Democrats 2

In this sequel to the first Democrats, it is necessary to point out the extremes of both the Conservative and the Liberal positions. As a nation, we already know how bad it gets with extreme Conservatism. Yes, during the last half of the 19th century, conditions for working men and women were appalling. Greedy industrialists created repugnant working conditions for the wage earner. Labor Unions sprang up in defense of the worker, and Congress passed labor laws to curb some of the wanton greed by the industrialists of those times. The labor laws instituted by the Federal Government were necessary to rescue workers from abuse.

The late 1800's and early 1900's marked the beginning of the swing to the left. No one can doubt the necessity for that drift during those periods.
There is an old saying that comes to mind about things that do well, "If a little medicine does a little good, then a lot of medicine will do a lot of good." Not exactly a true statement, but it sums up the way we feel about almost everything. Eating is enjoyable, so we eat more. And we all know that eating more just makes us fat and susceptible to debilitating consequences. So by extrapolation, if a little bit of Liberalism is good, a lot more will harm you. We have never been to the extreme left before, so the point at which it has its comeuppance is yet to be determined. But mark it well, if the Liberals don't kill the country first, a reckoning for their extreme philosophy will come.

Over the years, the Democratic politicians have taken the country further and further to the left. Some of the Democratic politicians are true believers in Liberalism, while others just use the Liberal platform to further their ambition. For whatever reasons given, we as a nation now find ourselves under the control of the extreme left. And, just as being in the control of the extreme right a hundred years ago, the extreme left is just as bad.

Moving further to the left will have profound effects on our nation. Individualism is a casualty. Instead of working for our own personal interest, we find more of our earnings going to the State. The politicians relish in the ways they can spend your money. The greed of the state in today's times is comparable to the greed of the industrialists of the late 1800's. Literally, there is no difference between the two. Abuse is abuse whether from an industrialist or a politician.

The Democrats are in the process of ransacking the very core of our economy. Because of over taxation, and the Democrats support for greedy labor unions, we can no longer produce commodities at a competitive price. Our businesses have had to make very stark choices, either move to a country that doesn't tax them to death or close down. Either choice leaves the American worker out in the cold. What is remarkable about the situation is that America is actually considering rewarding those Democrats who put us in this situation in complete control of the Government.

I neglected the third choice facing American business; they can hire lobbyists to influence Congress to get favorable legislation. That practice is very common at the present. The problem with businesses getting special favors from the Congress is that not every business can participate. The Washington greed machine will not kill all of their revenue streams, so only the squeakiest wheels get the legislative grease. It puts Congress in the business of choosing which business succeeds and which business fails. What a deal!

No, I am not thinking that we are going to be a destitute nation in the near term, but we are digging deep into our bag of resources and the bag is not bottomless. The tyranny of big government is real and the American voter should take it seriously. We need to take this country back to the right to save it from itself. And when it oversteps itself to the right, it will be necessary to once again, turn left.

It was after World War-2 that the middle-class flourished. The new and larger middle-class represented a new challenge to the Democrats. Workers made enough money to have homes and cars and an upscale type of existence. They also wanted less interference from the government and started voting Republican. The idea that a group of people was no longer dependent on their social programs scared the crap out of the Democrats. Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and 1956 only served to fire up the left. The Democrats had no love for the Blacks but needed their votes to make up for their losses of the middle class. The idea that Democrats had great sympathy for the Black cause is not true. The Boll Weevil Southern Democrats fought integration with every ounce of their being. Integration only came about because of the Republicans. The Republican vote passed the Civil Rights legislation, over the Democratic opposition.

To solidify the Blacks as a unified voting bloc, the Democrats spawned the welfare state. Democrats never meant to empower Blacks, just keep them in the fold so they would vote Democratic. The total effort was to make up the votes they were losing because of a successful middle class. They were successful. Today Blacks vote 85% - 95% Democratic.

