this winds up on the nation’s premier op-ed page. . . .

It’s this kind of piece that causes people on the right to think that on matters of race, they’re damned if they do, and they’re damned if they don’t–if they don’t make efforts to include non-whites they’re unenlightened propagators of privilege, and if they do make those efforts they’re the cynical managers of a minstrel show, but either way, race is used as a cudgel to discredit them in a way that would never be applied to a political movement on the left.

Or, for that matter, to any nonpolitical institution that aspires to become more inclusive. Imagine Kelly O’Donnell questioning a black man in a largely white company or university or country club or suburb the way she interrogated Darryl Postell. She would come off as clueless and prejudiced–as, come to think of it, she does. (Kudos to NBC for airing this revealing though embarrassing footage.)

The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Even in 2008, the Democrats’ best presidential year since ’64, if the black vote had been evenly split between the parties (and holding the nonblack vote constant), Barack Obama would have gotten about 48% of the vote and John McCain would be president.

To keep blacks voting Democratic, it is necessary for the party and its supporters to keep alive the idea that racism is prevalent in America and to portray the Republican Party (as well as independent challengers to the Democrats, such as the tea-party movement) as racist. The election of Barack Obama made nonsense of the idea that America remains a racist country and thereby necessitated an intensifying of attacks on the opposition as racist.

These charges of racism are partly based on circular reasoning. Among Blow’s evidence that the tea-party movement is racist is “a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday [that] found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic.” Other polls have put the black proportion as high as 5% (and, as Tom Maguire notes, Blow misreports his own paper’s Hispanic figure, which is actually 3%). But with blacks constituting some 12% of the population, there’s no question that the tea-party movement is whiter than the nation as a whole.

Yet to posit racism as an explanation is to ignore far more obvious and less invidious causes for the disparity. The tea-party movement’s racial composition reflects a pre-existing partisan alignment: The movement arose in opposition to the policies of a Democratic government, and the vast majority of blacks are Democrats, or at least vote for Democrats. Pride in the first black president, a normal and wholesome attitude, reinforces this partisan allegiance.

There’s another factor that might keep blacks away from tea parties: the perception, whether true or not, that the movement is racist–a perception that liberal politicians and commentators have worked tirelessly (and tiresomely) to propagate. Add to this the risk of race-based opprobrium from fellow blacks and even from white liberals for deviating from the way blacks are “supposed” to think. Charles Blow’s nasty descriptions of the blacks at the Dallas tea party reminded us of an Associated Press dispatch we noted April 7:

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement–and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

So, there aren’t many African-Americans at the tea parties? At these prices, it’s no wonder!

Heat on Heath
Rep. Heath Shuler is taking some heat back in North Carolina over an incident he apparently had nothing to do with. Last week we noted that the Associated Press, based on a local newspaper report, had cited Shuler as corroborating the claims of three black congressmen that tea-party protesters shouted the “N-word” at them on March 20. Shuler’s press secretary told us that the local reporter had misunderstood and that Shuler did not hear the “N-word,” although he did hear someone call Rep. Barney Frank a “communist faggot.”

The local paper, the Hendersonville Times-News, ran a story Friday titled “Shuler Changes Story on What He Heard at Health Care Protests”:

U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler is distancing himself from comments he made to the Times-News last month, stating he heard racial slurs yelled from a crowd of angry health care protesters outside the U.S. Capitol. . . .

At that time, Shuler told the Times-News he was walking toward the Capitol with [Rep. Emanuel] Cleaver when protesters began yelling racial epithets at Cleaver.

Also on Friday, we received an emailed press release from Robert Danos, chairman of the Henderson County Republican Party:

This story, as far as WNC [western North Carolina] goes, has nothing to do with what did or did not happen on that very heated day outside of the Capitol.

It has everything to do with Heath Shuler’s dishonesty and his need, in this case, to place himself in the middle of a much focused on story.

I have no 1st hand knowledge of what occurred that day.

*The problem is that we now know that neither did Heath Shuler.*

He told the T-N he was there–he was not. Even after the T-N reported his “witness account” in its story on his health care vote, he did nothing to set the record straight until confronted by the AP with the fact that the video and stills show 100% that he was not there.

In doing so he hurts the stories of the African-American Congressmen who say they were assaulted with the n-word, he smears the protestors by indicting them with this vulgar charge without cause, and he shames the voters back home.

All 3 of those parties are owed an immediate and sincere apology.

Here our professional pride compels us to note that we, not the AP, first reported that Shuler disputed the Times-News story–though more on this anon.

