Tuesdays Yawner

It might be that my expectations were higher than they should have been, but in total, I thought Obama was the sharper of the two. I did not like his answers, but Obama did a much better job of articulating his position than did McCain.

McCain had a lot more riding on this debate than Obama because he is slipping in the polls. But McCain cannot get past his 'reaching across the aisle' crap to demonstrate his willingness to bargain with the Liberals. McCain's inability or unwillingness to take on the failed Liberal agenda is maddening. Obama left McCain several hanging curve balls but instead of home runs, we got whiffs. Whiffs will not win the election. I want to tell McCain that he has to win the election first, and then he can reach across the aisle and bargain over his ideas.

I have a feeling of dread about this election. McCain is uninspiring; in fact, he is downright depressing with his stands on several important topics.

The Economy: Lawmakers have the duty to set and enforce the rules of fair play for business. In other words, maintain the framework that assures us of integrity from those with whom we do business. But it is not the job of Lawmakers to try and legislate the economy. As a citizen, all I expect is honest value from the people with whom I do business. The rules, as mandated by our laws, should take care of the charlatans and those trying to make a quick buck from unsuspecting customers and those who would seek to monopolize a segment of our economy. Remember, the Congress has no money. They have to take your money to do anything. They use your money, sometimes wisely, and sometimes foolishly. McCain apparently has gone over to the dark side with his new proposal to buy up the bad mortgages and renegotiate the loans at the depressed house value. Is he nuts! He wants another $300 billion dollars from the taxpayers to prevent those people from losing their homes. That is not the purpose of Government.

What I expect is for the Government to investigate and prosecute those moneylenders who have broken the law and make an example of them. Whenever investigations start, you never know where the trail leads. Responsible parties start pointing fingers when subjected to investigation. Hopefully, the investigation will be thorough and we can get to the bottom of why and how our economy crashed.

The suggestion by McCain to effectively nationalize bad housing mortgages is outrageous. Most of the people who actually moved into one of these homes, as opposed to the many that were bought and sold by house-flippers, do not have anything at stake in those homes, they moved in with no down payment, did not pay on their mortgage and lived rent free in a nice home for a number of months. Where is their complaint? The only help I would offer them would be to not let the foreclosure count against their credit rating, if they have one worth protecting. The suggestion by McCain that we would buy that bad loan, reappraise the value of the house, and renegotiate the loan for them is patently ridiculous. Of course, the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference in the two values. The next question is, how is the new value assigned? Will the owner's ability to pay influence the new value or, the value of the surrounding properties?

Questions, questions, but it is our money and I am tired of politicians milking the public for their personal gain.

Global Warming: Global warming is another boondoggle. By February of 2009, the global warming nuts will have to crawl back under the rocks that they came from. Man made global warming is a populist theme that has no scientific backing and it gets tiresome hearing these nuts spewing their ignorance about something that they have no knowledge. And it looks like McCain has swallowed the theme hook, line, and sinker. We are going to have a lot of trouble this winter and I have been trying to warn anybody who will listen that the people in the Northern climes need to make careful preparations for what is to come. I have at least two pieces on this blog site detailing the fallacy of manmade global warming, and it would be in your interest to read them.

Truthfully, if not for Sarah Palin, I would sit this election out. Sarah needs the time in Washington to be ready to run for the Presidency in 2012. At least she doesn't mind standing on her hind legs and defending principle. "Hello, Hillary, can you hear footsteps?"

The debate was dreadful and depressing. Maybe tomorrow I will have a better outlook, my interpretation of the debate could be wrong you know.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Berg v. Obama

Yesterday, I devoted my blog to the emails I received about the pending case of Berg v. Obama. Unfortunately, a part of that writing was not true. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick has not ruled yet on the motion for dismissal by Obama. The author of that email evidently jumped the gun by publishing that Judge Surrick had denied that motion. The facts are otherwise as there is still legal wrangling going on. This morning, 10/06/2008, Philip Berg filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Obama's legal team is trying to stop further discovery until the judge rules on their motion for dismissal.

Even though the judge has not ruled on the motion for dismissal, I corrected the blog, but left it in tact with the exception of the correction.

Like others, I think that the ruling on the dismissal motion should be made as fast as possible. A ruling in favor of Obama for dismissal would not end of the challenge; it would only prolong the inevitable. Daily, the plaintive, Philip Berg, and his team are discovering new information that bolsters their complaint that Barack Obama is not legally qualified to hold national office.

