Monthly Archives: October 2010

Too Much Love Killing Obama’s Chances in Midterm Elections

I’m just the pieces of the man I used to be
Too many bitter tears are raining down on me
I’m far away from home
And I’ve been facing this alone
For much too long
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

Too Much Love Will Kill You

The story goes that Brian May was watching TV in his living room when Poof! Freddie Mercury appears from out of nowhere. Brian, both shocked and startled, cries “Freddie! How did you manage that?” To which Freddie replies “Well little did you know, Brian, but I practiced in the ancient art of voodoo for many years on the QT.” Brian, confused, says “Voodoo, Freddie? What’s Voodoo?” Freddie answered “It’s A Kind of Magic…”

During the 2008 election cycle Barack Obama had a kind of magic, too. But it didn’t last. Yes, Obama is now just the pieces of the man he used to be – and we’re really broken up about it. Carefully molded from childhood by his socialist masters, Obama was raised up for the role in which he currently stars – or more precisely, the role in which he most recently starred. Note the past tense. It was like a fairy tale. As a young lad, Obama was enrolled at the prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii. Punahou, a private college preparatory school, was also the scene of Obama’s initiation into drug abuse, what Obama described as his “greatest moral failure.” We beg to differ, Obama. You’ve had bigger moral failures since then – More about that later.

Obama proceeded on to Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. At each school he dipped ever deeper into the morass of revolutionary socialist doctrine. By the time he reached the Illinois State Senate he had perfected the practice of voting “present.” His elections to the United States Senate and then as President of the United States were seen as evidence of a rising star in the liberal galaxy. He was hailed as the Messiah, a man sent to redeem mankind from conservative politics. He stood upon the waters and the ocean receded. He stretched forth his arms and the earth was healed. We were blessed by his very presence. Every time Obama deigned to open his mouth there was another triumph for communism. He burped and voila! ObamaCare was born. He belched, and financial regulation was overhauled. He farted, and mortgages were subsidized, distilled upon us like the very dews from Heaven.

But then a funny thing happened on his way to The Lap of The Gods. Obama, a legend in his own mind, kept strutting his stuff for all to see. But the man who considered himself greater than Freddie Mercury and thought his voice superior to Freddie’s, soon began to slide in the charts. Bitter tears began to rain down upon him. There were rumors about him and Larry Sinclair that allegedly…well, you know, unsubstantiated involved a Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy. And then there was another rumor involving Vera Baker, that allegedly, uh…not going there either. And then, far away from home in Kenya, Indonesia, or wherever the Hell he was spawned, Barry allegedly had an interview with the famous music critic, PolarCoug. The rest was history.

PolarCoug: “Barry, I served with Freddie Mercury, I knew Freddie Mercury. Freddie Mercury was a friend of mine. Barry, you’re no Freddie Mercury!”

Obama: “That was really uncalled for, PolarCoug.”

PolarCoug: “You are the one that was making the comparison, Barry – and I’m one who knew him well, and frankly I think you are so far apart in the tunes you choose to be measured by that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.”

The rest was history. The man with apparent perfect pitch was revealed to his vast audience as merely a Freddie wannabe, singing to his teleprompter, which kept crashing at the most inopportune moments. And before long, another one bit the dust.

I feel like no-one ever told the truth to me
About growing up and what a struggle it would be
In my tangled state of mind
I’ve been looking back to find
Where I went wrong
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

Where you went wrong, Barry? Sheesh. Like you gotta’ ask.

Barry came from a dysfunctional family and now he has created one of his own. Just an aside, but Hitler came from a dysfunctional family, too. Perhaps Barry felt like a Dog with a Bone. Perhaps his sex poodle is just Stone Cold Crazy.

Too much love will kill you
If you can’t make up your mind
Torn between the lover
And the love you leave behind
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

It can really be hard making up your mind, can’t it Barry? Just ask our troops in Afghanistan about it while you were dithering on the surge. Guys were dying while you tried to leverage the issue into political points. And then finally, belatedly, you decided that The Show Must Go On.

You’re headed for disaster
‘cos you never read the signs
Too much love will kill you
Every time
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

Coming right at ya’ Barry. November 2nd. Mark it on your calendar. And two years later you’ll be Sleeping On The Sidewalk along with all of your groupies.

I’m just the shadow of the man I used to be
And it seems like there’s no way out of this for me
I used to bring you sunshine
Now all I ever do is bring you down
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

No kidding! Nobody even wants you to campaign for them! You bring down anybody you come into contact with, Barry. You’re positively radioactive. Whatever, Barry, I know you hate the outdoors, but the Rain Must Fall.

How would it be if you were standing in my shoes
Can’t you see that it’s impossible to choose
No there’s no making sense of it
Every way I go I’m bound to lose
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

Correctomundo, Barry. You’re a loser. It’s time for the Hammer To Fall.