Since the end of WW-2, we have been a party to the decay of public morality. In 1957 a very liberal Supreme Court refused to define pornography, instead of issuing an unambiguous definition of pornography, they deferred to 'community standards'. Another Supreme Court decision in 1968 held that individuals could enjoy porn in privacy. Today, porn is not isolated to the confines of a person's home; it is now flourishing in the open. Democratic policy allows sex of all stripes because they believe that while pursuing pleasures, you won't notice or care that they are looting your country. The thought here is that you would rather sin than succeed. The Democrats of today will do anything to gain political power, and that includes allowing divisive lifestyles to flourish. Such naked political greed has its own set of consequences though. The process has weakened the moral fiber that once bound us together, and the chapter of that consequence has not been written yet..

Democrats cannot allow their constituents to succeed. Democrats understand that when Americans succeed that they don't need Democrats or their handouts. By making Blacks wards of the state, Democrats have assured themselves of majority status for years to come. The damage done to the Black community and its social structure is of no importance to the Democrats. Only the Black vote means anything.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrats

Full disclosure demands that I admit to being a Democrat in my younger days. My first vote went to Lyndon Johnson. I thought Nixon was despicable and was glad he had to resign. Clearly, I could see the tax deduction on my paycheck, but I never made the connection with those deductions to the welfare state that was blossoming under my nose. The war in Viet Nam was happening and to me the taxes were needed for our defense, road construction, and because I was employed by a major shipbuilder, building new ships for the U.S. Navy. Nixon did not help himself with me with his wage and price freeze just before I was to get a promotion. I was a supporter of George McGovern in 1972. But as they say, things change.

It was after I found out why Nixon had the offices of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate burglarized, that my opinion began to change. I definitely did not approve of the illegal actions of burglary, but there was scant attention paid as to the motives for the break-ins. Not to rehash the ordeal of the Nixon era, but I was surprised to learn that Nixon was interested in the capture and conviction of Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg gave most of the Pentagon Papers to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, with Ellsberg's friend Anthony Russo assisting in their copying. Divulging the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times harmed our efforts in Viet Nam. Whether or not you believe that the Viet Nam war was justified, making public, top-secret documents is a treasonable act. The Pentagon Papers were an assessment without political frills about our involvement in Viet Nam. Robert McNamara commissioned the study to find where we needed to make changes with our strategy. By leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press, Ellsberg not only embarrassed the United States, but also gave a propaganda victory to our enemies.

The Democrats used the debacle as a hammer to force Nixon to resign. Ellsberg and Russo turned themselves in. But the Judge dismissed the charges for technical reasons and not for any question of guilt or innocence. The prosecution bungled, violating wiretapping rules, and failed to provide evidence to the defense. Because of the gross misconduct by the prosecution, the judge dismissed the charges. The negative press turned the public against Nixon who resigned in disgrace.

For those interested in the Nixon resignation affair, there are many good sources on the internet. Daniel Ellsberg is a good place to start, and more information can be found at Pentagon Papers. If Wikipedia is not your cup of tea, there are many other sources listed by Google.

I was disappointed that the Democrats would not pursue those who hurt this country. The Liberal Supreme Court paved the way for the Times and other papers to print the top-secret material. The Supreme Court fully understood the implication of making those documents public, but they chose to give the press a pass citing 1st amendment issues. For the first time, the Supreme Court allowed someone to yell fire in a crowded venue and not be held accountable. Instead, they busied themselves reveling in the misery of the Republicans. The Democrats castigated the Republicans in such a way that even now, the two parties cannot find mutual grounds on such basic issues as National Defense. Nixon became the whipping boy of the press and created the atmosphere for Jimmy Carter's election. The two-party system has always been contentious, but never like the era that began with the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The conclusions I have drawn about the Democratic Party are scary. No matter the stakes, Democrats only embrace an issue if it helps them to become politically more powerful. Cases in point:

• In the Viet Nam War era, the Democrats decided to enhance their fortunes by embracing the cause of the anti-war crowd. Of course, that occurred when a Republican president was in office. It was not an issue under John Kennedy and Johnson, even though Johnson was the president who greatly expanded the war. Democrats gave full support to Johnson.