It is far better to find out now if Obama is legally qualified to be President rather than wait until after the election. It would be scandalous to have to remove a sitting President from office because he sought to fool the public about his beginnings. Such action could possibly create social unrest not seen since the civil war. This judge, by forcing the issue, could prevent such turmoil by getting all the facts before the American People. Should Barack Obama prove to be legally qualified to seek the highest office in the land, then that would be the end of it.

For his part, Obama runs the risk of looking guilty by not taking forthright action and showing proof that he meets the qualifications as laid out by the Constitution. This writer sees no point in opposing the lawsuit unless he has something to hide. Frankly, it doesn't make sense. By producing the necessary documents to prove his eligibility, he effectively muzzles those who claim that he does not qualify.

Whatever the truth about Obama, it will come out sooner or later. The difference is that later could be disastrous if Obama is not legally qualified under the Constitution.

Berg v. Obama is written about daily on these websites:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

and

http://www.americasright.com/

If you have interest in the ongoing saga of this lawsuit, then take the time to visit these sites.
The text of the original email sent to me is still available at:

http://www.daylitesun.net/obama_email.html

That text is still available because other than the misstatements about the judge issuing a denial for dismissal, that text correctly outlines the gist of the original suit filed by Philip Berg. Faults and all, that text is compelling for those who want to know more about Barack Obama.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Emails About Obama

I want to make a correction about a ruling said to have been reached on the Obama request for dismissal. That ruling has not been made as yet but Mr. Berg is confident that the ruling will deny dismissal. I will not remove this posting but want you to be informed that the purported ruling has not been made. Go to the following link to read about it.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Everyday my email box fills up with supposed facts about Barack Obama. I get emails that question his loyalty, citizenship, motives, and associations. These mailings impugn Obama or his integrity without having received the necessary scrutiny for someone to take too seriously.

For months, I have discarded these missives as campaign fodder from enthusiasts who do not want Obama elected. Even though some of the emails appealed to my own biases against Obama, I still relegated them to fringe status. But this last Friday I received an email that was different from the trash that usually fills my mailbox.

Below is the first paragraph of a document written by Jon Christian Dryer on October 3, 2008 on the website NewsWithViews.com.

On September 29, 2008 US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, the federal magistrate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in the matter of Philip J. Berg vs Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the world was distracted by the $700 billion subprime mortgage crisis. Obama sighed a breath of relief as the mainstream media chose to ignore the question: "Can Senator Barack Hussein Obama legally seek the office of President of the United States?"

(The judge denied Obama's petition for dismissal, and ordered Obama to produce the original certificate of birth along with other documents.)See correction at start of article.

When I went to the website NewswithViews.com, I found the article removed from that site. There was no mention of it on that website, but Google clearly had the article indexed and referred to that website along with the article's author, Jon Christian Dryer. Reference to the article was still on Google as of Oct 5, 2008

This is a significant event. If what the plaintiff in the lawsuit contends is correct, and Obama was born in Kenya, then at the very least, it makes Obama to be a liar. But since his mother was an American, the same might hold true for Obama. However, the story is complicated and details of a possible foreign citizenship in Malaysia may determine Obama's qualification for office.

The article makes a compelling case for Obama not being qualified to be President under Article 1 of the Constitution and gives a detailed history about the actions and travels of the then pregnant mother of Senator Obama.

The article is too long for me to present here in its entirety, but I have posted the whole thing at http://www.daylitesun.net/Obama_Email.html . Just click the link to read the complete article.

Obama's birth certificate is available on line at the following website. You can see it along side of a certified Hawaiian birth certificate. The site also details why the official birth certificate presented by Obama is probably a fake. Click on the link below to view the two birth certificates.

http://www.hawaiitopia.com/?p=36

You can read about the Judge's ruling denying dismissal of the lawsuit here:

texashillblog.wordpress.com

Associations are like a fingerprint. Whether or not a person intends it, our associations help form our outlook and ideas. For instance, if you are a Dallas Cowboy fan that moves to Houston, all of a sudden you will have new associates who love and talk about the Houston Texans. Although you may retain your original loyalties to the Cowboys, you will become sympathetic to the Texans. So, association with Texan fans injects you with a new outlook and a secondary loyalty. The same holds true with your everyday associations. A little of your associates philosophy and their concerns will become intertwined with your own ideas.

