Tight Credit

All Mr. Paulson can talk about is loosening up credit so the spending will begin again. Is he spending our National Treasure for the hope that banks will once again start loaning to credit unworthy people? Our banks just went through the ordeal of loaning to credit unworthy people. It was the banks and other financial institutions that were bankrolling the economy with those loans. Money is not free, but those in Washington seem to think it is.

Now, after the government insisted on making bad loans, here comes Paulson and Bernanke insisting that the taxpayers pick up the tab. This bailout is more for the politicians that were behind the push for loans to unqualified borrowers.

If the taxpayers have to pull the financial institutions fat out of the fire, so be it, but the politicians that got us into this mess have to go. We all know who they are. It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Barack Obama, and a few other Democrats who were pushing and encouraging the lending institutions to make bad loans. For us to be out this much money because of them, they need the boot. Congress will certainly be better off without them.

I'm not sure what we do about Jimmy Carter. His poor presidency left the far reaching tentacles that has wrecked this economy. One of the worst was the Community Reinvestment Act. That was what gave the Congress the authority to force the banks into making bad loans to poor and minorities. Carter did so many stupid things like signing over the Panama Canal, and selling the Shah of Iran down the river. After the Ayatollah took our embassy people prisoner, Carter even managed to bungle their rescue. What a disgrace for a President.

We are already the world's biggest debtor nation. One of my readers asked, "What is wrong with the Government printing more money if they need it?" Well, money is sort of like soup. If you keep watering it to make it stretch further, you will soon reach the point where you wind up with more water than soup. Printing more money just devalues the money already in circulation. After diluting the money supply, everybody now needs more money to live because the money is worth less. Ahh, inflation, just what this economy needs. And inflation is what we will get if Paulson, Bernanke, the Congress, and Obama continue to carry out the bailout plans.

Personally, I want the banks to be more judicious with the money they loan. We don't need to be giving banks a pile of money to just give away because we need people to spend more. Good business practices will bring us out of the recession faster than all of the give-away programs that our leaders can dream up. Remember the rule of thumb, "Government programs never work as they are intended because they never have enough money." Government programs always turn into a 'sinkhole' for money. The more money you throw at it the deeper the hole gets.

Cheers,

-Robert

Where is the Outrage

Politicians and Wall Street are soaking the American worker and the passive trusting Americans just sit on their hands all meek and mild without a peep.

Democrats overstepped the boundaries of good stewardship of our economy by forcing lending institutions to loan to high credit risk borrowers. These ill-advised loans caused a market collapse that reached around the world. And what does the passive American voter do? He rewarded those who committed the greatest theft of the American treasury since our founding with a great election victory. How convoluted is that?

All the talk is about the big three automakers bailouts. Well, do these businesses need help? Yes, but not until they change their business model, the business model at the present does not work and the big three will soon be in the same shape they are in now even with a bailout if the model doesn't change.

The big three automakers problems have nothing to do with the sub-prime mess. But the sub-prime mess is exacerbating their problems.

What is lost in all of the talk of a government rescue is the cost to the taxpayers. The government does not have money. When they print money without collecting it from the taxpayer, it just dilutes the value of everybody's money so the taxpayers are on the hook for it no matter what they do. And in addition to the proposed bailout money added to the debt load of Americans, they are already paying a high price for the folly of the Democrats and the greedy Wall Street crowd. They have paid with their 401K savings. Most 401K accounts are down between 30% - 40%. The lost amount is in the trillions. It makes one ask the question, "Where did all of that money go?"

Market forces account for most of the losses, but the dollars lost by saving Americans was real. If your 401K was worth $100,000 at the first of the year is now only worth $60,000 now. That person has suffered a real loss. And now the government is adding to that misery with trillions in bailouts. Assuming a national population of 600 million people with a workforce of 200 million people, we can easily calculate the cost per worker with the 700 Billion dollar bailout passed by the congress. Dividing the 700 Billion dollars by 200 million workers comes to $3,500/worker. If the bailouts continue, the cost per taxpaying worker will be a lot higher. ---Still, there is no outrage!!

How hard is it to grasp that the Government has no income except that provided by the taxpayers. The Government produces nothing and can only redistribute the funds they collect from you. Obama is now talking about another 700 billion dollar stimulus. In real dollars, with the other recently provided bailout, it averages out to over $7,000/ worker. I will only amend that to say that the money will probably be borrowed and outright printed, but the American worker will still inherit the cost. The piper is hanging around out there and he will eventually collect his dues.

Already there are more government jobs than there are manufacturing jobs. The US treasury has only one place to acquire the money to pay these workers, and that is from the workers in the private sector. Should the government keep growing; the private sector will not be able to provide enough funds to maintain the system. Eventually, nationalization of private industry will have to occur. The government has to take over our industries and claim those profits for the burgeoning needs of those feeding at the government trough. And as the socialist movement squeezes the private sector out of the American scene, the American dream will die with it. The cycle will repeat someday as people get tired of the yoke of government burden. Again, they will cry out for freedom, and they will remember how Americans used to be free to make their own decisions. But in the meantime, we are allowing freedom to slip through our fingers.

The missing outrage from Americans makes the eventual loss of freedom possible. Ignorant passivity provides the fertile grounds for our spoiled masses to squander the great gift of freedom that we have enjoyed since our founding.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Sub Prime Loan Debacle

In 1983, Salomon Bros. and First Boston created a financial debt vehicle known as a CMO which is short for Collateralized Mortgage Obligation. This entity served us well until pressure on mortgage lenders from Congress to loan mortgage money to people who ordinarily would not qualify for such a loan. A CMO is a standalone entity collateralized by a group of mortgages. Investors buy bonds issued by the CMO that pay off according to the amount of risk that the investor wants to take. The higher risk bonds pay higher interest. The layers of different categories of risk are 'tranches'. Investors in the bonds include Investment institutions, Banks, and Thrifts. The bonds sold worldwide to investors. The marketing of these bonds became the vehicle for financing our housing market.

