Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

A highly informative video that traced the cause of our current crisis that had its roots planted 12 years ago. Be prepared to be shocked. It wasn’t the Mortgage Companies, or Banks or Wall Street it was… (See the Video for this shocking answer!)If any problems viewing this video please contact me through the Comments. An email is automatically generated.—Al, Grumpy Old Man

Sphere: Related Content

Give Us Our Money Back, We’ll Fix It

GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK. WE’LL FIX IT

Frank Salvato

The ultimate example of opportunistic politics before good government was displayed in Washington over the past several days. Political operatives from both sides of the aisle did everything in their power to create a government-based solution to the financial crisis facing our country; a government-created problem. In the end the US House of Representatives voted down the highly contentious Wall Street bailout bill mostly due to the fact that we are within the 30-day window when voters do not forget actions taken by their elected officials. If only the public’s attention were always so focused.

In the end 90 House Democrats joined with 133 House Republicans in an effort to stop a measure that would have seen the biggest expansion of government in US history. In effect, it would have placed the coyote in charge of the hen house.

Many in our citizenry viewed the now-dead proposal as a “no fault” measure that would have allowed those responsible for this financial malfeasance to escape culpability and with good reason. Watching US Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and US Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) - along with their leadership, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senior Senator from New York, Charles Schumer - harangue about how Democrats were taking the lead in crafting “bi-partisan” legislation to “rescue” the average American from the evils of Wall Street was the ultimate exercise in political hypocrisy.

Frank and Dodd, both chairmen of their respective committees that over see the financial community on matters directly related to this crisis and the malfeasance that brought us to this point, were derelict in their duties not only as chairmen charged with oversight, but in their duties to their respective constituencies in that they were not providing good government.

Without doubt, Frank and Dodd should resign from their chairmanships immediately and without question. If the GOP had been in control of Congress at this point in time Democrats would have been screaming for the chairmen’s resignation not only from their chairmanships but from Congress. So, let’s exact some “what’s good for the goose” here.

But the buck doesn’t stop with Frank and Dodd. Nor does it stop with Pelosi, Reid or Schumer. The indefensible governmental actions that led to the enabling of Wall Street’s greed merchants and the coercion of responsible financial institutions began with Jimmy Carter and continued under Bill Clinton.

Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, is defined as:

“…a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as “redlining.” The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.”

In a nutshell, this legislation forced financial institutions to offer loans to people that didn’t qualify for loans; that could satisfy the terms of loans based on sound financial qualifications.

Bill Clinton continued this march to financial disaster with his National Homeownership Initiative, which saw Community Reinvestment Act mortgage loans explode by 39 percent from 1993 to 1998. In comparison other loans increased by a market bearing 17 percent.

Much to the chagrin of the mainstream news media and the Democrats who are cohesive in their propaganda in that they are placing the blame for this financial debacle at the feet of President Bush and congressional Republicans (and let’s not forget their never-ending attempt to marry every crisis to John McCain), the president, John McCain and congressional republicans were sounding the alarm on this looming crisis ever since 2001. In fact, the GOP controlled Senate passed a bill out of committee in 2005 increasing oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only to see it stonewalled by the Senate Democrats when it came time to move it out of committee and to the Senate floor for a vote.

So, on the eve of the 2008 General Election - which also sees many in Congress up for re-election - we witness a Congress, led by the very people who caused the crisis in the first place, scrambling to fix decades worth of governmental mismanagement by setting up yet another government controlled program.

Are you starting to see the incredible inanity of the situation?

To be certain, action must be taken to avert a considerable financial crisis, but the solution does not rest with bailing out the financial sector and it certainly doesn’t rest in empowering a government that was ultimately responsible for enabling Wall Street greed merchants at the start. The answer rests with empowering the people, the citizen, the taxpayer.

Our elected officials - our US Representatives, US Senators and the White House - must understand we the taxpayers - We the People - have had enough and are exercising our constitutionally mandated right to provide oversight to our elected officials. To do that we must make our voices heard.

Just as We the People stopped the sham of an immigration bill we can apply enough pressure on our elected officials to bring them to craft a piece of legislation that affords taxpayer monies to the taxpayers so that they can lift themselves out of this financial crisis by paying their own bills. Approaching the existing crisis in this manner would:

* Make available liquid assets to the banks and financial institutions currently strapped for cash because of the “bad paper” they hold.

* Eliminate the immediate threat of foreclosure to those who were afforded loans they couldn’t afford.

* Eliminate any need for a massive expansion of federal government, thus reducing the proposal for a greater “governmental footprint” in our private lives.