• The Democrats defended Bill Clinton vigorously about his indiscretions. What you heard from them was, "It is only about sex." But they had an attack of piousness when Mark Foley of Florida sent improper emails to some office pages.

• The Democrats have also lost their ability to clamor for decency over the multiple affairs of Democrat Tim Mahoney who replaced Mark Foley for the Florida seat. While running for the office, Mahoney focused his campaign on family values.

• When the idea was popular, the Democrats demanded and rushed to sponsor and pass the War Resolution over Iraq. But true to form, when the going got tough, the Democrats retreated from their votes and advocated surrender. A victorious Republican president was not in their interest. What the Democrats wanted was to force the U.S. to surrender while George W. Bush was in the Whitehouse. The fact that the Democrats publically criticized the war, gave hope and inspiration to our enemies in Iraq. The consequences of retreat did not bother Democrats in the least.

• Barney Frank gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a vigorous defense when the Republicans tried to reign in those two goliaths. What he wasn't sharing was that he was having a gay relationship with Mr. Herb Moses of Fannie Mae. The Democrats just turn a blind eye to the very offensive actions of other Democrats with the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The large over-arching lesson about Democrats is one that should be taken to heart; they have only one motive for any action that they take, self-interest. They will take no position and find reasons to publically excuse wrongdoing by a fellow Democrat. Their defensive trigger kicks in no matter how egregious the offense.

This quoted from Democrats explaining their new and modern philosophy.

The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the "Third Way" The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and Social injustice even if such requires a larger role for government and progressive taxation.

Democrats believe in a government that punishes achievers by taking their earnings and distributing it to the non-achievers. That position is not tenable. Their taxation policies destroy the engine of real progress that creates the jobs and opportunities for everybody. The people in Detroit can attest to this failed notion. General Motors and the rest of the American owned auto manufacturers are victims of both liberal policies and labor unions. There is only so much pie to go around. A global economy requires meeting and beating your competition if you are to stay in business.

Speaking of General Motors, are you aware that General Motors sells more cars in China than the U.S.? There is nothing to prevent General Motors from moving their manufacturing facilities to China. If that happens, "What do you think will happen to your good paying union jobs then, Mr. Democrat?"

Before you launch the nation in a great leap to the left, you need to think your position over. Our good jobs and manufacturing base has been drifting away like a slow bleed due to the Democratic policies of 'sharing the wealth'. The only shared wealth is the transfer of our wealth to other countries. Our only response is to frantically buy the cheaper goods that they produce and send more of our wealth overseas.

The Democrats desire for those poor and indigents to own a home almost brought us to our knees. We can't afford Liberalism anymore. My question for you is, "What will it take for you to realize that the Democrats are ruining this country." There is no free lunch! We can help those in need through private institutions like churches and charitable organizations. Democratic policies have made our poor wards of the state. For shame! If you are not too afraid, visit the public housing that you are paying for. Take a good look at what the Democrats have created! Then ask yourself, "Is this the way we really want to treat people?"

Most Americans want to help others. We are hard-wired for it. But letting the Federal Government take over our responsibilities in that endeavor has created a monster. Our society has become like the classic churchgoers who just want to throw a dollar in the plate and hope for the best. The best way to help others is with your participation. The lazy way out for most is to throw money at the problems. And by the way, Democrats are always handy-dandy there to take your money and allow themselves the luxury of who to help (including themselves) and how much. The largest recipients of the taxpayer's money go to whoever is the biggest help with power acquisition and maintenance of power. That money that you send to Washington to divest yourself of any personal responsibility, gets distributed according to rankings of who helps the Democrats stay in power.

All you have to do is say no to every Democrat on your ballot (and Liberal Republicans). They will get the message.

To be continued --
Cheers,

-Robert-

Yin and Yang

Logically speaking, without a top, there can be no bottom. Without Yin, there can be no Yang. Without the rich, there can be no poor. Without bad, there can be no good. Every concept must have a definition of relation. Relationships are how we define things.