In the dispute between Shuler and James Shea, the Times-News reporter, we have no way of knowing who’s right. Politicians have been known to change their stories for expedience’ sake, but reporters have also been known to get things wrong, and to stand behind even demonstrably false stories (cf Rather, Daniel Irvin).

In any case, the original Times-News story was ambiguous:

Shuler was walking with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, an African-American, toward the Capitol building when the crowd starting yelling racial epithets at Cleaver, who was a civil rights activist in the 1970s. They even spat at him.

“It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life,” Shuler said.

Multiple members of Congress reported racial epithets being shouted at African-American members over the weekend.

“It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language,” Shuler said.

It was not clear from this what slurs, if any, Shuler heard, which is why we called his office for clarification. Only one specific fact from the original story is in dispute: the statement that Shuler was “walking with Cleaver.” (Though it also seems to us that Shea embellished Cleaver’s account. The Missouri Democrat said that one man, not “the crowd,” spat at him. The evidence suggests that it happened, though Cleaver later said he didn’t know if it was intentional.)

We would, however, like to set the record straight about another reporter’s work. NewsBusters.org gloated late Thursday about what it called a “correction” (actually a follow-up report) by the Associated Press, acknowledging Shuler’s denial of the Times-News report, which the AP’s Jesse Washington had picked up in an April 13 dispatch. According to NewsBusters:

And who did the initial investigation to find out what Heath Shuler actually heard? The AP? Nope. It was James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal. The AP was merely playing catchup on its own story.

In fact, we spoke with Washington on April 8, while he was reporting the story. He told us at the time that he had attempted to contact Shuler’s office for comment but his phone calls had gone unreturned. This should have been mentioned in his story, but that is a minor oversight, not a serious dereliction.

Now, it is true that when we called Shuler’s office on April 14, his press secretary came straight to the phone and readily answered our questions. Our surmise–and this is only a surmise–is that Shuler ducked Washington because he hoped to avoid being drawn into what by then had become a bitter controversy. This hope was in vain, as Washington picked up the Times-News report anyway. But the piling on by the press and the GOP back home illustrates why Shuler might have preferred to stay out of it.

What’s the Matter With Connecticut?
Kate Zernike of the New York Times puzzles over the results of her paper’s tea-party poll:

It makes sense that people would take to the streets to protest government spending and enormous deficits during the Great Recession, when they are feeling economic pain most acutely.

But the Tea Party supporters now taking to the streets aren’t the ones feeling the pain.

In the results of the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, they are better educated and wealthier than the general public. They are just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good.

Yet they are disproportionately pessimistic about the economy and the nation. A breathtaking 92 percent said the country is on the wrong track.

It’s a twist on the old Thomas Frank “What’s the matter with Kansas?” argument. Frank and Zernike both find it puzzling that people would act contrary to their putative economic self-interest. Frank wonders why the nonrich would oppose liberal politicians, who promise to make them less nonrich; Zernike is mystified by discontent among the well-off. She attributes it to cultural forces of the sort that Frank deplores:

The poll reveals a deep conviction among Tea Party supporters that the country is being run by people who do not share their values, for the benefit of people who are not like them. That is a recurring theme of the previous half-century–conservatives in liberal eras declaring the imperative to “Take America Back.”

“The story they’re telling is that somehow the authentic, real America is being polluted,” said Rick Perlstein, the author of books about the Goldwater and Nixon years.

There may be some truth to this. But couldn’t there be a rational basis for their cultural intuitions? If tea-party activists tend to be people with the wherewithal to put their own lives on the right track, maybe they’re on to something when they say the country is on the wrong one.

Original Article

NYT/CBS Poll- Who are the Tea Partiers?

April 16, 2010

Liberals have taken the “results” of this poll as a way to characterize the Tea Party as being controlled by a bunch of rich people who are just looking out for themselves. They also want to portray them as being on the fringe and not reflective of the way America really thinks.

So, I thought that I would look at the actual poll results itself. Here is a link– http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics You can even download the results as a PDF.

I’m not a pollster, but all of the Tea Party responses were marked with TP. All other stats provided were from prior national polls (CBS) to, as liberal pundits on MSNBC would call it, reflect the view of mainstream America.

So, on to question #1 (slight paraphrase), do you approve of the way Obama is doing his job?

  • Tea Party- 7% approve, 88% disapprove
  • However, all of the CBS polls conducted before that, shows that “mainstream America’s” approval of Obama has dropped from 62% down to 50%. But liberals will tell you that America is absolutely thrilled with him as president even though his numbers are dropping.

Questions #2/3 (slight paraphrase), what do you like/dislike about him?