* Allows taxpayers to use their own money to rectify private sector matters without governmental interference.

The solution for this “crisis” rests with the people, not the government; government will be responsible for repealing Bill Clinton’s National Homeownership Initiative and eliminating Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, and disciplining US Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd for their dereliction of duty with regard to their obligation to provide congressional oversight.

In the beginning, when our Framers and Founders created the incredible documents that are The Charters of Freedom - the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - they understood that government was to be executed from the local to the federal; they maintained that because we had a citizen government, created to serve the people rather than to lord over the people, that the power needed to rest with the people.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to exercise our constitutional duties of civic responsibility. Let’s tell government to give us our own money back so we can fix the mess they have created. It is time to put good government before opportunistic blame-game politics. Anything else would be to ignore the will of the people.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Sphere: Related Content

Burning Down The House Video Pulled

An odd thing just happened.

This video which is flowing over the whole Country like a firestorm has been pulled off the Internet.

Hey! Surprise Surprise as Gomer Pyle might have said.

With this cutting so close to the Democrat bone, they needed an excuse to have it removed. Not willing to claim it was them, a clever ploy was to have it removed for the backing music copyright reason. Very clever indeed.

So, if you scroll down here at the PA Pundits board and click on the video, it won’t play. The original video had close on one million views.

Never mind.

We have version 2 available for you all, right here. Watch it before it too is removed.

Hat Tip to rcpindy for finding this, and to Mouthpeace for posting the video.

Burning Down The House Video

Sphere: Related Content

Obama’s National Security Policies Threaten America’s Safety

OBAMA’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES THREATEN AMERICA’S SAFETY

Stephanie Hessler

Sen. Obama’s national security policies will not protect America. Because we have not suffered another attack since September 11, 2001, some have erroneously concluded that our country is no longer at risk; that the terrorists will not try to strike again. This is a dangerous misconception. We face, just as we did seven years ago, an enemy that is both determined and patient. Let us not forget that our enemy waited for eight long years between the first world trade center bombing in 1993 and the attacks of September 11, 2001. Our enemy is one who infiltrates our borders and then patiently waits and waits for an opportunity to strike. Luckily, in the past seven years, such an opportunity has not arisen. The question is, could such an opportunity arise in an Obama administration. The scary fact is, it very well could.

Obama endorses at least three policies that would not safeguard our security. First, Obama supports tying the hands of our intelligence agents in tracking potential terrorists. Initially, Obama opposed updating the primary law that governs how terrorists are traced, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. After September 11th, it became clear that FISA, a 1978 law, was dangerously out of date. FISA failed to account for modern technology, such as cell phones and fiber optic cables, and instead referred to such obsolete concepts as “radio” and “wire” communications. The irony could not be more obvious: we face an enemy that is hostile to all modern advances; but this same enemy is adept at using the most advanced technology to achieve its sinister goals. Meanwhile, while weseek to protect the most advanced society the world has ever known, our hands were tied by an outdated, 30-year-old law. Experts on both sides of the aisle agreed that we needed to modernize FISA to give ourselves the necessary tools to fight our enemies and protect our nation.

But, Obama opposed updating the FISA law. In fact, he pledged to filibuster the Senate to stop the new modernized version of FISA from passing. Quite characteristically, in the end, he flip-flopped and voted in support of the bill (while Sen. Biden voted against it). But, Obama’s last minute change of heart does not make his initial stance any less troubling. This issue will recur again: over the next several years, technologies will continue to evolve, and with that, so will the terrorists’ techniques for plotting attacks. We need a leader who understands that our intelligence gathering must evolve too in order to stay one step ahead of our enemies. Obama has opposed modernizing our intelligence laws, showing that he is not such a leader.

Second, Obama opposed granting immunity to the telecommunication companies that helped the United States government track terrorists’ calls after September 11. In the fall of 2001, the U.S. called upon the telecom companies to help them trace calls made by suspected al Qaeda members abroad to people within the United States. Quite obviously, it is people within our borders who speak regularly to al Qaeda who pose the gravest threat to our national security. According to General Hayden, former Director of the CIA, if the surveillance program had been used before September 11th, “we would have detected some of the 9/11 al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.” The telecom companies fulfilled their patriotic calling and fully cooperated with the government. In return, the government wanted to shield the companies from lawsuits that were brought years later by the ACLU, and others, challenging their actions. If the telecom companies are subject to lawsuits, the practical effect, of course, is that they will no longer be able to cooperate with our intelligence branches when they are called upon to do so.
Obama, however, opposed protecting the telecommunication companies from such lawsuits. In fact, he voted for legislation that would effectively open flood gates of litigation for these companies. Luckily for Americans, this proposed law failed in the Senate by an overwhelming margin of 32 to 66. But again, we see Obama advocating an unpopular policy that would hinder our intelligence efforts and harm the safety of Americans.