There was a time that these bonds were very attractive. They paid off handsomely to the investors. For this reason, the bonds sold far and wide even after so many loans to credit unworthy people. The housing boom was a very real staple of the American economy and there was broad enthusiasm for the bonds at all levels of risk. The enthusiasm for houses caused house builders to build at a frantic pace and the investors loved what was happening. The lenders wanted to put people in houses so bad that they created interest only and adjustable rate mortgage loans. A person could move into a new house with no money down, and a very low teaser rate to start with. The demand for new homes was so great that the average price for houses went up as much as 125% in some locations.

For a while, the outlook was rosy. But there were signs that the good times were ending. On several occasions, President Bush and others tried to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats rebuffed them.

When the bubble burst, it was like a snowball gathering steam as it rolls down the hill. The high risk borrowers started defaulting on their homes. Home values quit going up and it wasn't long before home values started to decline. To the investors, this was bad because with the decline of some of their income stream, their position went from happy to over leverage.

Leveraging may be new to some of you, so I will try to relate in common terms what it means. Every day we leverage our income by using credit cards and borrowing against our income. It is a method of increasing our purchasing power. As long as our income continues and we do not borrow more than we can afford, then we are able to maintain equilibrium. Losing our income for any reason makes our debt unmanageable, and we become over leveraged. Even though we may have lost our income to the most innocent situations, the loans we have made still have to be paid. Good management will always help in those situations such as maintaining enough money by saving to help bridge troubled times. However, saving is the exception rather than the rule.

Many people go into bankruptcy because of over leverage. Investment firms are no different. Investors are in the same boat as you would be if you lost your job. Investors had heavily leveraged those CMO securities, so when the securities started losing value, it wasn't long before the investors became over leveraged. Those bonds were the securities the investors used for borrowing, just as you would use your projected income for borrowing.

As stated above, the high-risk borrowers were at the crux of the problem. Not the least of considerations was the increased demand for housing from low income and minorities that formed part of the whole picture. Housing prices increased, and Congress increased the pressure on lenders to loan more to poor and minorities. So when the high-risk borrowers started defaulting on their loans, foreclosures started rising. At first, homebuilders had a hard time keeping up with demand, but as the empty houses due to foreclosures increased, the housing supply increased. Anytime there is more supply than demand, prices go down.

But that was only the start of the dominoes that were beginning to fall. Several borrowers, who bought houses on the prospect that the home values would go up, bought those homes with low teaser rates that would balloon after the teaser period. Then when the house value appreciated enough, they would refinance at a better rate. But instead of increasing in value, homes started losing value. Soon those borrowers with ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) and teaser rate loans found themselves saddled with more debt than the house was worth. Rather than try and pay for a piece of glass at diamond prices, they opted to accept the credit rating hit and default on the loan. Of course, the result was even more empty houses and further lowering of home prices.

The investment houses were by now in full panic. Over leveraged and securities losing value every day meant they were in trouble. Some of our largest banks and investment firms went bankrupt because they couldn't cover their debt.

Domestic firms were not the only ones to lose money because of those bonds. Banks and investment firms worldwide had invested in them. Bad experiences with CMO bonds made scrutinizing creditors fashionable again. Banks no longer trusted other banks with loans because they couldn't trust that the borrowing bank would still be in business when it was time to repay the loans. Credit became frozen starting the chain of events to restore confidence back into the system.

Because of the 'no money down', teaser rates, and ARM loans a large number of homeowners had bought homes with no personal financial stake in them. By March of 2008 an estimated 8.8 million homeowners — nearly 10.8% of total homeowners — had zero or negative equity, meaning their homes are worth less than their mortgage. This provided an incentive to "walk away" from the home, despite the credit rating impact.

In conclusion, all I can think of is thanks Democrats, your tinkering with the home markets for political gain has cost all of us dearly. Your refusal to allow us to develop our domestic energy supplies has severely crippled our economy. I would love to ask you, "Why are you so Hell bent on the destruction of this country?" By dumbing down the population with your stupid social tinkering, the electorate can't even make an informed decision when voting. You have nurtured the vitriol from the far left and let it fester to the point that just getting along with somebody with a different viewpoint is difficult. I just hope that I am not the only person who sees these things. It is my opinion that if things continue the way they are, nothing good will come of it.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Economy in Crisis

If you have been following my writings about the auto industry, federal bailouts, and the housing bubble, you learned that the housing bubble fueled our prosperity. The housing bubble was fueled by the Democrats insisting that housing loans be made available to unqualified borrowers.

The framework forced lenders into a box if they didn't loan to poor and minority borrowers. The framework of the Community Reinvestment Act threatened lenders who didn't loan to poor and minorities with license revocations, and denial of expansion or mergers.

(See yesterdays article at http://tilting-right.blogspot.com/2008/11/bail-outs )

Although you may not think about it, the housing bubble lifted all segments of the economy. In a previous article, I tried to illustrate just how wide and deep the tentacles of the housing bubble reached. The following is an excerpt of that article.

The economy blossoms with new home building. The construction trades are rewarded with good jobs, the Realty business is rewarded with increased sales, the local lending institutions prosper, demand for housing increases housing values, increased property values put more money into state and local coffers, the furniture and appliance people benefit from increased sales, and the home buyer gets to be the proud owner of a new home. Then there are the manufacturers who supply all of the goods that go into a new house - tools, lumber, appliances, furniture, brick, electrical wiring, and different cements and mortars. I might have left somebody out, but I hope you get the idea.

The demand for new housing helps just about everybody. The wheel of progress continues only if the people who buy the houses pay for them. Like all commodities, housing values depend on demand. When foreclosures become excessive, we get empty houses. Empty houses decrease in value as their numbers increase. The mortgage holders have invested in a house at market value, but now, that value has dropped so the mortgage holder is holding the bag for a home that is not worth the loan value originally made for the home.

