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-