Third, Obama supports letting alien enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay enter our court system to challenge their detention. In fact, he praised the controversial Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which extended such privileges to alleged foreign terrorists. It is unprecedented in our nation’s history to allow alien enemies held abroad access to our courts. Ironically, such a policy accords terrorist more rights than POWs have under the Geneva Convention. The practical effect is disastrous both here and abroad. As an initial matter, our courts will now be inundated with lawsuits brought by enemy combatants. Moreover, our brave men and women who are fighting in the field to protect our nation will now be dragged into the courts to defend their military decisions to detain our enemies. Finally, this burden on our military resources will be unsustainable and will result in more unlawful enemy combatants being released from Guantanamo. The tragic consequence will be that released detainees will return to their mission to harm Americans, just like Abdul Ghaffar, a former Guantanamo detainee, who returned to Afghanistan to allegedly become a leader of the Taliban. As Justice Scalia said, allowing enemy combatants to enter our courts “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

We all hope that we never suffer another tragedy like the one we suffered on September 11th. But hope is not enough. We need a president who will implement policies to keep Americans safe. Again and again, Obama has shown that he cannot be trusted with the great task of protecting our great nation.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Stephanie Hessler is a former Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Sphere: Related Content

Liberal Fueled Wall Street Woes

LIBERAL FUELED WALL STREET WOES

Stan Liebowitz

How did America wind up in its worst financial crisis in decades? Sen. Barack Obama explained it this way last week: “When sub-prime-mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people.”

That’s exactly backward. Mortgage lending took that “reckless and unsustainable turn” because of regulation - regulation driven by liberals and progressives, not free-market “deregulators.”

Pushed hard by politicians and community activists, the regulators systematically and deliberately altered financially sound lending practices.

The mortgage market was humming along just fine when, in the late 1980s, progressives decided that it needed to be “fixed.” Their complaint: Some ethnic groups got approved for mortgages at lower rates than others.

In reality, mortgage lenders were simply being prudent - taking care to provide mortgages to those who could best afford to make the payments.

The shift began in 1989, when Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants. By 1991, critics were using that data to paint lenders as racist by showing that minority applicants were approved at far lower rates. Banks were “Shamed By Publicity,” as one 1993 New York Times headline put it.

In fact, they found a racial disparity only by ignoring relevant data on applicants’ ability to make mortgage payments - such as their assets and credit history.

But the political pressure was intense - with few in politics or media eager to speak the truth. And then, in 1992, came a study from four researchers at the Boston Fed, which seemed to bear out the critics’ contentions.

That study was, in fact, based on quite flawed data - but the authors’ political, media and academic protectors stifled most serious criticism, smearing the reputation of one whistleblower and allowing the Boston authors to avoid answering serious academic challenges (mine included) to their work. Other studies with different conclusions were ignored.

The very next year, the Boston Fed announced new requirements for banks - rules that have now turned out to be monumentally catastrophic: Adopt “relaxed lending standards” or risk being labeled as racists, and face serious penalties under the federal Community Reinvestment Act.

Gone (as “arbitrary” and “outdated”) were traditional lending requirements such as requiring a down payment or limiting mortgage payments to 28 percent of income. (Of course, the loosened lending standards weren’t limited to poor and minority applicants - that would be discriminatory.)

The new standards performed as intended: Home- ownership rates, stagnant for 25 years, began a rapid 10-year ascent in 1995, with many new homeowners being lower-income and/or minority families.

The large rise in demand for houses, however, fed a run-up in prices starting in 1997 - the infamous housing bubble. And rising prices hid the great vulnerability of these loans to defaults and foreclosures, because refinancing or selling at a profit was the easy alternative.

Soon, these loans began to be sold in the secondary market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were enthusiastic proponents of relaxed lending standards and purchased large swaths of these loans.

Time after time, Fannie and Freddie trumped criticism by pointing to how they were helping broaden homeownership. Because of the subject’s racial overtones, they beat back calls for reform even after financial irregularities were found.

Rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s had no experience with such loans - and imprudently used the misleading bubble-induced performance to incorrectly judge the likely performance of financial instruments based on such loans.