  • 46% of America say that they just like him or they don’t what they like about him. (Hmmm…I thought liberals and progressives were supposed to be educated, and they don’t even know why they like him.)
  • 48% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe the Tea Party does reflect mainstream America?)
  • 46% of America say they just don’t like him or don’t know why.
  • 26% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe they are better educated? Who knew?)

Question #4 (slight paraphrase), is the country going in the right direction? Note: They provided CBS polling data going back to 1991. I am going to focus on the timeframe from 1/2009.

  • Tea Party- 6% right, 92% wrong
  • America- Peaked at 45% (May 2009) in the right direction and has gone down ever since. (Maybe the Tea Party is leading the way…oh, yeah, by educating the public.)

Question #5 (slight paraphrase)- what’s the biggest problem facing the country?

  • Tea Party- 56% Economy, Jobs, and Deficit
  • America- 55% Jobs, Economy, and Deficit (Tea Partiers are such fringe extremists.)

I could go on, but even the most ardent liberal can see the point. The New York Times is clearly pushing their own agenda while polls are supposed to reflect views of the public at large.

If one looks closely at the data, the Tea Party seems to reflect the views of mainstream America. It is progressives (like Obama) who do not reflect the views of mainstream America.

The Case Against the Tea Party

April 12, 2010

On numerous occasions, the Tea Party has been maligned by critics as un-American, Nazis, Members of the KKK, racists, ignorant, homophobes, and many, many more. The mainstream media has described the movement as a fringe group that is not representative of the majority of Americans.

If this is the case; then can someone explain a few things to me?

Why was the website, CrashTheTeaParty.org, even created if the Tea Party is a fringe group? The mission of this group, and I quote, is:

“To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.”

The plan of action, and I quote, is:

“By infiltrating the Tea Party itself…”; “…act on their behalf in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities…”; “…disrupt and derail their plans.”

The Democrats/Progressives have also attempted to mischaracterize the Tea Party as a fringe group of racists, homophobes, and various other derogatory terms.

Question: Why did the Congressmen choose to walk through the middle of a crowd of protestors other than to incite them to do something that would discredit the movement? Congressmen have never walked to the Capitol Building in my lifetime. Why this time?

Then there is the issue of the Tea Party candidate in the Nevada Senate campaign to replace Harry Reid. It seems that people thought the Tea Party candidate was a Democratic plant. Then the same candidate is now facing felony charges. Criminal convictions tend to do a bang-up job of discrediting a political candidate; or in this case a political movement.

Hollywood and the media has also joined the fight against the Tea Party. Jeneane Garafolo, in an interview with Keith Olbermann, had this to say about the Tea Party:

For such a fringe group, the Democrats/Progressives seem to be absolutely obsessed with them. Could it be because the Tea Party is now a force to be reckoned with? The Democrats’ opposition to the Tea Party is not on the merits of ideas, but based on the same fear and paranoia which is what they claim created the Tea Party in the first place.

Is she talking about the Democrats?

April 7, 2010

“Unfortunately, scam artists and criminals may be using the passage of these historic reforms as an opportunity to confuse and defraud the public,” Sebelius wrote in a letter…

The Emergency Healthcare Army

April 2, 2010

According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”- Source WorldNet Daily

So, the healthcare bill literally spends millions of dollars for people to act as an emergency health army. I thought the healthcare bill was supposed to make life better because people had access to good healthcare. If this is true; then why do we need a healthcare army?

Probably for the shortage of doctors…

Cost of Doing Business with Saul Alinsky

March 29, 2010

As I mentioned in a previous post, I wondered if the Democrats were using Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals as their political playbook. Another rule Alinsky has is:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

Now that the healthcare bill is now law, several major companies have publicly spoken about the effect this law is going to have on their bottom line. Remember, the Democrats have repeatedly said this is going to control– if not bring down–costs. So, this law is supposed to be a good thing.

According to a WSJ article, this is what the new healthcare is going to cost the following companies:

  • AT&T- $1 billion dollars (No, that’s not a typo.)
  • John Deere- $150 million
  • Catepillar- $100 million
  • 3M- $90 million;
  • AK Steel, $31 million;
  • Valero Energy- up to $20 million

So, that would be a total of $1.391 billion dollars for just these six companies. Six, only six companies and it’s already that much. (I do think AT&T may be slightly exaggerated, but I’m not one of their corporate accountants. That means I’ll have to take them at their word.) Other companies will probably come out with a wide range of numbers in the not so distant future.

The Democrats, in typical Alinsky fashion, have some issues with these companies. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write, “…for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible.”