This happens because our brains develop logical pathways using the ideas of an associate that we instinctively find acceptable. The Patty Hearst case is another example of accepting foreign ideas when exposed to them on a daily basis. This is a survival instinct hard wired to humans. Do not let anybody tell you that your associations don't matter. They do matter because they help form your ideas and outlook in life.

Once a person takes a closer look at Obama and the associates that he has cultivated, it brings up the question about his philosophical grounding. Among the more serious emails that come into my box, I get this one. This email does not falsely make any statements that I have been able to find, and the questions and conclusions asked are cogent to this subject. The following is an excerpt from that email.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question, - "Where did he get the money for this trip?" Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. "Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia?" It's not cheap to say the least!" Where did he get money for tuition?" "Student Loans?" Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year." Why Chicago?" " Why not New York?" He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.

About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. "Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School?"" Where did he get the money for Law School?"" More student loans?" After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than the asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

My conclusion in the whole Obama debacle is that the man is not what he claims to be. In every instance of Obama's life, his patrons have all been Muslims. His associations plague him. Everybody has known a person or two that they would rather forget, but Obama has cultivated those type of friends all of his student and adult life. Does any reasonable person believe that Obama will disassociate himself from those who financed and guided him throughout his career? Obama did not spend his formative years in America, and as a result, he has a skewed image of this country. Literally, Obama is missing what most people raised in this country have, and that is a deep and instinctive loyalty to America.

Obama never speaks of the greatness of this country, or has anything good to say about it. He does speak of changing the country into what HIS opinion of a good country should be. God help us if we elect this man. Democrats, what were you thinking when you nominated Obama? It is clear that Democrats did not vet this man. And because the Democrats failed to thoroughly investigate his qualifications for president, it could irrevocably hurt the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party's negligence is also hurtful to all of those people who believed in and sent money to his campaign. How can these people ever recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent in the effort to elect a candidate who, by law, may not be qualified to be President? This is a serious matter with broad implications for the Democratic Party.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Go Sarah Go

Sarah Palin put all doubts to rest tonight as to whether she is for real or not. Look out Hillary, there is a new woman in town, and this one isn't riding her husband's coattails.

A bright, cheerful, intelligent, and very approachable Sarah Palin strolled out on the stage tonight for the Vice-Presidential debates. Her performance was nothing short of stunning. Joe Biden had to be thinking, "Damn, where did she come from!"

Joe Biden is a masterful politician with over 30 years in the Senate. He is knowledgeable and a feisty debater. But he was no match for the personality offensive presented by Sarah Palin. Sarah spoke to and connected with the audience like no politician I have watched in 40 plus years. Even her confidence is contagious. My own confidence for the McCain ticket was beginning to wane, but the infectious optimism of Sarah Palin has restored my confidence that she and McCain can and will win this November.

The filtered version of Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric showed Sarah in the worst light possible. But tonight she was able to rise above that edited interview and show her real personality off to the whole country. Not only were her debating skills superior to Biden's, but she also displayed a warmth and human side that the rest of us could relate to.

Whether or not tonight's debate will be the catalyst that pushes McCain up in the polls is still to be determined. McCain has his problems when it comes to exciting the crowds. His lackluster performance in the debate with Barack Obama certainly did him no good. Will the injection of passion by Sarah Palin be enough to right McCain's campaign? Only time will tell. Dick Morris is of the opinion that Obama has peaked too soon and will wear thin on those less than ardent supporters. Again, a big maybe to that assertion, we just have to wait.

As a side note, again Sarah Palin wore a dress. She evidently sees no need to compete with a man by wearing a pantsuit. She leaves no doubt that she is a woman, a self-assured, strong, and confident woman.

My wife is the only female that I can gauge for the female point of view, but I can honestly say that my wife does not feel threatened by Sarah. Other women may have a different point of view, but from a male point of view, I say wow!

Sarah Palin is a difference maker whether we are talking about the present campaign or one in the future. And, as noted at the beginning of this piece, Hillary has to be hearing footsteps. Obama surprised Hillary, but just wait, Sarah is just up the street and around the corner! Even Nancy Pelosi loses her Queen Bee status with Sarah around. Go Sarah go!

Click on the link to help McCain and Sarah with your donation.

Donate now!

Cheers,

-Robert-

Paulson Plan or Nothing

They say it isn't a bail out. They added a lot of decoration to it. But it is still the Paulson Plan just disguised a little better and renamed the 'Rescue' plan.