In 2002, the “reformers” declared victory. In a Fannie report, four academic supporters of relaxed standards crowed how these changes were “fundamentally altering the terms upon which mortgage credit had been offered in the United States from the 1960s through the 1980s . . . These changes in lending herald what we refer to as mortgage innovation.”

Lucky us.

Now that the popped bubble has left us swimming in foreclosures, the supporters of loosened credit standards seem shy about taking credit for their “mortgage innovations.” Instead, they blame subprime lenders for becoming “predatory” - when they were simply taking the Boston Fed rules to their logical conclusion while broadening the mortgage market.

Investors holding mortgage-based assets now want out. Perhaps they deserve a $700 billion refund - since they were sold a bill of goods by “progressive” politicians, academics and government officials who, in the hope of remaking society, insisted that loans based on relaxed underwriting standards were sound.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of economics at the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas and a columnist for the New York Post.

TonyfromOz adds …..

I know it’s poor form to add to another post, but for the life of me, I just can not see what it is I’m missing here. It seems that the Democrats are the ones who actually caused all this. If it was some right wing website just making assertions, I’d see that for what it was, but this comes from their own mouths. There’s reams and reams of paper with documentation. There’s hundreds of hours of interviews from their own mouths claiming how good a thing this was when it was introduced, and it dates back to the early days of the first Clinton Administration. There’s Democrats in numbers supporting what it is that we have been driven to right now. The current Bush Administration warned of it as early as 2001, and President Bush and Senator McCain both warned and tried to change things, voted down by hostile Houses, with Democrats still coming out saying there was nothing wrong. Even an idiot could see that making more loans available with no downpayment and repayments uncapped would only lead to the obvious. It would drive up the price of houses, your classic housing bubble. When prices got so high and loans so easy, those new loan applicants extended themselves beyond their means, defaulted on their loans, and house prices went down. So now the bank lent half a million dollars for a house. The loan was defaulted, the housing prices now driven down, that half a million dollar house is now worth so much less. The bank sells it in a fire sale to recover …… well, anything, and takes the loss. On a few houses here and there, they could cover the loss.  In a market where all houses are worth less, they are in trouble.

We had a classic case in Australia in the Nineties when a well known Australian borrowed a huge amount of money, based on his status and the thought that he would never go under. He lost that fortune, and the bank recovered very little. I’ll never forget one thing he said.

“If you owe the bank a million dollars, you’re in trouble. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble.”

Such is the case here.

The Democrats relaxed the regulations, and now it’s come home to roost.

The thing that escapes me is how they can stand there in front of the gathered media, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi et al, and claim that they are the ones needing to keep President Bush in check. I can understand how in an election year, they need to make the Republicans look bad, their impression being that an unpopular President is an easy target, and they can tar John McCain with the same brush, all this because they have the numbers in both houses, and because of this, they can then set the agenda, claim that they are the ones who reluctantly agreed, they were the ones who set the recovery in train, and then conveniently foget to look in the damn mirror when it comes time to look for someone to blame.

What I just cannot figure out is how they seem to be getting away with it.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Sphere: Related Content

Blogging The Election

Why is it that this election has aroused so much interest?

Why are we being told that the numbers who will actually vote at this election will be the largest in history?

Why is it that in the run up to this election, people have become more aware of how the media is manipulting things to their own advantage?

Directly stemming from that, why are people now actually questioning those branches of the media doing this?

Why in the runup to the election have some media commentators actually lost their jobs because of perceived bias, or incorrect reporting?

Why is it that when a candidate comes out and says one thing, there’s news a little later that he may just have been telling a ‘Porky’?

Why is it that the public suddenly seems so savvy?

Then after saying all that, if interest is just so high, why is it that the ratings figures for the First Candidate’s Debate were less than for the one at the last election with George Bush, and that other guy? (See how no one remembers who came second.)

Why is like all this then?

Because of the Internet, that’s why. Hang on, some of you say, the Internet has been around longer than 4 years. It has, but it’s only been in that last period of time that there has been ‘The Rise Of The Bloggers.’

Go back 20 years. The only access to what any politician said was on TV. You made your decision based on what you saw there. Those who took the subway to work only had to look around and see the small number of people who read the paper on their way to work. The only access of getting your point of view across was to actually write a letter to the editor for that small part of one page in the paper that was dedicated for letters from the public, and virtually no one wrote in, or if they did, those letters were then vetted for the best ones to put in. You might even have turned up to a stump speech during the election process, but very few did, and very few butted in with comments from that gathered audience. If ever the President came anywhere close to where you lived, still, no vast numbers turned up, and again, no one yelled out from the audience. The only time it was talked about was at work in small groups, or at homes when there was a gathering of people, none of those occasions specifically to discuss the election, but just as something to talk about while you were there. So, political talk was at a personal level. Even if you did have a strong opinion, you kept it to yourself for fear of offending friends. You made a personal decision.