Premature and irresponsible? Seriously?

Premature, in simplest terms, means to be done too early. It would have been premature for these companies to state the costs of these healthcare changes when the bill had not been passed, much less finalized. Common sense should tell anyone that these companies were calculating costs for the past year. Waiting for the bill to be passed before announcing the costs is common sense– much less good business sense.

Irresponsible, again in simplest terms, is a careless action or a lack of personal ownership. (Never mind that I find it hilarious that a Washington politician is lecturing anyone about irresponsibility.) Any publicly company traded has a responsibility to its shareholders to identify any change that will affect the business either positively or negatively. The company also has a responsibility to determine the benefit or severity of that change. So, it would seem to me, these companies have acted responsibly by telling their shareholders what the cost and impact of the new healthcare law will be.

Since these companies had the audacity to do this, Henry Waxman is going to have these companies testify in Congress on April 21, because their judgement “appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

One second…need to stop laughing before I continue. OK,  that’s better.

“Bring down costs”— On what planet??? Common sense logic should tell you that insuring additional people will costs money. That’s how it works! Using my own healthcare costs ($2400/year) as an example, it would costs approximately $77 billion a year to insure 32 million people. That is basic and simple math. It is NOT a partisan viewpoint.

“Independent analyses”— Pray tell, whose? The CBO’s??? The Congressional Budget Office has so many limitations and constraints they have to work within that their accounting practices bear no semblance of reality. However, in the real world where companies like AT&T are, they have to keep accurate books so they can make a profit. Failure to do so, e.g. Enron, tend to have corporate executives spending a lot of quality time in prison.

However, the Democrats intend to have a hearing where they will humiliate the companies for speaking out against the healthcare bill and the mainstream media will be there to act as cheerleader. The companies are being responsible stewards and they are going to be burned at the stake for it.

Alinsky would be proud.

Alinsky’s Rule #10

March 26, 2010

First off, let me say that violence against anyone for their opinion is wrong. No flowing rhetoric, no long-winded diatribe. It’s just wrong. So, if the recent rash of violence or threats of violence against Congressmen is even remotely true; then the people who are committing these acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, with my current distrust of the media, this got me thinking about the entire situation. There’s an old joke– How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving– which spurred me to find out more about the incidents of violence and see if there is more to the story.

According to an Associated Press article (on MSNBC.com), at least 10 Democrats and a few Republicans, Eric Cantor being the highest ranking among them. Why such a disparity? Then I remembered something I read during the campaign. Saul Alinksy, one of Obama’s “heroes”, wrote a number of rules for community activists to adhere to if they want to be successful in implementing the change they want.

The one in question is rule #10 which says: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

I had to wonder if the Democrats were making a conscientious effort to implement this rule in an attempt to win public opinion. So I decided to dig further.

Threats against Congressmen:
In response to Cantor, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said, “Let’s be clear: Calling on Republican leaders who have contributed in part to this anger by wildly mischaracterizing the substance and motives of health reform to condemn these acts is entirely appropriate.”

Cantor had said the Democrats were using the incidents as political weapons to “fan the flames.”

So, let’s keep going.

“…anyone would make threats against me or my family,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said his office received a letter with white powder (possibly anthrax) in it.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) said he had received threats. Just like Weiner, he posted it on his congressional website.

E-mails sent to Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla., another member who switched her vote, urged her to commit suicide and said she and her family should rot in hell.”

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and chairwoman of an influential House committee, said someone had left her a voicemail that used the word “snipers.” In a written statement, she said GOP leaders have been “fanning the flames with coded rhetoric.” (She mentions Sarah Palin by name.)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who had opposed the healthcare bill until he caved to party leadership, received threatening phone and fax messages. Here are examples released by the congressman:

* “I hope you bleed … (get) cancer and die,” one caller told the congressman between curses.
* A fax carried a picture of a gallows with “Bart (SS) Stupak” on it and a noose. It was captioned, “All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the hand of God.”
* “Stupak, you are a lowlife, baby-murdering scumbag, pile of steaming crap. You’re a cowardly punk, Stupak, that’s what you are. You and your family are scum,” an unidentified caller said. “That’s what you are, Stupak. You are a piece of crap.”
* “Go to hell, you piece of [expletive deleted]” another called said.

Someone cut a propane line leading to a grill at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother after the address was posted online. Perriello also said a threatening letter was sent to his brother’s house.

House Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn, who is African-American, said he has received a fax in his office with a picture of a noose drawn on it and had threatening telephone calls at his home. The CNN article portrays this one as appearing to be racially based.