Back in my younger days, my friends and I would often drink too much and wake up with a hangover. Often we would remark that feeling bad from the excesses of the night before gave us an appreciation for the days we woke up without the awful feeling of a hangover. Think about it. If a person never has a hangover, how can he appreciate the value of his good fortune without a pounding hangover headache to compare with? Our contention was that you have to have the hangover experience (at least once) to really appreciate those days without one. Relationships put everything into perspective.

Can we as a culture survive peace? The quick answer is that there is no peace. Peace is an illusion. When we are not on the battlefield over some political issue, we fight among ourselves figuratively, for political power. Our political wars are just as intense as our hot wars. Political wars capture power without firing a shot. Democracy create this condition. Democracies thrive because the governed give their consent to those who govern. Our political wars are all about winning that consent to govern.

There are two opposing forces, or philosophies. On one side of the spectrum are the Liberals, and on the other side we find the Conservatives, Yin and Yang if you will. Those close to the middle make up the moderates. The moderates are special as they appreciate some of each philosophy, so they hang out on the fence in the middle unable to decide where to give their support. The targets for each side's campaign are the moderates. The political commercials that flood our airways aim their message at the fence straddlers. Those who have already made up their minds have to endure these nauseating commercials.

It is with respect for the position of the moderates that I make these observations. Moderates claim fealty to both sides but the question is, why? The forces of Yin and Yang are always opposing forces, and when the opposing forces are relatively equal, the center always rules. If Yin represents the Liberal Democrats and Yang represents Conservatives, then at the present, Yin has the upper hand. With Yin in charge, Yang has to move a little towards Yin to attract the new middle ground which has shifted left. Political power runs like a meandering river flowing to Yin and then back to Yang. Neither Yin nor Yang has the ability to maintain the river in a straight course. Once either philosophy gains power, they always overstep their mandate. The power vested in them by the people will wane because the extreme ends of either philosophy wrecks the culture.

The United States has not had a course correction since the 1930's when we elected Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR left an amazing legacy. Most of the social frameworks he instituted are still with us, especially the concepts of a strong federal government. The programs that he instituted such as social security was not bad, it is just that successive Democratic politicians abused the idea for political power and the results are what you see today.

The Democrats broadened social programs to include Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous programs for minorities. The idea that the taxpayers can take care of the poor from cradle to grave on the backs of the taxpayer has cost this country dearly. The results of their social tinkering have been disastrous. The pittances doled out to any individual by the various programs is small but enough to become dependent on. Those who are willing to live on the bottom strata of society subsist there by taking advantage of the various handouts from government-sponsored programs. Those who accept that way of life become dependent on the taxpayers. It is a hard life in the government created Ghettos, and escaping its grip is a daunting task. The cycle is self-propagating as the Ghetto young yield to the temptation of irresponsible sex and have children. Young mothers raise their children without a partner's help and support. Only with the taxpayers support can she manage within that system. Population multiplication within those government created enclaves make it even harder to escape into the greater world where they could realize their potential. Those in the Ghetto world see none of the rewards for their effort in this created trap that shouldn't exist.

The youths within the Ghettos form their own subcultures. Resident gangs vie for territory for their activities, drug selling, prostitution, and just hanging out. Their experience leaves them with a skewed opinion of the rest of the world. Trapped in a culture they didn't create, with no way to control the events that shape their world, they become resentful of what they perceive as White tyranny. The modern Ghetto culture is the result of liberal politicians pandering for political power. Our drift to the left, or Yin, is in need of a correction. We cannot continue to sustain this creature that the Liberals have created.

Only the voting public can change our drift to the left. We need to stop the loss of our eroding freedom. Some of what the Liberals offer definitely has merit, but the extreme left of the Liberal movement is in control of the Democrats. When the extreme end of any philosophy gains control, it means we will experience an abuse of trust and an overstepping of the authority given by the people. The deeper we descend into Liberalism, the harder it will be to make the necessary corrections to our system of individual freedoms.

As Yin gathers strength, we willingly yield our responsibilities to the government. In the future, only the government will be able to make the decisions for how we live; we will have lost any claim to being responsible for our actions. Being independent means accepting responsibility for what you do. Don't look to blame others for your misfortune and bad decisions. Always keep in mind that having bad things happen to us gives us the appreciation of the good that befalls us.

To those in the welfare traps, you do not have to accept those conditions. There is a whole world outside of that domain that is willing to give you a chance at being a part of society. But you have to go after it; the only thing that will come to you is that pittance from the government that keeps you trapped. Say no to Yin.

Those at the bottom need the top to look up to for the incentive to climb out of the bottom. Do not resent those who have succeeded, because they offer you the chance for you to ascend to the top. The successful start businesses and hire others. The successful make it possible to live and dream of making it to the top. When you look up and don't see success, you are living in the world of the Liberal. The Liberal has chased away most good jobs by over-taxing the businesses from where those good jobs came. The wealthy move their money to countries that want the opportunities that money brings. Does it disturb you to look at the things you buy and see 'Made in China' on it? Why do you suppose that so many of our manufacturers moved to other countries like China and Mexico? They tell you it is because of the cheap labor, but that is only part of the story because production can overcome labor costs provided Labor Unions keep their grubby paws out of the pot. The real reason is the onerous tax structures and demands imposed by the Liberals. Liberals do not trust the free market to make good decisions. Only the Liberal elites know what is best for us. After enough of their social tinkering, they will have bankrupted the nation.

John McCain represents Yang. McCain needs to gain the trust of the moderates. Winning an election is always a matter of winning over those in the middle. We must change course and not yield to the temptation of Yin.

Yin may have the upper hand for now, and I think Yang is running out of breath, but I still have hope.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Before and After Debate Three

Anticipation
Did I say anticipation? The debate is tonight and as I ponder what the outcome may be, I suddenly realize that deep down; I don't want either one of these characters to be the President. I will vote for McCain only because he represents less socialism than Obama. Not that I think he will be a great leader.

George W. Bush burned me by making the case that he would lead. The clues were all around about the type of government he would form, but at the time, those clues didn't register with me. Now along comes John McCain with the same approach as Bush. Bush ran on the slogan of 'compassionate conservatism' and here is McCain doing the same thing with his 'reach across the aisle' crap. Neither one has a clue about leadership. Both McCain and Bush lead in the same way. Make proposals and throw them out like food for dogs to chew on. What is left of the proposal is a plate of mush with a generous serving of fat added.

When I support a candidate, I expect better. Candidates running for office know exactly what to say, and then when elected, allow themselves to be wooed into doing the Washington shuffle. The perks offered for their cooperation seems to overcome their desire to do right by their constituents. Nothing disgusts me more than to see a politician crumple up his principles like a wet paper bag purely for self-interest. Where are the leaders with principles?

For eight long years, McCain has been courting the tepid undecided fence straddlers. The idea of championing an issue by leading the charge for his ideas doesn't occur to him. Instead, he patronizes the moderates by trying to give them the impression that he thinks as they do. By their very nature, moderates do not take a stand, instead they think of themselves as having the ability to see all sides of an issue. That all-seeing ability keeps moderates on the fence. Leadership, not patronage will win their votes. Those people have no point of view; they are just hanging on the fence waiting for candidate to convince them that he has the answers. Again, patronage with moderates does not work!

Instead of backing McCain with their dollars, the RNC needs to promote the ballot undercard. That area will bring the most bangs for the buck. Instead, McCain is sucking all of the money and effort in a losing cause. We can live with Obama if we elect a Republican Congress. And unless McCain strikes a knockout blow tonight, it will be difficult for him to win.

After the Debate
Well for starters, McCain did better in this one. However, he didn't close the deal for most listeners. A tie goes to Obama and the debate was a virtual tie. Obama did a creditable job of defending his positions and McCain did not take advantage of his opportunities to gain headway. Most Americans are angry at the status quo. That anger should be an advantage to Obama but Obama hasn't been able to eliminate McCain.

For his part, McCain has allowed the premise that the Federal Government has the ability to fix the economy as the defacto truth. I expect that position from Obama but not from someone who purports to be a free market advocate. It is hard for me to grasp a situation where the supposedly free market advocates want the taxpayer to prop up failed enterprises. I expect the Democrats to promote Socialism, but not the Republicans. To quote Maureen Dowd, "Who would have dreamed that when socialism finally came to the U.S.A., it would be brought not by the Bolsheviks in blue jeans, but by Wall Street brokers in Gucci loafers?" The bailout, aided and abetted by the Congress, puts American business on notice that if you get yourself into trouble, then Uncle Sam will use taxpayer dollars to help you recover from your greed and stupidity. The market economy has been dealt a blow from which will be hard to recover.

The throttling tentacles of big government are slowly choking the life out of individualism. When people can no longer fail, then they never learn. Failure is one of life's most endearing teachers. It is how we perfect the craft of progress.

It was impossible for McCain to out-promise Obama, but I find his capitulation to the use of big government repugnant. Because McCain would not hit a homerun off of the hanging curve balls from Obama, he only managed a tie. McCain failed to make the case for lower taxes, restoring education to local control, against Obama's plan to roll back the bush tax-cuts, and his own health plan. He dribbled out small incomplete answers to all, but did not manage to drive home the salient points for the main issues.

I only wish I could report that McCain was able to corner Obama on several of today's key issues but I can't. Even though he did remarkably better in this debate than the last two, the effort still fell short.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Getting Old and Death

As strange as this topic seems, our mortality is something that everybody must face. First, let's talk about getting old.

Since my own age is 66, I know that I am in the last 25% of my life. I don't feel old but there are definite signs that the wheels are coming off of the wagon. My mind tells me to do things, but my ass, feet, and legs sing a different tune. More often than not, my will power to get off my duff is not strong enough to overcome my body's objections. This article may not represent what other males my age are going through, but most can probably relate to my experiences.

Some of the aggravations that you do not have to face in your youth are things like an enlarged prostrate. An enlarged prostrate makes going pee a real challenge. My doctor's remedy of course, is a pill. Taking a pill is head and shoulders above taking 5 minutes to do what used to take 30 seconds. Even at the end of 5 minutes there is a good chance that you haven't completely emptied your bladder, so you know that in a couple of hours you will be right back in the same boat. This adventure is especially aggravating at night when you want to sleep.

Sex or the lack thereof is another matter that is distressing in advanced age. Oh sure, you still get naughty thoughts while admiring a pretty young lady. But deep in your heart, you know that your debonair days are behind you. Even with one of the miracle pills to ward off an erection failure, stamina and health are real concerns. But you still have your memories. Some you share, while others remain deep within.

More than ever, the benefits of exercise become apparent. Staying healthy becomes more important than in the past as we strive to avoid the unavoidable.

Retirement is a wonderful part of your life. I don't think anybody is enjoying retirement more than I do. Having free time gives you the chance to tackle the things that you wanted to do but never had time to do while making a living. Being wistful and looking back is certainly a part of getting older. I now have all of those old songs by the original artists that were important to me as a youth. Some are timeless while others seem silly now, but I still listen to them and mentally relive some of the good times that I associate with those songs. Advice on retirement, save and retire as early as possible. Do not use up all of your good years in the pursuit of other peoples goals.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the real prospect of dying. All of us know that our days are numbered, but when we are young, we don't take it too serious. But as the years go by, and death gets closer, we have to face the inevitable. For those who have taken a pass on religion, you might begin to think that religion is worth a second look.

Death is that black abyss that we can't define. Have you ever been to a funeral and touched the deceased? That cold lifeless form in the coffin is nothing like the person who once was. What happens when we die? For those of us who are Christian, we believe that God has a place for us. But what happens to everybody else?

The inspiration for writing this piece came from watching the History Channel. The program was about solving the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The first half hour, they quoted scripture and showed different places around the cities location such as Lott's Cave. They showed the cities, destroyed and burned by a calamitous event that parallels the biblical description. The second half of the show was completely different. For half an hour, they tried to explain away the biblical version and inserted their own educated version of the events that transpired. The whole show was nothing but a pretext to plant doubt in the minds of their viewers about the veracity of the bible.

To what end I asked myself. Why is it important to destroy people's faith? The answer is that it is a cultural thing. Liberalism cannot tolerate any authoritative competition, especially from God. The Holy Bible teaches that there is right and a wrong. It teaches that there is a way to live your life and have joy by following a few simple rules. There is also a warning that disobedience to these rules brings death. Think about it. Because of a willingness of followers of Christ to live their lives in harmony and in obedience to Christ's teachings, our whole society is the benefactor. Because Christianity teaches that there is right and wrong, our transgressions haunt us. Our conscience will not give us a break when we do the wrong thing.

What do you think would happen in this society if there were only secular laws to maintain order? The police force would have to be enormous and too much of societies energies would be wasted just preventing chaos.

Some of the questions about dying that have occurred to me may be the sort of questions that you have. Will I die whimpering and sniveling or as someone with dignity and courage? Will death be a blessed release from some awful disease or some freak accident? Will those around me mourn my passing or think, "Good riddance". Is there really a next world? Will I see loved ones who have passed before me? Should I dread dying? There are too many questions to ask.

But there is only one answer. Accepting Christ without reservation will bring you peace and the courage to accept your fate. None of the nagging questions about death can steal your joy and cause you consternation if you only accept Christ as your Savior.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrats Own the Financial Crisis

Democrats, however well intentioned, have led this country into the chaos we see in the Global Financial crisis. The case is overwhelming that for the purposes of both good intentions and maintaining political power, the Democrats have used the resources of the Federal Government to put credit unworthy people into houses that they couldn't and wouldn't pay for.

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.

Another reason for the decline in home values was people known as 'house flippers'. House flippers took advantage of the relaxed credit lending rules and bought with no down payment on the expectation of reselling the house at a profit because of the upward trend in house values. When home values went stagnate, they simply allowed those houses to revert to the lender and quit buying. The 'flippers' had very little money involved in the transaction so it was easy to just wash their hands of the purchased property and let it go into foreclosure. The result of their actions was two-fold. By shutting down their purchasing operations, the 'flippers' helped weaken demand and by their allowing foreclosure on their purchases, the result was more empty houses on the market to drive down home values.

The Democrats defeated efforts to clamp down on the chaotic housing markets. Democrats would have none of it. They favored continuation of making loans to people without the usual safeguards of good lending practices. As long as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the largest but not the only underwriters) kept underwriting those loans, the primary lenders kept loaning. Some of their loaning techniques and instruments used to make a loan were odious at best. Teaser rates, 2-28, 5-25, interest only, no down payment, and adjustable rate loans were just a few of the means that the lenders used to attract borrowers. And, with the sales of CMO created bonds booming, it looked like the pathway to financial nirvana. But there was a fly in the soup.

The nexus root of the present mess was the Democrats and their desire to have poor and minorities have homes. Institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac persuaded the politicians in Washington with financial favors and sweetheart loans to maintain the status quo. The Democrats stayed in lockstep preventing any meaningful regulation that would have prevented or at least dampened the collapse that was inevitable.

The big lesson from the mess we are in now is that people with bad credit have those ratings for one reason only. They don't pay their bills. No matter how unfortunate their circumstance or your feelings about the poor, using the Government to solve such problems will always make matters worse. Eventually, somebody was going to have to pay for those bad mortgages. We as Americans can pay for them, or those institutions that bought and sold those Mortgage Backed Securities can just suck it up and take the losses. But there is a question of fairness. The Federal Government started this ball rolling by encouraging the relaxation of lending rules. Coercing the primary lenders into making bad loans, and then having the loans underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and others was bad policy. Those remarkable loan instruments and securities were in response to the wishes of the Democrats who were responsible for creating those opportunities. What may have began as a sympathetic cause for the underprivileged, only provided us with another reason why socialism just doesn't work. We should be glad that home prices stopped escalating or the mess would have been even worse.

Democrats start out with a flawed premise. Good hearted but flawed. To begin with, people, no matter their race, do not have any reason to appreciate something that they haven't got a stake in. I learned this lesson in the freeze-dried coffee business. At the time, the company I worked for sold coffee dispensers and freeze-dried coffee for offices. Our objective was to set up accounts for the continuation of sales for our coffee. The dispenser was just the vehicle for the convenient use of our products. The account and subsequent coffee sales was the valuable part to us. In the beginning, we gave the dispenser to the customers just for their account. But when we serviced those accounts, the dispensers were mistreated, especially if it had ran out of product. But at the time, the customer had no vested interest in the dispenser so it came under rough treatment. To instill appreciation for our dispensers, we began selling the dispensers to the customers. We set a price high enough to cover its cost and to convey to the customer the pride of ownership for the dispenser. It made a lot of difference. The results were amazing. Fewer trouble calls for broken dispensers meant lower expenses.

If you do not believe what I am telling you, take a good look at public housing. No, public housing isn't like owning a home, but the residents who live there do not appreciate and take care of the units. They have no stake in them and even resent living in them. Acquiring a house with no down payment with a 5-25 mortgage is a recipe for disaster. (2-28 and 5-25 are loans that feature a teaser rate or interest only for the years of the first number, and then jumps up to a higher rate for the remainder of years, the second number.) Since house payments seem a lot like rent payments, when things get tough, they can just leave or not pay for the house and wait for eviction. They have no stake in the property. The person with a 20% down payment in his new home has a stake in the home and the home is 1/5 his. Not many people walk away from that much of an investment.

Remember, if there is no top of the heap, then the bottom has nothing to aspire to.
Below are some topics to search for if you want to learn more about the housing bubble and crisis.

collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO)
collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
collateralized fund obligation (CFO)
Mortgage Backed Security (MBS)

Cheers,

-Robert-

Reaching Across the Aisle

Nothing is more distressing than to hear McCain babble about his 'reaching across the aisle'. You would think that he never examined the results of his flirting with the Democrats. Certainly, this is not a complete list, but the ones that come to mind.

Immigration Bill: McCain and Democrats would have legalized 12 million illegal aliens if the public had not sounded off to stop it.

McCain Feingold: Deprived citizens of their first amendment rights of expression during a campaign and spawned the 527's that have created so much havoc with the elective process.

Torture Legislation: This despicable piece of legislation gave the world the impression that the United States condoned torture, and only a legislative act would be strong enough to stop those evil Americans. Nothing could have been further from the truth, but the act bolstered enemy propaganda. And by the way, if there was a problem, (and there wasn't) there were other options to take care of it. The act helped to discredit the Bush administration and restrict the ability of this nation to obtain information from prisoners.

In fact, because of McCain's willingness to compromise his political core, Kerry actually considered him as a running mate in 2004.

Now that he is the nominee of the Republican Party, McCain still thinks 'reaching across the aisle' is a winning tactic. Absolutely remarkable!

Every time he has reached across the aisle, we lost. The problem was his naiveté in thinking that the Democrats had an interest in solving the problems. The Democrats only motive was the recapture of their power. The Democrats would only agree to anything if it discredited the Republicans or benefited the Democrats.

Don't expect improvements in any proposal unless both parties are honorable and have a sincere desire to solve a problem. But if either party has an agenda other than the resolution of a problem, then compromise is useless. I just wish McCain would learn that.

These Democrats would yank McCain's head off and spit down his neck if they could. What in the world does he think is useful by trying to get their cooperation? Cooperation with the radical leftist Democrats of today means capitulation. Unless the outcome of compromise means an opportunity to embarrass the Republicans or bolster their interests, they will have none of it.

In conclusion, I say to John McCain, win the election first. Win it convincing enough and you might get a congress that will be supportive. But let me assure you, you will never win with the continuous babble about 'reaching across the aisle'. Shame the Democrats into replacing the radicals they have in Congress. If that effort is successful, then you might have a chance with your ideas of inclusion. But under no circumstances is that a winning tactic in today's political climate.

Cheers,

-Robert-