Now, in the last few years, every one of those newspapers has an online capability. People now get their news online. Look around you now on the subway, and see how many actually read the hard copy newspaper. No, now on the subway, people have their laptops connected to cell phones, and they cruise the news reports that way.

Then, every one of those online media outlets has the ability to leave comments on virtually every article they post. No more writing a letter to the editor, something maybe one in ten thousand might actually have done. Now, you can comment on any, and every story, and you can do it anonymously, using a screen name, and do it within seconds or minutes of that story appearing. Instead of the media outlet now vetting maybe a dozen letters a day at best, hundreds and even more are commenting on every article, no matter what it is. In the main, they are only one liners, but the media outlet now tells us that because of this, then interest is really high. That may be so, but now, the people actually have an outlet to comment, and then everyone gets to see their comment. Media Administrators vet comments, sure, but nine out of every ten comments will get posted. People are deciding from this, reading those comments and then commenting further. The actual story becomes more as a facility for actually getting those comments. Each comment counts as a ‘hit’ for that media outlet, so whichever way the comments come, they judge their ratings on those number of hits.

Then, in recent time, the rise of the bloggers has given people a larger base for commentary. There are literally tens of thousands of blogs. People have their list that they scroll through on the subway each morning to see what is new. These blogs provide a larger base for comment than the one liner comment in reply to a news story. You can pick and choose your blogsite that you visit for comment. After work, and after the evening meal, people go and check their blogs. You only have to look at some of the consolidated linking sites to see the times that blogs are being posted for further reference. Everybody now has somewhere they can go to add their two cents worth. And add it they do.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

The New Cold War is Hot Again

By T Lee,

While we are all watching Islamic terrorists and state sponsored terrorists attempt to spread their hate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Britain, the United States of America, North Africa, Canada, and Spain the Russians were using their new found oil wealth to recover their pride and determination to be a world power once again.

Almost like the rise of the Nazi’s between WW I and WW 2 whereby the German people who were suffering greatly due to the very harsh and in some cases punitive penalties that were applied by the Allies and The League of Nations (the failed precursor to the UN). They were in a horrible depression and turned towards a lunatic that offered them hope by blaming the Jews for their problems. What rose up out of Hitler’s rhetoric was a country that recovered its pride (in a wrong way) had old scores to settle with its neighbors and searched out and supported similar like minded regimes in other parts of the world (Spain and Argentina).

In the case of Russia, oil has paved the way for an economic recovery, while President Putin really moved from a traditionally democratically elected leader towards the benevolent dictator status that he holds today. The Russian people are regaining their pride in exchange for their freedoms. Their neighbors and previously separatist provinces have been put in their respective places through the use of brutal force (Chechnya and Georgia come to mind) and now the Russians are looking for likeminded regimes in other regions.

Recently they began to reach out to their former brothers in arms in Venezuela and Nicaragua. Bolivia is moving quickly into the Russian camp too.

Why is the rearming of the armies in South America a threat to America you ask? Well simple, what do rouge nations that hate the US do with their old weapons? They sell them at bargain basement prices to terrorist movements and use their own import / export laws and national institutions to get around the various International laws governing the sale and shipment of weapons. As we saw recently when a cargo ship carrying 33 T-72 Russian tanks with ammunition and Russian training crews on board was hijacked off the coast of Somalia and the ship full of Chinese weapons that tried to deliver weapons slated for the Zimbabwean government a few weeks back and the enormous amount of Chinese weapons found in Sudan, nation states are again beginning the old cold war practice of propping up dictators and thugs.

Russia and China are again rearming the developing war under the cover of America’s focus on the War on Terror and within four years will have completed a refit of several nations within spitting distance of the US and their allies in South America. The world remains a very challenging place and sadly our next President (during Friday’s debate on Foreign Affairs) doesn’t seem to notice that the new cold war is again heating up.

While a Russian fleet exercises in Western waters for the first time in almost 30 years the candidates only mentioned Russia once, in relation to their respective responses to the Russian / Georgian conflict. I guess I should cut them some slack in that the debate was highjacked for the first 40 minutes or so by the so called economic crisis so perhaps they didn’t have enough time to talk about China’s incredible spending on military expansion or Russia’s efforts to rearm South American governments that will threaten other friendly democracies in the region.