Enter the people who financed the bubble. They are the investors who bought the CMO's (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) collateralized by those mortgage loans. You can read about CMO's here. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_mortgage_obligation

The investors were the people paying the bills for the economic expansion by investing in the securities created by bundling mortgages into CMO's. In effect, they were financing a large segment of our economy. Things went along great until those high risk borrowers started to default on their loans. Although the defaulters have a story to tell, they would not have been in the position they were in if not for the practices and enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act by the Democrats.

The refusal to develop our energy is akin to the other foot dropping on our economy. When oil prices reached $150.00/barrel, it shocked the whole economy. All of a sudden, it was more expensive to do everything. We already had high grocery prices stemming from the ethanol fuel derived from corn problem. And now the increase cost of energy exacerbated not only grocery cost but also gasoline, delivery of goods, electricity, and travel. The forecast of $200.00 oil scared auto buyers away from the showrooms of domestic autos. Feeling the pinch of higher fuel cost, the public stopped buying the things that keep our economy humming.

In conclusion, the bursting housing bubble created a surplus of available houses. The slower demand for houses weakened the prices for houses. Because the CMO's were collateralized by mortgages, those investors (the investors were the banks, thrifts, and most large financial institutions) were losing money causing bank failures. Along with the double whammy of high-energy costs, the economy sank.

Now here comes Obama with his ideas of higher taxes for the very people we depend on for jobs in a failing economy. He has stated that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and raise taxes on anybody making above $250,000. It was the proverbial straw for the markets, they just said phooey on the whole mess. They have been in a tailspin since his election and his subsequent statements.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Bail Outs

When the boat is sinking, the natural thing to do is bail out the water. In that case, you have a definition of exactly what is sinking the boat.

When the economy is sinking, there are the same instincts, to bail it out, but the definition of what is sinking the economy isn't so well defined.
It seems the problem(s) in the economy have either been misdiagnosed, or else it has become a political game of tail covering. At first, there was the stated emergency to buy up the illiquid mortgage assets. The 700+billion-dollar emergency bailout package finally cleared congress after enough pork was added to it to buy the votes. Since the act was passed on October 4, 2008, Paulson has now decided to not buy up the illiquid assets.

The fact is I don't believe he even knows what needs bailing. His indecision and lack of planning is causing havoc in the markets. Right now, the boat is listing, he has lost an oar, and his bucket has a hole in it.

The democrats are trying to figure a way out of the mess that keeps them from getting the blame, but the history of this mess has a trail that does not let them off the hook. They are the proud Pa Pa of this saga and trying to obfuscate and otherwise muddy the waters does not make them any less culpable.

Jimmy Carter encouraged loans to ineligible borrowers with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. There is no doubt that the act had the best of intentions, but Carter's poor judgment and failure to consider the consequences turned it into a National nightmare. Like all Liberals, you have to judge them by their intentions rather than results.

As you read the following text, keep in mind the Democrats such as Barney Frank declared in 2003 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. But his personal relationship with an executive at Fannie Mae may have been clouding his vision. The Democrats have also been on the receiving end of political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those institutions were essentially a piggy bank for Democrat politicians. But their heart was in the right place, they only wanted housing for their minority and poor voters. (As long as the taxpayer was going to have to pay for it.) Understand that there are numerous proposals out there to help this group stay in their homes. The Democrats portray this demographic as victims. Just ordinary folks who were taken advantage of by the mean old predatory lenders. The following text gives the picture of how preferential treatment for this demographic has put us so far behind the eight-ball.

In order that you can judge for yourself, I have copied some of the pertinent passages from Wikipedia about the Community Reinvestment Act and its progress through the years. To read the full text, follow the link provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

A Brief Description of --The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act was intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against such neighborhoods, a practice known as 'redlining'. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

Enforcement:
CRA mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by the relevant banking regulatory agencies to determine if the institution has met the credit needs of its entire community in a manner consistent with safe and sound operations. The CRA does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, the law directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. The law also does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution; instead the law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner. There are no specific penalties for non-compliance with the CRA, unless there is found to be a violation Equal Credit Opportunity Act. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching.

The same federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance. These agencies are the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) coordinates inter-agency information about the CRA. Information about the CRA ratings of individual banking institutions from the four responsible agencies (Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC and OTS), is publicly available from the website of the FFIEC. These ratings were first made available by the Clinton administration to enable public participation and public comment on CRA performance. In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.

CRA regulations give community groups the right to comment on or protest about banks' non-compliance with CRA, including by alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Such comments could help or hinder banks' planned expansions. Groups at first only slowly took advantage of these rights. Regulatory changes during the Clinton administration allowed these community groups better access to CRA information and enabled them to increase their activities.

The Critics:
In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would "distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit."

Later Developments:
In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "My Community Mortgage" loans. In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion. In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.

I hope that by reading the chronology of the events since 1977 gives you a better understanding of the problems in Washington. The bureaucrats held a big club over the lending institutions heads which led to even more shaky loans. The political payback to the minority community has created a crisis both here at home and abroad. As stated in a previous column, everybody was dancing, but the fiddler was guarding the door, and he and the piper were going to hold everybody hostage until they got paid. A lot of people and institutions bought those mortgage backed securities that were financing everything. But now, it is time to pay for our reckless abandon. I just hope that you understand why it happened.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Christianity Under Attack

Obvious attempts from the left to destroy Christianity are everywhere. Holiday has replaced Christmas, the Easter Bunny has been renamed 'Peter Rabbit' among other secular names, TV programs challenge the veracity of the Bible, and the judicial branch declares prayer out of bounds at school, and as a result of this onslaught, our society is fragmenting.