Now, there may be hope if it had stopped here, but there is more. Prior to the healthcare vote, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others brazenly walked through a crowd of protestors. Immediately afterwards, the Democrats stated that the protestors hurled various epithets, and one protestor spat on Rep. Cleaver.

However, the Capitol Police said Cleaver could not identify the individual. There are numerous YouTube videos of the encounter where no one is seen or heard using an epithet. In the case of Frank, several protestors have stated that Frank initiated the cursing. The mainstream media is now continuing the story without attempting to verify any of the circumstances.

Wait, there’s more…

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Democrats characterized Tea Party protestors as being “Nazis”, “Un-American”, and “sabotaging democracy.” This is among a whole hosts of other unsavory names. The mainstream media carried on the fight for the Democrats as a willing accomplice. Don’t believe me– Watch MSNBC news. Chris Matthews has stated that it’s his job “to make this presidency work.”

So, while violence against a person is reprehensible, one has to question the authenticity of some of these events. How many were real? How many were concocted to gain public sympathy? Or to ostracize opponents of the progressive agenda of the Democrats? The reason I say this is because it seems that Democrats have an established pattern of negatively characterizing anyone who opposes their agenda.

One has to question this especially since Saul Alinsky is someone President Obama admires…

The Socialist Agenda

March 26, 2010

According to Dictionary.com, socialism is:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

According to Marxist theory, socialism is an intermediate stage betweem capitalism and communism characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So, the question I have is this. Do you think that Obama has a socialist agenda based on this definition? Let’s cite a few facts.

The healthcare bill is an attempt by the federal government to provide insurance coverage for all Americans if you were to only listen to the news reports. However, if you were to read the actual bill itself, the government is mandating insurance coverage, setting minimum standards for coverage and quality of care, dictating types of research that must be conducted, and ensuring access to end-of-life care. (…tell grandma whether to get the treatment or take a pill…)

The automotive industry was the benficiary of a huge bailout. The U.S. government is now the current owner of approximately 60% of General Motors.  They forced out one CEO and installed another one in his place. So, not  only does the government own the company; they hired the new CEO. They also provided backing for warranties offered by both GM and Chrysler. They also determined GM was too big to fail while Chrysler was too small to survive.

According to a New York Times article written in 1999.  The housing industry takeover was initiated by the Clinton administration in an attempt to expand home ownership. According to Franklin Raines, ”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions…”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required…” So, this was clearly initated by the Clinton administration. Now, the Obama administration now proposes taking on these loans, on behalf of people who truly didn’t qualify in the first place, according to an Associated Press article.

FYI- The Bush administration attempted to correct the problem, but did not have enough control over Congress to stem Democrat opposition. It started in 2001 when the Bush administration warned that the “…financial trouble of a large GSE (such as Fannie and Freddie) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”  In 2003, the Bush administration asked Congress to enact legislation to provide supervision over Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank (D-MA) responded by saying, “these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Thomas Carper (D-DE) stated that the GSEs did not need to be reformed saying,  “…if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The Bush administration repeatedly asked Congress to pass reform legislation which the Democrats opposed, led by Barney Frank, until July 2008. 

This can easily be construed as a means for individuals to shirk their own personal responsibilities and to increase their reliance on the federal government. If these people did not qualify for a mortgage, why would the government force Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) to extend financing to these people? Why would the government clean up the mess left by people who should have known better than to purchase something they could not afford?

The Democrats also took over the student loan industry by including provisions within the healthcare bill. Now, any college student needing a loan to go to college will have to get that loan from the Department of Education. The banks have now been removed as “the middlemen” so millions of students can afford to go to college.”

Is the government takeover only limited to these areas? According to Nancy Pelosi, now that healthcare has passed “…there’ll be more legislation to follow.”

So, what is next industry that needs to be taken over by the government? The widely accepted answer is Wall Street needs to be subjected to government oversight and regulation to ensure this financial crisis does not happen again. The House of Representatives has already passed this act. The bill would create a new agency dedicated to consumer protection, establish a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, install oversight of the vast derivatives market and give the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system.

So, as you can see, the process has already begun. The question becomes– Where will it end?

NASA Caught Paying Sky-High Prices for Snacks

March 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — The nation’s space agency paid the out-of-this-world price of $66 a person a day for bagels, cookies and juice at a conference, a new report found.  The subject of the NASA conference? It was a training session for its procurement officials, the people who do the buying with taxpayer money.

And we’re supposed to think the government can spend 938 billion to insure 32 million additional Americans and actually save us money. You make the call.

Someone has way too much time…

March 25, 2010

Anyone want to play?