At the end of the day I really doubt they would have gotten around to any substantive issues regarding the numerous threats that face the US over the next 10 years and that does not serve the American public well.

Sphere: Related Content

No Dinner Jacket Required

NO DINNER JACKET REQUIRED

Satire by Shawn Goodwin

If New York City smelled more putrid than normal last week, please do not blame Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This one was not his fault. Last Tuesday, Iranian President/Certified Nutcase/Bronson Pinchot look-alike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly to universal acclaim. Okay, the “universal acclaim” came from Iran’s state-sponsored news agency, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and Susan Sarandon, but that’s not the point. These three don’t agree on anything, except maybe on their love of Bull Durham.

Unfortunately, they were all in agreement that President Bush is The Great Satan, and America is an imperialist country.

Sensing conservative blood in the water, Hollywood intellectual Matt Damon released a concurring statement that read, “America is The Great Stan.” Next time, Matt, you should probably proofread your pontifications before releasing them to the press.

Ahmadinejad came to New York with his tired old arguments and his nonsensical rants against the American imperialists, the vexing Zionists, and the judges of Dancing With The Stars. Apparently, the Iranian president is a huge fan of ousted comedian Jeffrey Ross, and sources claim that Ahmadinejad banned any mention of head judge Len Goodman in his presence. Once the president approached the podium, however, he was all business. Full Lunatic Mode was initiated, and Ahmadinejad unveiled a few wisdom nuggets:

“American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders,” Ahmadinejad said.

First of all, someone really needs to inform Mahmoud’s translator that he should have inserted a “The” at the front of that sentence.  My God, any third-grade English teacher would be shocked and appalled at the president’s atrocious grammar. Do they not have red pens in Iran? Secondly, did someone rewrite the definition of “empire?” At last check, America governed one country: America.  This country does not have colonies, and does not rule from afar. The fact that half of Mexico is inside our borders illegally does not mean that we “own” Mexico – although if we did, it would be a much better place to live, and people wouldn’t be running from it like it was Godzilla and they were Tokyo. Finally, the “end of the road” comment is a laugh riot. This is the United States of America, Mahmoud.  It is the home of Krispy Kreme, and any country that possesses such delicious doughnuts will live forever.

Luckily for those in attendance, Ahmadinejad was only hitting his stride. America is the Devil will only play with the rookie members of the UN General Assembly. If he wanted to put rear ends in the seats, he needed a hook, an eye-catcher. Never underestimate a homicidal madman. Everyone knows that the president’s playbook reads, “First employ the bluster, then release the lies.” From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s point of view, it is not a lie if he believes it:

“A few bullying powers have sought to put hurdles in the way of the peaceful nuclear activities of the Iranian nation by exerting political and economic pressures against Iran,” he said.

Well, that is simply unacceptable.  How dare the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and others try to hinder Iran’s access to a nuclear arsenal? It is a truly galling abuse of power by imperialist dictators. Iran desires nuclear capabilities, of course, but they are for non-threatening uses. In fact, Ahmadinejad explained what his country plans to do with their newly acquired power:

“Look,” Ahmadinejad began, “Iran is located in an arid climate. The season has done severe damage to our crops, and our citizens are in need of food. We plan on using nuclear power to grow enormous radioactive vegetables. Now, before you scoff, my country researched the plans by studying the leading source on the subject: The ‘Pass the Vegetables’ episode of Gilligan’s Island.”

Upon hearing this fabrication, Hollywood’s elite declared the story “rock solid.” Matt Damon agreed, and was overheard saying, “Matt Damon” to the mainstream media. But what of the alleged weapons plans? The Iranian president explained that away, as well:

“The world is a dangerous place, and Iran must be vigilant in its defense of the Motherland.  We must protect our way of life from attack by the West, Israel, and alien overlords.  I have seen Independence Day. I have seen Mars Attacks! And if there is one thing I learned from these films, it is this: the only way to stop an alien invasion is by unleashing nuclear weapons.  If the world wants to stand in our way, so be it.  When the human race is enslaved, don’t say we didn’t warn you.”

The slogan for the United Negro College Fund is “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a prime example of what happens when art imitates life.  Ahmadinejad is a psychopathic, delusional idiot. This would be comical if he was not an extremely dangerous man. The fact of the matter is that when and if his country procures a nuclear arsenal, Ahmadinejad would not think twice about eradicating Israel.

The worst part of all of this is that the United Nations would welcome him back as a guest speaker after he fulfills his promise.