It seems that everyone wants to get in on the act of Bible bashing with little regard for the consequences of their actions. A friend of mine is all too happy to point out apparent errors he finds in the Bible as proof positive that it is a fraudulent book. "Where did Cain's wife come from?" "The Earth is older than what is related in the Bible." "The book of Daniel finds that the author knew more about the future than the supposed present, raising the question if the writer was writing in the time he was referring to as the future." These are just a few of the many, many statements and questions I hear from the skeptics about the Bible.

Certainly, this article cannot answer the analytical questions perceived by readers of the Bible, but I do want to offer a few caveats about seeking to destroy the beliefs of others.

A society is a little like a crowd at a football game. At any game, there is the home crowd and the visiting crowd. In the case of the football fans, common support for their team unites them. The more victories their team has, the more enthusiastic and larger the crowd. But if the victories wane, and losing becomes regular, the crowds diminish along with support for the team. The same people who united in support of their team become disillusioned and less interested in going to the games.

There is a parallel to our American Society and the football crowds. There was a time when our faith bonded us together, but now we are enduring upsets. The crowd is thinning and that feeling of belonging to an American brotherhood, united and defiant has lost its luster. The American Society has been under assault for a long time now. One of the first dominoes to fall was the prayer in school defeat in the Supreme Court. Madalyn Murray O'Hair an atheist, best known for the lawsuit Murray v. Curlett which led to the landmark Supreme Court ruling that ended the practice of daily prayer in American public schools. That Supreme Court ruling drove a dagger into the heart of Christianity. The very Liberal Warren Court made that decision.

Another Supreme Court ruling that intruded upon Christianity was Roe v. Wade. That ruling legalized abortion and devalued human life. And now, Liberal courts in several states have defiled marriage by ruling that a union between people of the same gender constitute a marriage. Defeat after defeat has left the Christian community reeling. It seems like this society is in a mad long dash to destroy itself.

I want to remind the Christian readers of this piece that your religion is not an analytical entity. It is an institution built on faith. I cannot begin to understand the motives of those who would tear down societies bond but the question arises, what do they want? Do they reject the premise of a right and wrong? Do they want to be free of the shackles of conscience so they can live a disgusting lifestyle? Do they want a fragmented, divided society to destroy it? The end game eludes me as to why anybody would want to declare war against Christianity.

Abortion is responsible for the destruction of millions of babies. What is that all about? A person steeped in conspiracy ideas could make the connection between a reduced White population and his influence at the ballot box. A popular conspiracy theory is that abortion is a way to do two things, reduce the White population, and keep the Black population under control. I don't want you to think that I am espousing the idea, but from others, they believe it. It is all part of the confusion and disbelief about what is transpiring in this country.

But take heart Christians, our detractors cannot win this war. Every person has in his heart a spiritual side that seeks deliverance. No burden is as heavy as the one that accumulates from not being able to give that burden to our Savior. Without help from Jesus our Lord, we become pitiful and wretched. Our lives deteriorate into so much turmoil that the turmoil keeps us from having any lasting peace. There is a right and a wrong, evil and good, and a salvation and expulsion. We all have to choose our paths. The Bible just makes it easier to recognize which paths we should take. Human behavior has already explored all paths. Some are good and some are not, but the Bible makes it a lot easier to discern the good ones.

So don't embrace discrepancies in the Bible as your excuse to venture down paths that lead to turmoil. Understand, that Christian faith is not a science it is faith. God wants to be beside you, so make a little room for Him.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Tom Adkins' White Guilt is Dead

Originally written by Tom Adkins on his web site, this is his proclamation ending White guilt in America. I usually don't pass on emails that I receive but this one was well written and powerful. I agree with some of his points and neutral on others. But you can't read this without being moved. I too believe that it is time for Blacks to quit hiding behind the guilt of Whites. I want them to stand on their hind legs without the crutch of handouts and sympathy. For too long, Liberals have held Blacks back using race-baiting and fomenting mistrust between the races for their political benefit. It is time for Blacks to show what they can do and how high they can reach. We now know that even such lofty goals as the dream to be President, regardless of skin color can come true.

More of Tom Adkins can be read here.
http://www.commonconservative.com/

WHITE GUILT IS DEAD By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me, I'm virtually euphoric! Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America's flirtation with neo socialism. But, there is a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency.

For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America: The Era of White Guilt is over! This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. He wasn't just any black man, but a very liberal black man. He spent his early career race hustling banks, praying for 20 years in a racist church, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, as retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain. So today, I'm feeling a little uppity, if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright 's "God Damn America ", Al Sharpton 's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. End all those "Black studies" programs that teach kids to hate whitey. You must now thank whitey. And the final Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead, I ' m waiting Gangsta rappers. Start praising America. Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please - no more Ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid!

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America, I ' m still waiting for the first black French President. And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. --So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin ' butt on the couch and complain, "Da Man is keepin' me down." Allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses. No more quotas, no more handouts, no more stealing my money because someone 's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile. It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60's ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping and dope smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop killing. Careful don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. Race hustling is filthy.

In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and then elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by its own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism! So, listen carefully - Wham!!! That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of White guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried. However, despite my glee, there 's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.

Well Said,
Cheers,

-Robert-

Broke American Auto-Makers

How can it be that in America where we developed the auto, and made it possible for everyone to own one is now on the verge of bankruptcy?

When a car manufacturer builds a car, it has a manufacturing cost. If that car manufacturer's cost for manufacturing exceeds the costs of his competitors, then his competitors can offer more value for the same money.

Auto manufacturers such as Ford and G.M. try to mitigate their circumstances with smart engineering to reduce their product costs. But even good engineering can only help so much. Labor makes up a large percentage of the manufacturing costs, but pales in comparison to the cost of legacy medical, government edicts, and labor rules that keep non-producing people on the payroll even when they are not working.

A manufacturer may even resort to cutting corners by outsourcing, and failing to correct defects before they start selling the vehicle. In this last year, G.M. sought to buy the medical agreements with a onetime payment to eligible employees. However, the effort did not go far enough as the production cost of every G.M. auto produced has an added premium of about $1600.00 per car just to pay the legacy medical costs of retirees. Of course, there are other costs such as having to keep non-productive employees on the payroll.