Bail out really describes the plan better. Let me ask you, if you have loaned your money to someone who cannot or will not pay it back and you are depending on that money's return, wouldn't you feel bailed out if somebody comes along and buys that bad debt from you? You have just had your oxcart pulled out of the ditch, a lifeline thrown to you or in other words, bailed out of a sinking boat.

No matter how this is painted, named, or otherwise disguised, it is a bail out for bankers and fat cats who are getting a pass for loaning money to persons with no ability to repay the loan. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did underwrite a large percentage of these sub-prime loans. Both institutions were leveraged about 100:1. That high leverage of loan value to liquid available for coverage meant that they could not possibly cover the loans that they had underwritten without government intervention.

Before I get over my head with writing so far from what I am familiar, I refer you to this website that explains the sub-prime mess with authority. The actual inner workings and mechanics of what happened are not germane to this piece.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/mishkin20080229a.htm

In essence, the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Federal Reserve came up with the scheme to buy up the loans that can't be evaluated so capital can once again be trusted between the different financial institutions. For instance, say you are a financial institution that has just bought what looked like safe and sound mortgage loan securities. The financial institution who sold you those securities now has your money and you have a bunch of bad security. The old saying, "Once bitten twice shy", is also true among the moneylenders. It is not easy to explain to your stockholders how you lost their money. Any future loans are heavily scrutinized and only people with gold plated ratings will get loans now. Credit is squeezed; lost trust between institutions has altered the normal business as usual loan transfers.

Nobody consulted the Congress about possible alternatives to saving the credit situation. The Executive Branch handed a 3-page outline to Congress for approval that gave the Secretary of the Treasury authority over 700-billion dollars to dole out as he saw fit to buy up the bad loans that are choking the credit system.

Yes, we need action, but there are fair questions that also need answers.

• Since these loans do have value, there is property assigned to every one of them. Why is it not conceivable to auction off these mortgages to enterprising businesspersons? A lot of people would have jumped at the chance to buy some of these loans for 10 to 30 cents on the dollar.

• There was a lot of talk about keeping these people in the houses that they bought, so why not offer them to buy back their loans for what the Federal Government would have paid for them. It would have been nice to buy a $400,000 loan for $100,000, especially if the loan belongs to you. Financing would have been no problem for most of the borrowers.

It is not my intention to actually suggest those ideas, but only to illustrate that other options, other than a Government bailout could have been possible with a little effort. There are a lot of smart people in Washington with the knowhow to solve this problem with minimal Government interference.

There is a lot of talk about the profit potential for the Government with these bad loans by holding them until the market turns around. That same potential would exist for anybody given the chance to buy these securities.

Change of Subject: Tonight is the Vice-Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. There is a lot on the line in this debate and I will give my take on it in Friday's edition.

We are proud as a peacock of our politicians. They give us such a warm, fuzzy, and secure feeling. They make sending them money such a pleasure because they can spend it so creatively. It just makes your heart go pitter-patter just to think of the swell job that they are doing. Even though they make a used car salesman look like Pious Pete, we keep re-electing them.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Political Rants

We elect them to represent our interest. But to most elected Congressmen, this is only a stepping-stone for their personal political career. It is nothing new, just the way things are. Term limits would of course derail such ambitions and maybe, just maybe, give us legislatures that just want to serve. Is it possible to weed out the power hungry and the corruptible? Not unless they have ruffled the wrong feathers, or their ouster makes the opposition party look good. The one thing that is certain, we need a change.

Since the day Bush took the oath of office, the Democrats have been out to destroy his Presidency. Is this the way our Government was supposed to operate? Instead of good Government, we have the endless squabble over power. If both sides were righteous it may make sense, but if political power is so important that one party would sell this country out for it, that party needs booting out of office.

Dissent is constructive, but the type of opposition coming from the Democrats is not dissent, they have actually chosen sides against the United States. They have sought to endanger this country just for their political advantage and somehow think that if elected that they will make everything all right.

The Democrats lurch this country to the left, appease our enemies, destroy a President, and criminalize a whole administration. Such actions for political power cheapen the whole political process. The Democrats, for now, are bathing in the sunlight, but they are Democrats and will overstep one day and find their pockets empty.

In a perfect political world, an idea would come before Congress and if enough members thought the idea was good, or at least had promise, then other members would work towards improving the idea. Alas, this is not the case. In Washington, the Congress plays the game of partisan fighting to make sure that the opposition political party doesn't gain favor with the voters. The stakes are high and it's all about power. They don't fight over what is best for the citizens; -- they fight to maintain their political power.

Think of the word 'compromise'. If I told you that a storm had compromised a building's structure, you would understand that the storm had weakened the structure. A political compromise is the same way.

In a hypothetical situation, a member of a political party presents an idea. This idea needs funding of 200 million dollars to be a success. The opposition party can easily see that this is a good idea, and if passed would make those of the proposing party look good. So they seek a compromise on the proposal to insure that it doesn't succeed. If the opposition party is successful in gutting the proposal to 150 million dollars in a compromise, who do you think is the big loser? Who do you think is the winner?

Some agreements are actually good. The good ones are usually those that don't reflect any ideological split and have broad support from both political parties. Good agreements also occur when the American Public weighs in on a matter without leaving room for compromise. When the voters insist on a matter, Congress generally listens. That is why it is so important for voters to pay attention to what the Congress is doing. Without the public making it clear what they want done, the Congress will just waste everyone's time with political wrangling, as they try to curry favor with their political donors.

Compromises are just a means to weaken a piece of legislation. But it is just one tool in a toolbox full of tools to prevent either political party from looking good. There is the "Filibuster Rule", "Table Rule", "Recorded and Voice Vote Rules", "Point of Order", and many other parliamentary maneuvers for a political party to foil the opposition party. At one time, it was so bad that the minority party would refuse to make quorum to prevent legislation from coming to a vote. They finally had to rectify the situation with another rule that prevented the "less than a Quorum" tactic.

The way to get meaningful legislation passed as previously stated is to have the American people involved with their Government. A strong President is essential to sell his proposals to the public so that they can prod Congress into passing the President's agenda. The American people will act apathetically if they are not involved in the process. That leaves too much room for the Congressional Politicians to play their games and do nothing. Politicians seek bi-partisan compromises to any legislation that isn't beneficial to his party. Compromises usually doom the legislation to failure. The original intent of the compromised legislation gets lost and cannot fulfill its intended mission. Worse, they could wind up passing bad legislation because of those compromises.

There was a time when our free press was the watchdog over the politicians. But those days are long gone, as the press has chosen sides instead of objectively reporting on congress.

Write, phone, and email your Senators and Representatives. They will get the message and know that you are watching what they are doing. It gives them a little incentive to do better when they realize that the voters have expectations of them.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Food From China

Melamine laced pet food, lead paint on toys, melamine laced Cadbury Chocolate, melamine laced baby food, dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical, frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics, scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria, mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides and these are only what we know about.
The Washington Post has a good article about the commercial side of the subject. Follow the link to read their article on tainted Chinese products.
Washington Post Article
I recommend your reading of their article for the commercial side of why we are permitting these products into this country.
It is not that I think the Chinese are trying to poison us; it is more of a cultural difference between us than any nefarious plot to poison our pets and us. We have all heard the stories of the food that the Chinese eat that is not considered table-fare here. It is true that the Chinese eat from a different menu than we do. Their historical experience may have a lot to do with their diet.

The Chinese join more than half the world in eating dogs and cats. Their menu also includes horse, scorpions, snakes, seahorses, silkworms, Cicadas, lizards, Starfish, dung beetles, and sea urchins.


A Mom and Pop Chicken Operation in China
China has a very large population and at times has struggled to put food on the table. Hungry people ate what was available, and over time, cultivated a taste for those items. There is also a market for the chickens that die on the chicken farms and streets. (See the pictures above) Some of these products are the result of a fledgling capitalist system. Enterprising Chinese see the marketing of items on the fringe of acceptability as their ticket out of poverty.

Melamine is used as a protein extender for various food products in China and is considered harmless by them. Please go to the website I have listed below to get the flavor of the problems that individuals are having just trying to determine the origin of the food we buy.
http://chocolateword.net/?p=394

Personally, I do my best to not buy food products from China. Until they get some control over their food production and the safety of their products, I will pass. If you read the Washington Post article at provided link, you will have learned why we permit, and are unable to control much of the flow of food products from China. Political forces are at work which makes me mad as hell at our leaders in Washington.

If you do more investigations on the subject, you will find that Canada repackages a lot of Chinese food and markets it here in the United States as being from Canada. It is really a fine kettle of fish that we have gotten ourselves into.

Cheers,

-Robert-