FamilySecurityMatters.org’s official satirist, Shawn Goodwin, is a blogger and police detective from Philly.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Sphere: Related Content

A Bridge (Not Quite) Too Far - With Video

Afghan Jingle Truck. Image from Gerald Schultz. Click on image to open in a new window.

This image is from a story I read yesterday regarding the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. It’s funny how you read an important story, and all you pick up on is something not quite in the context of the article. I’ll explain about it later in the post.

When the term ‘War On Terror’ was first coined, the semantics of that title engender things in your mind that might actually translate a little differently.
That word ‘War’ is the main thing in contention here. People think of that as two sides slugging it out on a battlefield, almost on a continual basis. This title however is actually something more than that. The battlefield here is for people’s hearts and minds, the ability of those coming from a weaker background not to be oppressed by a stronger group of people who force their opinion on them with the backing of a military under their control. What the title here means is that we then go the aid of those weaker people, hopefully defeating that stronger backing, and hopefully putting in place a democracy where those weaker people might have even some semblance of a voice of representation.
That stronger force, be it backed by a secular military or under the control of a draconian religious backing don’t fight conventionally. In the main, their attacks are aimed at those weaker people inside their own Country, and that’s the insidious part of it all.
We can handle conventional battles like you might imagine them as. However, these people hit and run, and you never really get to see them in conventional set piece battles. They use weapons calculated to instil fear. On a regular battlefield, the soldier knows where the bad guy is. Here, you never know where the next ‘shooting match’ is going to be. In the main, the good guys just have to treat every occasion as a potential ‘shooting match’. Even though the good guys are far and away better equipped, that advantage is negated when trying to fight like this.

It’s a bit like a bank job. The criminals plan meticulously from the outset, mainly so they try and leave no clues. They plan forwards and then follow that plan. After the crime, the Police have to come into a blank paper and work backwards with no idea of the original plan. The criminals have nothing hamstringing them at all, because it’s a crime. They’ll do anything to achieve that plan. The Police however have to work backwards and then do all of that in accordance with all conventions, laws, and procedures, otherwise, even if they do catch the bad guy, it all gets thrown out the window. See how the law leans its favouritism towards the criminal.

The same applies here in this ‘War On Terror’.

Let’s go off to Afghanistan then. The vast populace outside of Afghanistan has absolutely no idea what is going on there, other than this esoteric ‘War On Terror’. There is action on numerous fronts, but just like the bank job, the good guys have no idea what is going to happen, and when it is going to happen. They act reactively, after the event, and then try to mop up. It’s tough work, and in the main, it gets reported that the good guys may have made a mistake, so we need to concentrate on that. What the bad guys do, they do with impunity. No one roots them out and investigates them. No! They just do whatever it is that they do, and then run away. Either that, or they blow something up from a position of hiding, using a concealed throwaway mobile phone as the detonating device, so that the good guys just get blown up, and they are long gone.

In Afghanistan, the good guys doing the hard yards are those from the US, Australia, and a couple of other small forces. The main action, the continuous hard work action, is in the Southern Provinces of the Country. In the North, NATO and other UN forces have it relatively easy. They can send word home that they are in Afghanistan, and people look upon that as one big battleground, so that’s the way it is seen. Also, the casualties are a lot less in the North than in those Southern Provinces, and that also plays well back home. If the ‘work’ in the North got really intense, then that would play poorly back home, but on the Political Front mainly, and there would be grumbling calls to pull the troops out. Meanwhile, in the South, the US and Australian troops are pulling down the real tough work. The American casualties are viewed by those Countries with forces in the North, as being okay, because it’s not our guys.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Timeline Shows Bush, McCain Warning Dems of Financial Mess

From: ProudToBeCanadian |||||||||The Bush Administration and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis — starting in 2002. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn’t afford them — just like you would expect of socialists. ||||||||||||

Sphere: Related Content

Rep. John Murtha Sued

While all eyes look at the First Debate, this report from the Johnstown PA Tribune Democrat came out this morning.

Democrat Rep John Murtha is being sued by a former US Marine, now honourably discharged. Justin Sharratt was one of the Marines charged with unpremeditated murder over the now well reported incident at Haditha. Sharratt is suing Murtha for slander over comments made by Murtha at the outset of the story breaking. The suit was filed in a Pittsburgh Federal Court on Thursday.

Here’s what Rep Murtha said in an extract from the Tribune story.

American soldiers, he contended, had killed innocent civilians “in cold blood.”

The report goes on to say:

It includes Murtha’s statements from nationally televised interviews in 2006, including an exchange during a CNN interview with anchor Wolf Blitzer.