The big three automakers agreed to all of the labor terms including retiree medical benefits. But now, the automakers face bankruptcy or a bailout from the Government (read taxpayers). The legacy agreements signed during the good times are not sustainable under present conditions.
The proposed bailout does nothing to correct the inherent problems with the manufacturing costs for the big three automakers. What happens when that money runs out? If the automaker can't make a profit, there is no reason to be in business. Democrats and the unions see the automakers as their property and have been doing everything possible to make sure that the real owners, the stockholders, do not profit from the enterprise.

The three American automakers have no problem manufacturing cars that the buying public wants. But the Democrats have their own ideas about what kind of cars to make. The manmade global warming hoax has given the Democrats the perfect framework to take over the industry. Because the automakers are in such bad shape, the Congress (Democrats) can now dictate the terms for which they will grant the bail out. There is a bonus for the Democrats as it also keeps the unions propped up.

The Socialist model always ignores demand for a product. That is why they mandate things like quotas, size, and type. That business model always fails, and history is full of examples of those failures. Democrats would sacrifice our way of life for their ideas of how we should live, the size and type car we drive, how much we can make before taxing our excess, and legislating from the bench whatever hits their fancy. I.e. abortion, same sex marriage, open borders, and abandoning any restrictions on right and wrong are just a few examples where they want to take this country. If we give in and allow the bailout of our industrial base, then we have surely lost the battle for freedom.

Bankruptcy isn't such a bad word. Assume that the auto industry goes bankrupt. That gives them the chance to reorganize and reconstitute themselves into an entity that might be profitable. The proposed bailout is no more than a gift to the auto unions. It is time to rectify bad decisions from years gone by. It would not be the end of the world, and the result might even surprise us by creating a profitable, resurgent industry.

SAY NO TO Bailouts!!! Let the chips fall where they may, even if they fall on bad management.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Liberalism Unmasked

The political difference between now and the late 1800's through early 1900's is the emergence of modern Liberalism and Conservatism.

Even the definitions are not without controversy, but to make any assessment, there has to be at least a doctrinal position for the two viewpoints. This article does not explore the ancient arguments, which have been in existence for hundreds of years. Confucian adherents from Old China could not decide whether the profit motive was good or bad. There have been adherents to both sides throughout human history, but I will stick to the near past and present for this presentation.

Capitalism
A derivative of the mercantile system adapted from the Muslims. Secular in nature, whereby the individual can freely participate in owning, producing, and trading goods for the purpose of profit.

Conservatism
Modern Conservatism is not to be confused with the older label of being a Conservative. Earlier definitions of a Conservative bore a close relationship to the negative connotations of a Capitalist. There were a lot of people before modern Conservatism who wore the Conservative label only because they favored a weaker central government. Modern Conservatism is a derivative of the creation of a broad middle-class after World War II. Today's Conservatives are 'capitalist with a conscience'. Today’s Conservatism has largely replaced the earlier capitalist secular model.

Liberalism
Modern day liberalism is also an offshoot of the capitalist system. Capitalism in the late 1800's and early 1900's, produced one of the harshest and greediest eras in the United States and abroad. The capitalist system was brutal to its workers, while the 'Capitalists' grew in power and wealth. Sympathy for employees grew and gradually turned into outrage over their working conditions. The wide gulf between the haves and have-nots was no longer supportable. The United States passed laws to govern the treatment of wage earners, and last but not least, trade unions were born to represent the workers giving them a voice in their employment. Liberalism has its roots in this period.

Empowering the struggling hard workingmen and women in this society proved to be very beneficial. There were a lot of positive developments that came from the better treatment of wage earners. They became consumers, which helped everybody. The increase in commerce created new jobs and a true middleclass was established. Optimism about the future of this country was high. Up until and through the 1950's, hard work was considered the way to achieve life's goals.

The softening of Capitalism with liberalism was a good thing. Too much of a good thing however, is disastrous. The old saying, “If a little does a little good, then a lot should do a lot of good”, does not apply to liberalism. Too much control stifles a society as Americans were beginning to realize. Politically, the people that benefited from the softening of Capitalism now wanted to protect their newfound middle class status. A lot of them changed loyalty from Democratic to Republican for protection against the increasing taxation they were experiencing.


The Heavy Price of Liberalism
Lyndon Johnson gave us "The Great Society" and the "War on Poverty". The massive transfers of wealth mandated by these programs solved nothing. In the wake of these two colossal programs, a gigantic welfare system took root. This new welfare system demeaned a whole segment of our population. Those trapped in the welfare system shifted from people who were self sufficient and confident to one of dependency on the meager handouts from the U.S. Government.

The Black Female ascended to the role of 'breadwinner' (with her welfare check) and in the process that followed created a new paradigm for the Black culture. Now, instead of being the breadwinner, the Black males turned to hustling the females for money. The females received an increase in benefits if they had more children. Having babies was the key that unlocked the door to the treasury, and it didn’t take long for the intended benefactors of these programs to latch on to this added benefit. The young Black girls used this as a key for getting away from home and be independent. All they needed to do was to become a single parent and they too became eligible for Federal Benefits.

These welfare programs did accomplish one thing; they solidified the Black vote for Democrats. Voter loyalty by the Black population is very important to the Democrats. The Democratic Party had been losing voters and in danger of losing the plurality, they once enjoyed. Liberals cannot win without victims, and the ‘Great Society’ and the ‘War on Poverty’ delivered. Note -- money wasn't the only reason for Black Support. Providing the excuse of discrimination also enabled victim status. Discrimination became the by-word of the day. All of a sudden, discrimination explained away all of the problems within the Black community. When Blacks looked around, poverty was everywhere. The Democrats quickly planted the notion in Blacks that discrimination was the only reason for that poverty, and they (The Democrats) were the only party to correct that injustice.

The Democrats (liberals) carefully crafted their welfare programs to keep the Black population from succeeding. The list of the controls is long, but chief among them was the watering down of the school curriculum. By not challenging these young minds and stifling their education, the Democrats were making sure that the minority would not achieve any general success. Just for the sake of those whose memories are short I will relate some of the tactics used in education.

Tactics Used to Prevent Black Success:

1. Students would no longer be retained in grade if they failed.
2. Diplomas were handed out regardless of achievement.
3. Schools were rewarded for attendance rather than quality of product.
4. The parents’ no longer had a say about the curriculum. (The liberal sociologists were in control.)
5. Students lost the ability to attend neighborhood schools. (Further isolating parents.)

Parents are now blamed for the lack of education of our kids. It is a little ironic after schools made such an attempt to isolate parents from the process.

These efforts resulted in what we see with today’s problematic public school system. The Black dropout rate is very high.

Fostering resentment against the White majority was also one of the tactics employed by the Democrats. The success of the Democrat’s plan to keep a modicum of hostility by the Black population against the White population is an overwhelming success. Meanwhile, the Democrats maintain an appearance of fighting against the ‘White Establishment’ on behalf of the Black minority. It is a sick arrangement aided by the so-called Black leaders who have found profitability in maintaining this illusion

The Secular Left
Liberals tend to be more secular, disdaining religion or code of right or wrong. They would govern all human activity from a strong central government. Only those in government would wield any power. They would maintain order in a similar way as modern totalitarian states. You can interpret maintaining social order to say, “A strong police force.” The liberal hierarchy is an an elite group who would not deign to live as an ordinary citizen, but rather as someone above the fray.

Liberalism thrives by encouraging the indigents and Blacks into blaming others for their lack of success. Liberals portray themselves, as saviors of the 'downtrodden,' but in reality, keeping the downtrodden down is the goal of liberals. Liberals cannot remain in power without victims. The elite classes of Liberals can remain on their lofty perch only with the democratic support of those who see Democrats as their ticket to Nirvana. That is why liberals employ another of their tactics, 'class warfare'.

Class warfare helps the liberal cause by creating the illusion of being a champion against those who are 'mean spirited' and successful. Liberal followers think that those who are successful get that way at their expense. Another myth created by Liberals is that most of the successful people are lazy bums who inherited their wealth. They don't deserve it. That wealth should be distributed!

Liberals must prevent the poor from attaining success. Liberals are well aware of the past. They know what happens to political loyalties if people succeed. Maintaining victims as victims is the only way that liberals can keep their political power.

Since the liberal establishment is working to prevent their constituency from succeeding, they define happiness in other ways. One of the obstacles that get in the way is religion. Religion teaches a strict code of right and wrong, also personal responsibility. Why is religion an obstacle to liberalism? In a word, sex. Not that sex is something new, but with religion out of the way, and with abortion on the ready to cure any accidents, there is no reason to not just enjoy sex in any flavor that suits you. Without religion or the fear of pregnancy, who is to say that indiscriminate sex is bad? By destroying the global principles of right and wrong, liberals calculate that you as a people would rather sin than succeed. And logically it follows, if your life is one distraction after the next, you aren't going to be able to succeed. Liberals see God as a competitor. The ruling Liberal elites cannot tolerate any leadership other than their own.

Blame Somebody
If you are a Liberal, then blame your lack of success on those who are successful. After all, your lack of success can’t be your fault. Exalt and hold high those who would extort your loyalty at the price of your freedom. But for me, Freedom is better than Liberalism. I would rather be poor and free than poor and dependent on others.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Good Losers

There is one thing you could count on after the election of Barack Obama, the good sportsmanship of Republicans. Republicans everywhere are singing the well wishes for Obama. After all, an orderly transfer of power is the hallmark of a Democracy.

Contrast the behavior of the Republicans to that of the Democrats. James Carvel predicted riots if Obama didn't win. But he was not alone. Several cities geared up for riots just in case of a McCain upset. The Left has made no effort to quell the vitriol emanating from their supporters. Democrat leaders allow the incendiary language that fans the flames of an ignorant base to fester and grow. The loud voices on the left changed from noisy opposition to outright hate speech.

How did we get to this point? A significant part of what has changed the landscape was the 2000 election of George Bush. The left was all too eager to promote the notion that Bush stole that election. Al Gore could have helped, but he was bitter and didn't even want to help. The political noise resonated with Al Gore and soothed his bitterness. He made no effort to put an end to the ever-shriller voices from the left.

I have friends on the left. They relish and believe everything they hear that is negative about Bush or the Republicans. It is even painful to visit with them, especially when the subject of politics comes up. How in the world do you convince anybody that George Bush wasn't responsible for the World Trade Center collapse? Logic is out of the question because they want/need George Bush to be a villain. I used to think that somewhere deep down that they know the truth; it is just not in their psyche to accept it. I have great respect for our friendship and I love these friends dearly, but understanding their politics is tough.

For better or worse, my sense of logic dictates to me my outlook on just about everything. My mind is always open, and if proven wrong, I accept the new possibility as something to build on. However, if I haven't been convinced of being wrong, I will defend my position. In the case of my friends, I accept the fact that we are at loggerheads and will never convince each other of our points of view respectively. Bitterness is for others.

Sometimes what I write, I write out of frustration for what is happening in this world. For instance, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is such a topic. It is a hoax but the idea has grown into a life of its own. There is so much political and moneyed interest in keeping this hoax alive that only the harsh realities of the coming winter will help move the discussion back to reality.

So many issues are the machinations of the far left, not to every day Democrats, but the far-left that wishes to harm this Nation. I come from a family of Democrats and can tell you that they have no notion, not even the slightest notion of putting this nation in jeopardy. My family members have the Democratic brand indelibly stenciled to them and that voting for any other party would be anathema to them. They are so blissfully unaware of the dangers posed by the far left that has taken control of what they still think of as their party of choice and tradition, that they are blind to any thought to the contrary.

The thought that I want to leave with you is for you to think about what transpired in this election.

1. There are real concerns about the citizenship of Barack Obama. The concern is, does he meet the constitutional requirements to be President.


2. There were huge issues of voter fraud.


3. Barack Obama raised dollars in the hundreds of millions. Most of which cannot be traced. Remember, any donation of less than $200 does not have to be traceable.


4. The Democrats hinted at riots if Obama lost.


5. John McCain ran a lousy campaign.


6. The left savaged McCain's running mate and her family.


7. The vaunted free press gave Obama a pass.


8. A large percentage of voters voted for skin color rather than issues.


9. For the first time in our history, the general population has voted to relinquish their self-reliance in favor of Governmental control.


10. The Electorate has just rewarded the party responsible for the nation's financial crisis with control of the Government.
    

Yet, through it all, not a peep out of the Republicans who have just had their clocks cleaned.

Ahh-the peaceful transfer of power!

Cheers,

-Robert-

Trashing Sarah Palin

If you are alive, then you know them too. They are those trusted co-workers that just can't wait to put a knife in your back. It seems like there is always that certain individual who proves to be an unloyal co-worker. For reasons of resentment towards you or other motives, this individual wants to harm you and your reputation.

Remember the old saying, "If I can make you look bad, it makes me look like a hero." In the world of politics, there are a lot of 'heroes'. Whether it is for attention from the press or just mean spirited, character assassins abound. The old saying, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer," does not apply in the case of Sarah Palin.

Part of the make-up of Mid-Westerners is having trust in someone until they give you a reason to not trust them. The latest salvo disparaging Sarah Palin after the election came from within the campaign staff. This same staff sandbagged Sarah into thinking that she had a phone call from the French President. The question is who benefits from trashing Sarah?

Evidently, someone wants to destroy Sarah's prospects from being a candidate again. Who can that be? Only two people come to mind at the present. Obama may want to degrade her possibilities as a candidate in 2012, or maybe Hillary Clinton has her eyes on another run in 2012. Whoever is responsible for trashing her has to be motivated out of fear of any plans that Sarah may have. One of her biggest obstacles is the 'inexperience' label. Without Washington experience, the press would devastate her, so she might run for Senator and use that office as a springboard to the 2012 campaign, a la Barack Obama.

It is plainly evident that somebody doesn't want to have to contend with her in some future election or there would be no need to trash Sarah now with the election over. What that possible opponent is overlooking is Sarah's toughness. Sarah Palin has demonstrated her metal throughout this campaign. It will take more than a 'wardrobe flap' and petty allegations to diminish the good will she has established with conservatives.

Although she is a professional politician now, it wasn't always so. Her career did not start out as an Ivy Leaguer with lofty ambitions. No, her political career started out as a concerned citizen over a newly enacted sales tax in Wasilla. She ran for city council out of fear that the city would waste the money. Nothing about her political beginnings even hinted that she had lofty political ambitions.

Sarah Palin is one of those rare individuals who believes she can make a difference in this world of avarice and greed. Standing for the good and decency is always a struggle when you faced against those who seek to justify their disgusting lifestyles. Only the Democratic Party puts the welcome mat out and gives voice to these misfits. Any political party that legitimizes these groups is repulsive to me. Instead of making improvements to the fabric of our society, Liberals are doing everything they can to tear us down, all for political power. The further down the road to depravity we go, the worse off this nation becomes.

At the risk of sounding like a Palin sycophant, I say hang in there Sarah; better days are ahead for you and by extension, all of us.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Straight Party Ballot Option

It is time to put an end to the option for voting by marking the 'Straight Party' option on the ballot. The option is grossly unfair to the candidates on the under card. Usually, the local candidates are not party centric and the Straight Party vote denies them the courtesy of a fair chance of receiving a vote based on their qualifications. Make no mistake, the Single Party vote is just that, a vote for a Party rather than the candidate. The Single Party vote option takes advantage of peoples natural tendencies to not want to look at the lower card races and mark the Party option with no further thought as to who actually makes up the under card.

Voting on under card races should be with deliberate action on the part of the voter and not as a residue from the main high-profile upper card.

The one-vote-for-all option unseats a lot of good candidates and prevents a lot of good candidates from winning an election. Utilizing the Single Party option on a ballot is another way of co-opting your vote. Personally, I don't consider Party when I vote for some of the under card races. Races such as the local Constable, Precinct Chairpersons, School Superintendents, and tax-assessor do not cross my radar as being politically partisan positions. Most of the local people who get on the ballot do so because they want to either improve a situation or get approval for the job they have done as an office holder.

Along comes a voter who is just interested in the main race, usually a state or national office, with no concern for the under card races. When he chooses the single party option, he has hurt the whole under card. It would be better for those voters to only vote the main races and leave the under card alone. It is very disconcerting to have people casting votes blindly for people in races that they know nothing about.

It only takes a minute to go through a ballot and vote for the races and propositions that you want. If you know nothing about a race then you should do the decent thing and leave it blank. Most local newspapers print a ballot days ahead of an election. Copies are available to most citizens at various places. This is the time to pick and choose for whom and what you want to vote. This is the time to learn about the races you don't understand, and the candidates you don't recognize. By arming yourself with a little information, you can make an informed decision about which races you want to support with your vote.

It is a matter of fairness to those candidates on the under card. Help promote abolishing the Straight Party choice on a ballot.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Obama! Obama! Obama!

America has spoken! No, not my choice, but you have to respect the decision by such an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Emotionally drained is how I would describe myself after witnessing such a loss for Conservatives. However, I do wish Barack Obama well and can only hope that he is not the harbinger of the end of individualism.

There is also a modicum of anger whenever I look back on how Conservatives got in this position. George W. Bush held the key to preventing this loss but refused to put the key into the lock when it was important to do so. Bush, like McCain, stubbornly held onto the notion of accommodating the Liberals and therefore refused to take a leadership role. He allowed the left's rhetoric to go unchecked ad-nausea without so much as a peep in his own defense. Bush was so intent on that crazy idea of 'cooperating' and 'getting along' with the Left, that he forgot that he was supposed to lead. Bush had the bully pulpit of the presidency and failed to use it.

It is no wonder that this election was a referendum on Bush. Americans wanted change from the status quo. But more than anything, they wanted leadership. Barack Obama stepped up to the plate with positive ideas that galvanized the people to his way of thinking. He offered them leadership and a new direction.

The day before the election:

It is getting harder to ignore the huge crowds at the Obama rallies. The enthusiasm and size of the throngs that flock to his campaign stops do not bode well for McCain. Grudgingly I have to concede that the polls are probably correct and that Obama will indeed be our next President. I hear the carping from the right about McCain not being conservative enough, and maybe they are right.

Wednesday will be a day for finger pointing among the Republicans unless there is a miracle tomorrow. My finger pointing started months ago when it became obvious that McCain would be the standard-bearer for the Republicans. Even in those earliest days, I detected that the American people wanted a decisive leader and not another compromising continuation of the status quo. McCain offers nothing new except Sarah Palin, but even she cannot pull off the impossible.

One of my fingers points to a totally ignorant Republican read on Obama. Republicans missed the fact that Obama is a true believer in the 'bottom-up' economy. The bottom up economy is the cornerstone for every promise to the middle and lower economical groups. He will cut their taxes. No other model exists for that style of economy to succeed. The middle and lower economical groups will be the spenders to initiate commercial activity. The upper income groups and the Federal Government will share in the rewards for this commercial activity. The Federal Government will harvest its share from the businesses and upper income groups and repackage that money into governmental projects and distribution back to the lower income groups. By recycling the money back to the lower income groups, the cycle will continue.

I have no doubts that the scheme won't work for a while, but it runs out of steam after a while. For beginners, there has to be an income level that divides the taxpayers from the non-tax payers. Arbitrarily, Obama has set this amount at $250,000. All income earned up to that magic number would be relatively free of Federal income taxes. (But everyone will still have to pony up property and state taxes.) For those making above the magic income number, after the Bush tax cuts expire, the taxes are progressive up to about 40% of income. But the tax scheme is only getting started for the upper income groups and corporations. Capital gains taxes are projected to rise to 28% (From O'Reilly interview with Obama), while corporate taxes are expected to rise above the 40% range.

The demands of the bottoms up economy will exhaust the creativity of entrepreneurs and soon the jobless rate will start inching upwards. The loss of jobs creates the most havoc with the bottoms up economy. As more people lose their incomes, the Federal Government comes under stress for jobless benefits. This will trigger a lowering of the magic income number in an attempt to increase revenues.

Capping the rewards for a person willing to take a business risk only serves to discourage that person. There is no point in growing a business just to pay more taxes. Job growth will suffer from the effects of a bottoms up economy.

It is sad that John McCain hasn't been making the case against Obama's insane proposal, but then his whole campaign hasn't made much sense.

So it is with a sense of foreboding that I await tomorrow's anticipated fiasco.

Cheers, (I think)

-Robert-

Does Obama Have Friends?

No, not political acquaintances and sycophants, but I mean those whom Obama thinks of as a family friend. Everybody has acquaintances, but they also have friends. A friend is someone with whom you have shared experiences. A friend is someone who comes over to watch a sports-event with you. A friend is that special person with whom you socialize. A friend is that person who will help when the occasion arises.

Have you heard a name of any close pal or friend of Obama? We have all heard the names of those acquaintances like Reverend Wright and such, but to my knowledge, no names have surfaced to identify a real friend of Obama. Knowing the people a person calls 'friend' says a lot about that person and his or her judgment. And so does a person who does not have close friends. A man without close friends has nobody to stand up and be a supporter for the man. The only testimony you hear for Obama is political cronies with selfish reasons to give their support.

I would be very interested to know if Obama and his wife have close friends with whom they socialize. But that part of Barack Obama is a blank slate. It would also be instructive to know about his relationships with the other members of his family (Not his immediate family). Is Obama an island?

McCain on the other hand has well known friends. He maintains his friendships from the North Vietnamese prison, and buddies from his navy days. He has also been in the Senate long enough for some of the politicians to qualify as friends. He and Senator Graham are practically inseparable. They share the same political philosophy and regard each other as a friend.
I repeat; where are the associates that Obama pals around with that he calls 'friend'. Drop a comment if you have information about any friend of Obama. It is very strange for a man to be in his forties and not have cultivated at least a few friends.

Listening to Barack Obama, all you hear is constant belly aching and complaining about the United States. He never has anything good to say about this country. Either everybody is destitute, losing their homes, or they are without hope. He finds nothing positive to say about anything American. His idea of change is to make the country into what his idea of a good country should be. Obama does not think we have a good country now even though he has had the best of everything handed to him that this country has to offer. But he knows how to make this a good country. -Give me a break!

It is equally sad that so many of our young, thoroughly steeped in liberal dogma from our colleges and universities, have swallowed his gobble-dee-gook and are among his biggest supporters. The enthusiasm that they exhibit for Obama is alarming to those of us old enough to recognize BS. But students with huge student loans are mesmerized with his 'chicken in every pot' and 'car in every garage' rhetoric. It is certain that Obama is not short on promises. All of his speeches target his audiences. In Michigan, he hangs out the carrot of recapturing their glory days of employment. On the O'Reilly Factor, he sounded very conservative. He is a master of giving his audience what they want to hear. In his acceptance speech, he would hire an army of teachers to solve the school crisis. The list of promises and money he proposes to spend is staggering. Still the show goes on.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Note, this was posted in September, but is still prescient to today's discussion.

-Robert-