Too much love will kill you
Just as sure as none at all
It’ll drain the power that’s in you
Make you plead and scream and crawl
And the pain will make you crazy
You’re the victim of your crime
Too much love will kill you
Every time
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

The midterm elections are upon you, Barry. Remember how you told the congressional Dems that they would all get re-elected if only they would vote for ObamaCare? Didn’t quite work out as planned, did it Barry. They’re all pleading and screaming and crawling to the finish line, aren’t they, Barry. Yeah, the pain will make you crazy, Barry.  You’re the victim of your own crimes. Now you are stuck in somebody’s backyard with your buddy Joe Biden, and you’re asking yourselves, Is This The World We Created?

Too much love will kill you
It’ll make your life a lie
Yes, too much love will kill you
And you won’t understand why
You’d give your life, you’d sell your soul
But here it comes again
Too much love will kill you
In the end…
– Queen Guitarist Brian May

You gave up your life in the quest for communism, Barry. You sold your soul for a shot at fundamentally transforming America. BOHICA, Barry. Here it comes again. Like Barney Frank would probably tell you…too much love will kill you…IN THE END.  But try to endure it, Barry, because Pain Is So Close to Pleasure, and the end is coming on November 2nd.

In the end. – Queen Guitarist Brian May

This time, we’ve got you, Barry. We’re going to roll right over you in a few days, Barry. Heck, if she were still around we would Tie Your Mother Down. It is going to be downright glorious, Barry. These are the days of our lives. We’re sorry about that, Barry. We know you are Under Pressure. But, so what, Barry. Who needs you? You know what, Barry. You Don’t Fool Me.  You Take My Breath Away with your lies, Barry. I will never be able to think that You’re My Best Friend.

You, lie, Barry. You Liar!

Ronald Reagan was the best politician of our age. Bambi is not in that league. Get out and vote, America! Freedom is coming to a ballot box near you on November 2nd, 2010.

The Bob Ethridge North Carolinians Know Now

Bob Ethridge and Nancy Pelosi - Brids of a featherOne of CDN’s readers turned me on to this site that finally shows Bob Ethridge the way the rest of us in North Carolina have come to know him – D.C. Bob.  He is the establishment and could care less about us hard-working, middle-class Americans.

From: The Real Bob Ethridge

NC Bob, the Bob Etheridge you see when he is campaigning back home in North Carolina Congressional District 2, is not the same as DC Bob, the politician who votes in Washington. NC Bob’s rhetoric rarely matches DC Bob’s voting record. Be sure you know both Bobs before you vote in November.

The site is well put together and is home to a wealth of verifiable information on D.C. Bob.  The top ten list from the site says it all:

Top Ten Reasons to Vote for the Real Bob Etheridge

10.  Want to basically elect Nancy Pelosi without having to move all the way to San Francisco.

9.   You have too much money and wish the government would take more.

8.   Constitutional rights are scary and you want someone to defend you from them.

7.  The government is just too darn small.

6.  You want to leave lots of debt for our grandchildren to remember us by.

5. You love his environmental plan to raise prices on fuel and reduce everyone’s carbon footprint by making sure people don’t have jobs to drive to.

4. It’s time for a harsh crackdown on people who dare ask their Representative a question.

3. You really want to wastefully spend your money, but don’t have the time and need someone else to do it for you.

2. You’re a little suspicious of your doctor and would rather lawyers in D.C. make your medical decisions.

1. You fully support the Obama agenda.

The site is invaluable if you are trying to understand who Bob Ethridge really is or if you need help to inform family members and friends as to what a vote for D.C. Bob means.  Please visit theRealBobEthridge.com for yourself to see his record on taxes, healthcare, spending, and Jobs – he’s basically Nancy Pelosi’s yes man.

Open Letter to Barney Frank on OneUnited

From Sean Bielat for Congress:

Barney Frank for Congress
PO Box 260
Newton, MA 02460

October 8, 2010

Representative Frank,

I appreciate that we’ve now become good pen pals. Since you seem to have developed a new fondness for responding to constituents, I would like to draw your attention to some questions I posed back in August which have yet to be answered. It would also be enlightening to hear your responses to the several questions I posed in my response letter yesterday.

The questions I asked in August involve a matter of public trust. You have admitted to playing a role in helping a failed bank, OneUnited, secure a $12,000,000 taxpayer-funded bailout for which they did not originally qualify. You wrote legislation that allowed OneUnited to “cook the books” and claim more stated capital than they actually had in order to receive a bailout. The Washington Post described the episode this way:

“So a dodgy bank with little going for it except access to powerful members of Congress gets $12 million for no evident public purpose and with little chance taxpayers will ever see that money again. Those responsible insist that, according to prevailing norms in the nation’s capital, they did nothing wrong. Worst of all, they might be telling the truth.”

A number of serious questions about your involvement remain. The public has a right to know:

1. After Rep. Maxine Waters came to you and admitted she was violating Congressional ethics
rules, why did you agree to take over the task of bailing out her husband’s bank for her?

2. By offering to take over the task for her, you implicitly acknowledged in your conversation
with Rep. Maxine Waters that her involvement represented multiple ethics violations. Did you
address the violations directly with her? Did you warn her that she was engaging in illegal and
unethical conduct?

3. Why did you not immediately report Rep. Maxine Waters’ ethical violations (and potentially
criminal conduct) to your party’s leadership and the appropriate authorities?

4. Why did you personally return the phone call of disgraced State Senator Dianne Wilkerson
who has been recently convicted on federal bribery charges?

5. When you spoke with Wilkerson, what did you discuss?

6. When was the decision made to funnel more than $12 million to a failed bank that was
recently cited by federal regulators for poor business practices and executive compensation
abuse?

7. What were the factors that went into the decision to bail out the bank when it clearly did not
qualify for a taxpayer-funded bailout?

8. How long have you known that the bank was owned by Rep. Maxine Waters’ wealthy friends
and campaign donors who used depositor funds to purchase a $6 million beach house and a
Porsche for executives to use?

9. Please describe in detail the due diligence that you and your staff undertook before agreeing
to bail out this bank with hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

10. Given that the requests for your help came from a convicted state legislator and an ethically-challenged Congresswoman, why did you not instruct your office to cease and desist any efforts with regard to the matter?”

I hope your response comes as quick as your last letter. You constituents are waiting.

Sincerely,

Sean Bielat

P.S. You’re answer on how best to save Social Security seems to be “do nothing and hope for the best.” Are you writing these letters because you’re looking for policy advice? If so, feel free to drop by our Newton office any time.



New Sharron Angle Ad: Big Clue

October 7,2010: The Sharron Angle for Senate campaign released a new ad entitled, “Big Clue.” The ad details Harry Reid’s record of spending $787 billion on a failed stimulus package, supporting taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens, and voting to use taxpayer dollars for Viagra for convicted child molesters and sex offenders. Reid’s troubling record shows how out-of-touch he is with everyday Nevadans struggling in this economic crisis.

Chris Coons – The Real Nut Job in the Delaware Senate Race

Political hacks have been making much out of Christine O’Donnell’s young adult activities.  I finally ran across a post at the American Spectator that digs into what her Democrat opponent, Chris Coons, was doing in his young adult life.

Answer? He was in Africa volunteering for the South African Council of Churches, a group that holds to the self-same Black Liberation Theology philosophy preached by James Cone and Jeremiah Wright. The philosophy that has at its core the principles of “Marxism dressed up as Christianity.” The philosophy that is at the very heart of the Obama administration and its actions since taking office two years ago.

The philosophy that Coons will undoubtedly all-too-eagerly represent if he is elected as an Obama Democrat to the seat once held by Obama Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware.

David Weigel over at the liberal Slate is not alone in noting:

But check out Coons’ message! In a Democratic state, he does not mention that he is a Democrat. We learn that he balanced the budget, cut spending, and cut his salary. That’s what Jim DeMint would do if we gave him New Castle County, isn’t it?

Imagine that.

Chris Coons can’t even bring himself to mention he’s a Democrat in supposedly Blue State Delaware. So how exactly would the realization that he went out of his way to support a group advocating liberation theology be received in Delaware? And a liberal columnist is — really — trying to compare him to South Carolina’s conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint?

Question.

Do you think Jim DeMint would have volunteered to go to Africa in his twenties and volunteer for a group selling liberation theology — “Marxism dressed up as Christianity”?

Of course not.

..

It is exactly the same socialist vision of wealth redistribution preached by Jeremiah Wright in Barack Obama’s Trinity Church for twenty years while the future president sat in those pews. It is exactly the vision behind the policy and personnel of the Obama administration — from Van Jones the now-departed self-described Communist and White House Green Jobs czar to Mark Lloyd the Hugo Chavez-admiring FCC diversity czar to Anita Dunn the Mao-quoting ex-White House aide to Ron Bloom the SEIU negotiator turned “manufacturing czar” to Carol Browner, a leader in the climate-change division of the “Socialist International” turned Obama global warming czar to the nationalized health care admiring Medicare administrator Donald Berwick to the social justice-promoting consumer activist Elizabeth Warren and on and on — right into the Oval Office and President Barack Obama himself.[1]

And if that wasn’t enough, here is the same apologetic, Marxist garbage coming from Coons as we get from Obama all too regularly.

Perhaps more should be seen in Coons’ statement that his experiences in Africa “warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America were largely untrue.”[1]

Snake. Grass. The End.


[1] Chris Coons: Volunteer for Liberation Theology: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/20/chris-coons-volunteer-for-libe/

The Current State of Florida’s Law Suit Against Health Care Reform

Case Status

The State of Florida’s case against Obamacare is filed in the State’s Northern District.  20 other states have joined the suit as plantifs (Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Georgia, Alaska, and Oklahoma).  Judge Roger Vinson heard a motion to dismiss this case (3:10-cv-91) in September and will be and has ruled that the case to block Obamacare may go forward.  With that positive decision, oral arguments on the motion(s) for Summary judgement are scheduled for December 16th.

The judge commented on his decision:

“In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed,” Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

“I am only saying that … the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed,” Vinson said.

The Complaint:

Florida (et al) are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s inclusion of the individual health insurance mandate.  This suit claims that Congress is exceeding its authority not only by forcing consumers to buy insurance, but also because Congress is trying to control the budgetary process and legislative agendas of the plaintiff states.

  • The Complaint cites sections 2 and 9 of Article I, and states that the federal government cannot use the mandate as a means to impose a direct tax
  • The Plaintiffs argue that Obamacare violates the Tenth Amendment: a mandate that forces individuals to either have health insurance coverage or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

States where Medicare is already stretching the annual budget, such as Florida, simply cannot afford the increased costs attributable to the new requirements imposed by Obamacare.

*sources

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- Her Final Economic Grade Before the Mid-Term Elections is a Big, Fat “F”

After Four Years of Control of Congress, Her Reckless Economic Policies Have Serious Consequences South Florida’s Small Businesses

Pembroke Pines, FL. –   Whenever the topic of the economy is addressed by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, she can always be counted on to blame others for failed economic results, and she has never accepted responsibility for what has occurred during her tenure in Congress.  But now that the “Summer of Recovery” has concluded and has shown itself to be a public relations fiasco and a failure in terms of real economic results- the time has come for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to account for her record to the voters.  Unfortunately, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will never level with the American people and admit responsibility for the failed economic results that have occurred on her watch, and she will continue to spin, misinform, and deceive the public in order to maintain her grasp on power.

The economic policies that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has supported, which constitute an unprecedented amount of government interference in the American private sector- replete with bailouts, unsustainable federal spending, a failed “stimulus” plan; government takeovers of banks, auto and insurance companies, and student loans; and the massively unpopular takeover over our healthcare system- have literally left our economy on the brink.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007.  Here’s what her policies have left in their wake:

·    The Democrat-controlled Congress has amassed more debt in the last four years than nearly the previous 230 years combined

·    National Unemployment Rate has climbed from 5.0 to 9.6 percent

·    The “Real” Unemployment Rate (U6) measuring unemployed people who are actively seeking work – skyrockets from 8.3 to 17.1 percent

·    Florida’s Unemployment Rate- Spikes from 3.7 to 11.7 Percent

·    The Failure of the “Stimulus” Plan- approximately 3 million American jobs have been lost since the passage of the “Recovery” Act in February 2009

·    The Number of Americans receiving food stamps was 41.8 million in July 2010- up almost 10 million people since Jan. 2009

·    Middle-class Americans have made their deepest spending cuts in more than two decades, slashing spending on such discretionary items as restaurant meals and alcohol during the recession

·    The poorest Americans are spending more as prices increase for necessities like food and rental housing

·    72,000 “stimulus” checks were sent to the deceased and the incarcerated

The bottom line for our national economy:  as the poor and middle class are forced to make substantial cutbacks to their household budgets, our federal government does just the opposite with its budget, and continues with its reckless fiscal policies that very much jeopardize our nation’s prosperity.

“The policies of Debbie Wasserman Schultz are holding the American economy hostage, and persisting with these same failed policies will only result in further damage to our economy that could take years to recover from,” said Karen Harrington, candidate for Congress in Florida’s 20th Congressional District. “Debbie Wasserman-Schultz does not understand that excessive taxation and regulation causes fear and uncertainty that does   enormous damage to both household budgets and to small business owners.  Americans have a clear choice in November- continue with the failed policies of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that will lead to further economic ruin and dependency on government, or return to fiscally responsible policies that allow the ingenuity and industriousness of small businesses to lead us out of the economic wasteland that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has led us into for the last four years,” said Harrington.

Tom Donilon – Obama’s New National Security Advisor

Until the official announcement today, we had heard precious little about Mr. Donilon.  Obama announced that his current National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, was stepping down and that Tom Donilon, the current Deputy National Security Advisor would be taking his place.

According to Who Runs Gov, Donilon is a long time Democrat political figure.  From 1999 to 2005 he worked as a lobbyist solely for Fannie Mae, but he’s been involved with politics for much longer:

The Democratic operative worked on his first Democratic National Convention at 24, and he’s been helping elect candidates ever since. He has worked for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Joseph R. Biden.

He has also served in policy roles, working as assistant secretary of state for public affairs and as former Clinton secretary of State Warren Christopher’s chief of staff. In that role, Donilon was intimately involved in many major foreign policy issues, including negotiating the Bosnian peace agreement and the expansion of NATO. [1]

While his appointment seems common-sense considering his present job as Deputy NSA, it doesn’t come without contention.

In veteran U.S. journalist Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars,” which gives an inside look at how Obama crafted his Afghan war strategy, Donilon is shown as deeply skeptical of a big troop increase in Afghanistan.

Donilon was part of a circle of close aides who urged Obama to push back against the military’s request for a large U.S. troop increase. [2]

It turns out that his stint lobbying for Fannie Mae, one of the root causes of the current financial mess, was also not without issue:

In 1999, Donilon accepted an executive vice president position at Fannie Mae. [1]

..Thomas Donilon, oversaw an aggressive, backdoor lobbying campaign by mortgage giant Fannie Mae to undermine the credibility of a probe into the firm’s accounting irregularities, according to a 2006 government report on the company.

The effort — which reportedly included attacks on the funding for the oversight agency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and an attempt to launch a separate investigation into OFHEO itself — was ultimately unsuccessful, and regulators eventually discovered top Fannie Mae executives had been manipulating the company’s financial reporting to maximize their bonuses.

According to politico.com he was a VP during the time period that the investigation covered

Donilon left the firm as it was mired in an accounting scandal in 2005, three years before Fannie Mae’s spectacular collapse when the mortgage market imploded in 2008. Investigators never accused Donilon of wrongdoing in the accounting scandal, but Fannie ultimately paid $400 million to the federal government to settle charges that the company misstated its earnings between 1998 and 2004. The government sued three top Fannie Mae executives to recover millions in bonuses based on the allegedly falsified reports, but Donilon was not among them.

A former official who led one of the main investigations into Fannie Mae said Friday that Donilon didn’t play a role in the misstatements but tried to pressure lawmakers to derail the probe.[4]

And ABC news had this to say about the whole thing:

Facing accusations of misstating its earnings from 1998 to 2004, Fannie Mae settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $400 million in 2006, although it did not admit any wrongdoing.[3]

How about his views on national security issues?  Well, it turns out, he’s a yes man.  He lines up perfectly with Obama’s stances on everything.  Although unnecessary, this should do much to boost Obama’s confidence in his disastrous handling of foreign affairs.

Donilon views a nuclear Iran and North Korea as the gravest national security threat facing the country. He has called on the president to pursue robust diplomacy along with stricter sanctions on these two states.[1]

Unfortunately according to Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars”, he has the same lack of foreign affairs and military experience as Obama as the outgoing Security Advisor pointed out in this exchange.

First, he had never gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, or really left the office for a serious field trip. As a result, he said, you have no direct understanding of these places. “You have no credibility with the military.” You should go overseas. The White House, Situation Room, interagency byplay, as important as they are, are not everything.Second, Jones continued, you frequently pop off with absolute declarations about places you’ve never been, leaders you’ve never met, or colleagues you work with. Gates had mentioned this to Jones, saying that Donilon’s sound-offs and strong spur-of-the-moment opinions, especially about one general, had offended him so much at an Oval Office meeting that he nearly walked out.

Donilon is not the typical academician with which the the President usually surrounds himself and the new Security Advisor will be one less dissenting voice in the administration.  Just one less sanity check for a President that desperately needs every last one he can get.


[1] Thomas Donilon – http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_Donilon
[2] New Obama Security Advisor Clashed With Military – http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101008/pl_nm/us_obama_jones_6
[3] Obama Transition Member Oversaw Fannie’s Lobbying – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Politics/Story?id=6269682&page=1
[4] Tom Donilon’s résumé: Policy, law and Fannie Maehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43348.html#ixzz11qGlm5Pl

Michael Moore Echoes FDR, Carter in Bid to Save Dems at Cost of Economy

Michael Moore 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra)

photo credit: nicogenin

Michael Moore shows his greedy, self-serving intolerant self yet again.  Feel free to destroy the economy as long as failed progressive and socialistic policies are put in place.  Oh, and he thinks it will save the Democrat majority.  Center-right country Ms. Moore, center-right.

It should come as no surprise that the progressive rag, The Huffington Post published this mess of ill-conceived ideas that have already failed in decades past.  In a 5-point rant, Moore throws out the sum of his intelligence in an attempt to save the Democrat majority in Congress.

1. Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we’re in.

2. Declare a moratorium on home foreclosures.

3. Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century.

4. Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America).

5. Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle.

uh, wow.  Let’s take a few words to dismantle this mantra of progressive leadership.

1) Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we’re in

Please do, Democrats have held the majority in Congress since 2006 (Ok, I’ll give you January 2007 if you want to discount the lame duck period in 2006).  Barney Frank felt that Fannie and Freddie were not nearing any crisis in 2003, Congress controls the purse-strings and I didn’t see any Dems pulling back the reigns on any spending once taking control.  I’ll give you that Bush pushed for more spending than he should, but I didn’t see the Dem majority holding him back at all.

2) Declare a moratorium on home foreclosure

You Mr. Moore .. are a fiscal mental midget (you may be overcompensating with the waste line there champ).  We have a credit crisis, where banks are unable to loan because of restrictive liability ratios.  Financial institutions can only loan so much money based on a certain positive balance sheet.  A mortgage represents a liability and the house is the securing asset.  If the mortgage is not being paid, the money that was given to the original borrower cannot just be given to someone else.  The bank has to sell the asset for real money to settle the liability so that it can again loan that money to someone else.

If the government freezes foreclosures, the credit markets will come to a screeching halt and you can just prepare for the massive fallout from this failed feel-good catastrophe.  Keep your government control, anti-free-market marxist B.S. and go hug Hugo .. I hear he needs friends right about now.

3) Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century

Feel free, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  While you’re at it, take a look at Fannie and Freddie (if Barney will let you).  Oh yeah, and Soros.. and Rangel .. oh yeah Waters.. Kerry?  The courts will be clogged for a generation if we take all those Democrat crooks down with the CEOs.  At least the CEOs created jobs and wealth, those other idiots just stole it.

4) Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America)

WPA .. an FDR program, resurrected by former President Carter and now suggested by Michael Moore.  What was it?

..in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs an executive order creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The WPA was just one of many Great Depression relief programs created under the auspices of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, which Roosevelt had signed the month before. The WPA, the Public Works Administration (PWA) and other federal assistance programs put unemployed Americans to work in return for temporary financial assistance.[1]

If Michael Moore is suggesting that in order to get welfare or unemployment checks, people have to go build roads, bridges and do cow fart studies.. I am all in.  Unfortunately, I am sure that he didn’t mention anything about tying their free government checks to actual work.

5) Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle

Good luck with that.  What about big oil?  Wasn’t the proto-typical progressive democrat (Obama) the leading beneficiary of BPs big oil money?  How ’bout that Fannie and Freddie money Mr. Frank?

..one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.[2][3]

Woah.. two deposits?  This is just populist anger-mongering with no real intention of fixing much of anything.  Then again, when has Michael Moore done anything remotely productive.


[1] FDR creates the WPA: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-creates-the-wpa
[2] Media Mum on Barney Frank’s Fannie Mae Love Connection: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
[3] Fox News: Barney Frank Escaped Blame for Fannie Mae’s Problems Because He Is Gay: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-barney-frank-esc_b_132347.html

Fed Proposing Carter Era Inflationary Policy to Fix Economy

You’d think Paul Volcker was in the driver’s seat again.  While he’s no longer running the Fed, perhaps his leadership as the President’s chief economic advisor is giving him more of a voice than any of us want.

In his turn at the Fed, it was Volcker that pushed for the massive and crippling inflation that many of us remember having lived through.  Many in the Fed are considering giving that strategy another shot.

The Federal Reserve spent the past three decades getting inflation low and keeping it there. But as the U.S. economy struggles and flirts with the prospect of deflation, some central bank officials are publicly broaching a controversial idea: lifting inflation above the Fed’s informal target.

The rationale is that getting inflation up even temporarily would push “real” interest rates—nominal rates minus inflation—down, encouraging consumers and businesses to save less and to spend or invest more.[1]

Didn’t we learn anything from the move in the 80’s to end the inflationary mess?  Do they really think that consumers and businesses are holding on to their money because %1.36 interest on a CD is an amazing way to grow money?  From what planet do these ridiculous, Keynesian, demand-side retards come from?  The Fed is trying to fix a problem over which it has little power.  Consumers aren’t spending because they are worried about the jobs situation and business are holding on to extra cash because the regulatory and tax situation are still in-limbo.  Tack on Obamacare, looming EPA craziness, and an anti-business administration in Washington D.C. and you have the perfect recipe to paralyze an economy.

Don’t forget that the interest rates that the Fed controls would also push up lending rates on the second mortgages, lines of credit and credit cards that small businesses and consumers use to fund a portion of their spending.  If more money goes to paying the interest, less will go to actual spending.

The loonies in the Fed need to sit tight and we the people will help in November.  Getting a pro-business Congress that secures the Bush era tax cuts for the near future, slaps some limits on Obama’s czarist regulatory agencies, and puts real stimulative legislation in-play are the real solutions to our current economic situation.  Paying $5.00 for a loaf of bread will simply move the spending from non-essentials like T.V.s and travel to well ..bread.


[1] Wall Street Journal -“Fed Officials Mull Inflation as a Fix”http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536391713801732.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Harry Reid: Between A Political Rock and a Religious Hard Place

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.  Reid has a political problem that’s about to smack him upside the head on November 2nd.  The problem is that the political positions taken by Reid appear to be at odds with his professed religious beliefs. And this is a problem for Reid because there are approximately 173,639 Mormons in Nevada, comprising about 6.7 of Nevada’s population. What’s more, Mormons tend to be devout voters – and the vast majority of them vote Republican. That 6.7 percent figure is larger than Angle’s percentage lead in the polls. Losing the Mormon vote could be disastrous for Reid. And Mormons have good reason to abandon Reid on November 2nd. After all, Reid isn’t exactly representing the views of those conservative Nevada Mormons.

This article presents both sides of the argument as to Reid’s political vs. religious beliefs – you be the judge as to where you think Reid’s true affection lies.

Official Mormon Church Position on Politics

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially maintains a position of neutrality when it comes to politics. Here is the church’s official statement on this subject:

The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

  • Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
  • Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
  • Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

  • Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
  • Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
  • Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
  • Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Reid’s Rock and a Hard Place

However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does hold doctrinal positions that are diametrically opposed to the political views held by Reid – which puts him in a position of having to choose between his religious beliefs and his political beliefs. Guess which way he goes when the chips are down? Right, politics wins every time with Reid. Let’s examine some of these issues that place Reid between a rock and a hard place.

In his defense, Reid will point to the following official statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.

Note that the Church says that members of the church who hold political office can make policy choices that are at odds with church doctrine. However, it makes no statement that such held political views transcend official church doctrine. In other words, Reid can hold liberal views on any subject he believes in – but that doesn’t mean the Church is going to change its doctrine to fall into line with the views of Reid. Reid is still on the hook doctrinally for advocating positions that go against the beliefs of the Church. Reid is free to hold opposing viewpoints, but take a guess what would happen, for instance, if he were to stand at the pulpit and give a religious speech in favor of unrestricted abortions? Yup, his Church leaders would be having a private chat with him for his allegedly apostate behavior.

So let’s take a look at some issues on which the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has spoken out and at the corresponding political positions of Reid.

Abortion

Church Position

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Reid’s Position

  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions
  • Voted YES to expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
  • Rated 50% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a mixed record on abortion.
  • Sponsored bill allowing emergency contraction

Analysis

It would appear that Reid is eligible under the rules of his Church for excommunication on the basis that he encourages abortion and has also sought to pay for abortions.

Self-Sufficiency

Church Position

Excerpt from a First Presidency Message published in 1986: Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare by Thomas S. Monson, who is now the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Work is basic to all we do. God’s first direction to Adam in the Garden of Eden as recorded in scripture was to dress the garden and take care of it. After the fall of Adam, God cursed the earth for Adam’s sake saying, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.” (Gen. 3:19.) Today, many have forgotten the value of work. Some falsely believe that the highest goal in life is to achieve a condition in which one no longer needs to work.

Let us hearken to the counsel given by President Stephen L Richards in 1939: “We have always dignified work and reproved idleness. Our books, our sermons, our leaders, including particularly our present President, have glorified industry. The busy hive of the honeybee Deseret—has been our emblem. Work with faith is a cardinal point of our theological doctrine, and our future state—our heaven—is envisioned in terms of eternal progression through constant labor.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1939, p. 65.)

Self-reliance is a product of our work and under-girds all other welfare practices. It is an essential element in our spiritual as well as our temporal well-being. Regarding this principle, President Marion G. Romney has said: “Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation in temporal as well as in spiritual things.” (In Welfare Services Meeting Report, 2 Oct. 1976, p. 13.)

President Spencer W. Kimball further taught concerning self-reliance: “The responsibility for each person’s social, emotional, spiritual, physical, or economic well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church if he is a faithful member thereof.

“No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able, will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else.” (Ensign, Nov. 1977, p. 77.)

President Thomas S. Monson

President Thomas S. Monson

Reid’s Position

Reid has presided over the largest expansion of the welfare state ever seen in the history of The United States of America. Reid championed ObamaCare through Congress and voted for nearly $ 1 Trillion in stimulus spending – which will have the effect of making our children and grandchildren unable to be self-reliant. Reid seeks to expand entitlements at every opportunity – making people reliant on the government for their sustenance, thereby removing from them the opportunity to work to support themselves and instead placing them on a public dole.

Personal Liberty and Freedom of Choice

Church Position

Elder D. Todd Christofferson

Excerpt from a talk given January 31, 2006 at Brigham Young University by Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

In years past we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect. More recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear in the scriptures. They talk of our being “free to choose” and “free to act” for ourselves (2 Nephi 2:27; 10:23; see also Helaman 14:30) and of our obligation to do many things of our own “free will” (D&C 58:27). But the word agency appears either by itself or with the modifier moral: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (D&C 101:78; emphasis added). When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

…The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency” (Moses 7:32).

Reid’s Position

The position of Harry Reid echoes that of the Democratic Party in general and Barack Hussein Obama in particular. Reid supports a vast expansion of government in order to enable the central planning and control long envisioned by the political left. Reid supports Obama’s appointments of “Czars” who have been appointed to take free will away from the people and replace that free will with federal degrees in all facets of life – all without Congressional oversight or approval.

Civil Discourse in Politics

Church Position

The Church expects “its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner…”

Reid’s Position

  • “My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway.  In the summer you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol, especially Christian conservatives. It’s true, they stink like hell.” – Harry Reid
Harry Reid gives an opponent the finger
Senator Harry Reid, in earlier times, displaying his typical civility in political discourse.
  • Reading in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sherman Frederick writes: “There are about 250,000 Hispanic voters in Nevada, about 50,000 of which register Republican. No telling how many Hispanic voters — Republican and Democrat — vote for the individual candidate and not a straight party ticket, like most Americans do. For Harry Reid to say that all Hispanics should then vote only for Democrats like himself is like calling a good cross section of Hispanic Nevadans little short of stupid.
    And lest we forget, polls show that Nevada voters (which include that Hispanic electorate) are on the verge of overwhelmingly voting into office the state’s first Hispanic governor, Brian Sandoval. A dreaded Republican. What is that — stupid squared?”
  • Reid said that Obama could be a successful presidential candidate because he is “light skinned” and that he speaks with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=255708117314

Civil discourse isn’t exactly Reid’s strong suit. Seems he doesn’t give much weight to the advice of his own church leaders.

Conclusion

Reid is appears to consistently be at odds with the doctrines of his own religion. This places him in the awkward position of having to refute allegations of hypocrisy. Which he is? Is he an orthodox Mormon who devoutly practices the teachings of his church? Or he is dedicated to the liberal, leftist, socialist, communist policies of the Democratic Party? There doesn’t appear to be much grey area in this matter. And it doesn’t appear that a devout Mormon can hold to both positions simultaneously. The church positions speak for themselves and appear to be closely aligned with the beliefs of the vast majority of conservatives and self-professed members of the Tea Party. Perhaps this is what gives Reid his dour countenance – he can’t reconcile his public socialist policy planks with the teachings of his own religion.

Which is it Harry? Do you support the theology and doctrines of your faith, or do you support the progressive policies of the Democratic Party?

As for the rest of us, we get to judge Reid via an easy parameter – “By their works ye shall know them.”

O’Donnell Bridges Gap with GOP Statewide Candidates; Urged Need for Republican Unity

WILMINGTON, DE – Christine O’Donnell, Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate today hosted a GOP Unity Reception for Delaware Republican candidates. Giving her endorsement and financial assistance to candidates, O’Donnell made the following statement:

“As we head into the home stretch of the election season, Delawareans have a stark choice. If voters think that they are sending too little money to Washington, Dover and local governments, then they should vote for the other ticket. If they think government is too small, spending is too restrained, and bureaucrats and politicians have too little control over their lives, then by all means, they should vote for the party that has been in charge for so long. If, however, Delaware voters know that they are already taxed too much, that government spending is recklessly out of control and that know-it-alls in Washington and state and local capitals have too much power over their lives, then it’s time to vote for Republicans up and down the ticket. We have the opportunity to rescue our country and our state from fiscal and Constitutional disaster. In November, Delawareans will stand for those First Principles that have made our nation so exceptional and will provide the next generation a legacy of strength and prosperity.”

Distinguished members of the community as well as O’Donnell supporters and volunteers also attended the lunch and reception.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- Only I’m Smart Enough to Invest in the Stock Market

Pembroke Pines, FL, Oct 6, 2010 – It is no secret that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of the most fiercely partisan liberal ideologues in Congress.  But now she has earned yet another not-so-meritorious distinction- hypocritical elitist.

In case you haven’t heard, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz believes that only she knows what is best for her constituents, and it’s evident that she thinks people are simply not smart enough to make their own decisions about what is in their own best interests- even when it comes to their own personal investments.

During a recent televised appearance on CNN, Debbie lectured a national audience that, “Investing in the stock market is a risky gamble.  It’s certainly not good for senior citizens or for the next generation to preserve Social Security.”

But it turns out Debbie doesn’t even listen to her own advice.

From the Daily Caller (9/30):

On the other hand, it seems Wasserman-Schultz may need to heed her own warnings. According to her most recent financial disclosure form, Wasserman-Schultz may be, if she believes what she told viewers of CNN, gambling with the twilight of her life.

In 2009, two years into the financial crisis, Wasserman-Schultz and her husband Paul purchased between $25,011 and $200,000 in mutual fund investments in retirement accounts.

Wasserman-Schultz also owns between $100,001 and $250,000 in common shares for the Community Bank of Broward, where her husband works.

“Hypocritical statements such as these are proof positive that politicians such as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz do not have a very high opinion of their constituents’ own ability to think for themselves,” said Karen Harrington, candidate for Congress in Florida’s 20th District.  “It’s clear that Debbie thinks her constituents are the equivalent of helpless children who cannot cope without her guidance and are incapable of making their own investment decisions or managing their own money. Unfortunately, our present leaders in Congress view themselves as a ruling class of elites, and no longer as public servants.  Debbie is certainly more comfortable lecturing everyone else what to do rather than allowing people to have the same choices and opportunities that she has at her disposal.  Hypocritical posturing that is this egregious should make people question whether Debbie ever believes her own rhetoric about this or any other important issue that Americans are facing today,” said Harrington.