“There was an (improvised explosive device) attack, it killed one Marine, and then they overreacted and killed a number of civilians without anybody firing at them,” Murtha told Blitzer.

Of the eight people charged over the incident, seven have come to trial so far and all have been exonerated, Sharratt among them.

The ex Marine says that one explosive statement from Murtha violated his presumption of innocence and the due process of law.

Rep Murtha could get away with what he said because he claims that all he brought the matter up for was to draw attention to the incident, and that he didn’t mention this Marine specifically by name, an obvious technicality. When the incident was investigated, this Marine, and the others names did come up, and the inference then was that this Marine was one of those men he was referring to.

It would seem to me that Rep Murtha, with no idea of what actually happened on the ground, saw this as a plan to score cheap political points against a decision made by a Republican President.

From the safety of his Office, he found the story of this incident, and then played it for all it was worth.

He needs to be called to answer for these explosive comments.

As a rich and well backed politician, he also has access to keep the matter tied up in the Courts for a long time, or until the guy he pointed the finger at runs out of money.

He can also claim that this is a political thing, the matter being raised to draw attention in the runup to the forthcoming election.

Sharratt has been exonerated, but quite obviously, rumour sticks, and people will always talk behind his back. Rep. Murtha can make that decision to say what he said, carefully thought out before he said it, and then claim context at a later date. It’s all well and good for the big guy to say something in a loud voice on the big stage, and get front page news. The little guy then struggles to fight against that machine, with no backing, and no voice, and no platform. When he does get exonerated, it’s shuffled away in the back pages.

This is another of those chances for Rep. Murtha to simply apologise, something that will never happen.

Sphere: Related Content

The Debate - Australian Opinion

As I’ve mentioned previously, interest in the forthcoming US election has been unprecedented here in Australia. For something that usually only gets coverage on an occasional basis, this election is getting daily coverage, not only in news reports, but in the main Australian Current Affairs program, the (Australian) ABC’s 7.30 Report.

Most networks have dedicated field correspondents on the ground in the US taking daily commentary for back home here in Australia.

To that end that same ABC took the first Candidates Debate. (That always make me think of Paul and Art.)

This is first time such a debate has been taken live by any of the networks here in Australia.

They gave a short lead in and then crossed direct to the Debate. We have similar debates at election time here in Australia, and they are approximately the same in format.

This was a good debate, and as interested as I am, I always felt like I wanted to hear more. I was disappointed that Senator McCain didn’t go in harder on the economy side of things. I would have liked to see him sheeting home the blame to those Democrats who instigated the whole sorry mess, and then, under a hostile congress and Senate actually tried to warn of the forthcoming possibility for disaster, and efforts by the current Bush Administration to find a way out, a lot earlier than the position we now see. I also would have liked him to go a little harder on those ‘Pork’ bills. He seemed to have Sen. Obama a little defensively on the back foot there.

I was also disappointed in the Way Senator Obama sought to take the high moral ground on this crisis, conveniently forgetting that his Party has it’s its messy fingerprints all over it.

After the debate closed, back here in Australia, there was commentary on how it went. The commentator gave the debate partially to Sen. Obama on the economy, and said that Senator McCain won that part of the debate regarding Foreign Policy.

The commentator also seemed to think that Senator McCain looked a little flat.

It’s a funny thing. I thought what he said came from a position of surety, of actually knowing about what he was saying.

Senator Obama seemed to give the impression that he was tirelessly supporting ever decision ever made that seemed to come out of Both Houses, as if it was all his idea. He also did not seem to get his position on Iraq covered, deflecting any answer by just saying that he was against it, and then specifically drawing the whole argument down to just part of the economic debate, which I suppose he perceives as his strong point.

Sen. Obama also quoted his Environmental credentials, but it seemed that he was just speaking for the camera on that one, and if he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to actually find out about what it is that he’s talking about, not just saying it in a rote fashion.

Senator McCain, on a level just under what was on the surface gave me the distinct impression that he had so much ammunition at his disposal, that it was the mark of the man that he didn’t just unload on Senator Obama, and causing the debate to descend into mud slinging.

Also a nice touch from Sen McCain was that it was he and not Obama who mentioned up front about Ted Kennedy.

The commentator on the Australian ABC called the debate an amiable draw, and that both sides had their strong points. I feel sure that further analysis will be copious and more in depth than this short post so close after the end of the debate.

I’m not sure I like the way a war is thought of in financial terms only.

Gee! The Japs just bombed Pearl Harbor. Pity we haven’t got enough money to go get them.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »