Saturday, September 27, 2008

Throw them all out! Elect a new crowd with term limits.

Just Say No to Stupidity and Socialism:
Posted by Mike Folkerth on Thursday, September 25th, 2008
· 11 comments

Good Morning America, your King of Simple News is on the air.

The news from Washington continues to flow as Congress has come together for the good of the American people and has proven that when the chips are down and when the gravity of the moment is apparent, that they really do hate each others guts.

The Democrats are claiming to have no knowledge of earth prior to the past few months. Their defense was stated as, “How would we have known what was going on in the United States, we have been in Washington DC.” Okay, I’ll buy that.

One of the stellar performances at the current circus was the “Amazin’ Pelosi,” whose death defying act produced the very realistic illusion that George “Badlands” Bush, (earlier described as the dumbest man on earth), had pulled the wool over the eyes of the entire congress, yet again.”

Another sterling act was produced by the smug and contemptuous Barney Frank who said, “Under the bailout bill, which will let the government buy huge amounts of toxic mortgage-related assets, “we’re now the biggest mortgage holder in town, and we can do serious foreclosure avoidance,”

Let me interpret Mr. Frank’s statement for you. “We can now write down the principal amount of the mortgage to allow idiots to remain in their overpriced homes at the expense of the non-idiots.” God protects fools and idiots as does Barney Frank.

Remember the part of this plan where the Democrats said that they wanted the taxpayers to have a shot at getting their money back? Well, they changed their minds. The current provision is this, “Democrats also want any potential proceeds the government reaps from the bailout to go to a fund designed to pay for housing for poor families.”

Let me interpret that last statement for you. “America is broke, busted, and down and out due to our poor leadership and planning over the past 45 years. Therefore, we see no other choice but to accept pure Socialism as the future of our 3rd world subjects.” The new simplified tax form will begin just after the election. How much did you make? Send it in.

I have a better plan. Throw the bums out. Clean house right down to the furniture on both sides of the aisle. How can we with any conscious, listen to ANY of these bloomin’ idiots for another day? They didn’t know what was happening? I wrote the whole dang play book more than two years ago. They could have asked me what was going to happen and it’s not my job!

Are these people trying to tell us that they didn’t notice that the National Debt had increased by 3045% over the past 38 years? An increase of more than 80% per year.

They didn’t notice that State, County, City and personal debt were a mirror image of the Federal trend? They didn’t notice that the U.S. hit peak oil in 1970, yet the Federal plan was to use more?

They didn’t notice that there were 78,000,000 Baby Boomers who would begin drawing benefits that had never been funded? Benefits that were promised, but would bankrupt the government and spell pure poverty for our children and grandchildren?

They didn’t notice that Millions of high paying American jobs were leaving this country and Millions of job seekers were admitted as legal immigrants? Or that more than 15 Million illegal immigrants were living and working among us?

I noticed, and here is the plan from the King of Simple. We need to commence an orderly dismantling of the FED, Wall Street, and of the large conglomerate banks. Why do we not know what the value of these massive firms are? Why is Congress buying a pig in poke? They are too big to operate, not too big to fail, they already failed America. Bust up the game.

We need to allow Americans to make financial choices of their own; that’s why we call it freedom. We are free to succeed and free to fail. When we make dumb decisions, it reminds them not to do that again.

Let’s get this housing thing straight once and for all. Our government under William Jefferson Clinton relaxed the standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase home ownership. Under George Bush, the Republicans had control of the Congress and the White House post Clinton and could have reversed those changes. They did not. They chose instead to lower the lending rates and encourage stupid behavior. Congress is more than qualified in that department.

If mortgage lenders had not had the outlets to dump these ill conceived loans on and if gambling with other peoples money were not legal on Wall Street, they would never have made the loans. That simple.

I’m so sick of hearing ALL leadership pass blame and then say, “We can’t stand around pointing fingers, we have to fix the problem and learn from our mistakes.” Well, the British learned from their mistakes and they are no longer with us. I am ever hopeful that we can say that about our current Congress and our presidential hopefuls in the very near future.

What say you?

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Thomas Jefferson knew it would come to this mess

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Saddam and Terror. A real Pentagon report.

The New Report on Iraq and Terror

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

And what about this revelation from page 34? "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as "under the wings of bin Laden.")

And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

Anyone interested in the "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism" -- that language comes from this report, too -- should read the entire thing for themselves, here.

Here is the abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, the confusion is not entirely the fault of the news organizations. The executive summary says that the evidence did not reveal a "smoking gun (direct connection)" between Iraq and al Qaeda. But, as noted, the report itself offers much evidence that the opposite is true.

Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on March 13, 2008 08:37 PM

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Freddie & Fannie messes

Obama waxes idiotic by pointing blame at Bush for the current mortgage crisis. However, when you delve into the details, the problem actually started back in the Clinton Administration.

The Bush Administration had the foresight to see the pending crisis back on 2003. At the time, Fannie Mae was headed up my Frankin Raines (Now Obama's Economic Advisor) & Freddie Mac had issued more than $1.5T in loans! but had incredibly bad accounting. The proposal on the part of the Bush Administration, was in part to propose a new agency to specifically oversee Fannie & Freddie (The NY Times amazingly... hailed the proposal) But through significant opposition by the Democrats in Congress, who argued that this proposal would undermine the poor's ability to acquire housing and bargaining power.. Barney Frank stated "These two agencies, Fannie & Freddie, "are not facing any kind of crisis at all." Other members agreed.

The bottom line is this, the Democrats have used Fannie & Freddie as a means to not only to pay off supporters through lucrative job postings to F&F, but have intentionally neglected oversight and allowed the practices to continue. Which in turn, allowed them to buy votes by allowing otherwise unqualified mortgage applicants to purchase homes. In addition, they expanded this latter practice by "dictating" to the housing finance industry, they will do the same or we will regulate you to do so. (This a statement I heard Charlie Rangel make to the heads of the financial firms in a hearing on Capital Hill).

The encroaching socialization which in this piecemeal fashion is slowly eroding the underpinnings of the American Economy; there is clearly no intent on the part of Congress to manage these selflessly, but in such a way that benefits them to the detriment of the country. Nothing is perpetual, and the pending end will be abrupt and catastrophic.

We are surrounded by a sea of enemies!

We are surrounded by a sea of enemies!

by Laurie Roth, Ph.D., host of The Roth Show

6 June 2008: We are surrounded by a sea of enemies that threaten to destroy us. Just who are they and how do we fight them and survive? First of all, we have seen over years and decades now, Islamic radicals wanting to take out the infidels, Jews and Christians and take over country after country. We have seen their gains, conquering and imperialist spirit throughout the Middle East, Europe, Indonesia and the Philippines. Let us not forget their manipulative gains with assuming “rights” and “speech” laws in Canada, thus manipulating Sharia law courts and action into the mainstream. They are dong the same with some success in the U.S. by manipulating our courts, school curriculum, getting voted into office, suing, threatening and intimidating those who dare to notice strange or dangerous looking behavior and accusing any others questioning anti American behavior as mentally ill…i.e. Islamophobia.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Why was it on the 11th of September?

Why 9/11 Occurred on September 11

by Andrew Stunich

11 Sep, 2008
Very few people seem to be aware of why it was that Al-Qaeda chose September 11 for the date of a devastating, carefully planned attack on the United States, but the information is illuminating and worthy of discussion. A better understanding of what drives Islamic terrorism assists in helping to understand why most Westerners' lack of any sense of history is dangerous. Conversely, Islamic terrorists are driven by events that occurred hundreds of years ago. They comprehend that Islam and Western Culture have been locked in mortal confrontation for approximately 1,400 years with a brief interlude that has caused Western culture to forget what is at stake and what is at risk.

Part of the motivation of Islamic terrorists is to reverse the trend of decline in the Islamic world relative to Western culture that many trace as far back to September 11, 1683 when a large Turkish army was humiliatingly crushed by Europeans at the Battle of Vienna.

In 1683, the Ottoman Turks attacked Vienna. The Turks viewed Vienna as the gateway to hegemony over all of Western Europe. The resulting battle of Vienna was a watershed moment in history. The Turks had made elaborate preparations and had assembled resources and Jihadists eager for booty from throughout the Ottoman Empire. Europe was quite vulnerable as it was fractured into warring kingdoms and weakened by internecine squabbles that nearly allowed the Turks to conquer the European continent. However, the Turkish preparations were so elaborate that they could not be hidden and the Europeans were able to form agreements or treaties to assist each other against the Turks that proved decisive and which changed the course of human history.

The Battle of Vienna was a hard-fought war with an uncertain outcome. The Turks nearly conquered the city. All that saved Europe was the arrival of a relief force headed by Polish King Jan Sobieski. Jan Sobieski and his troops won a major victory against the Turkish forces on September 11, 1683.

Obama is not a US citizen?

Attached are additional legal documents pertaining to Berg vs. Obama.


Attachments: File Description File size
Download this file (Obama Complaint from Pacer.pdf)Obama Complaint from PACER 714 Kb
Download this file (Obama, Memorandum in support of TRO from Pacer.pdf)Memorandum in support of TRO from PACER 741 Kb
Download this file (Obama, Motion for TRO from Pacer.pdf)Obama Motion for TRO from PACER 162 Kb
Last Updated ( Thursday, 11 September 2008 02:12 )

Press Release: Philip J. Berg files for epedited discovery and special master
Thursday, 11 September 2008 01:47 administrator
E-mail Print

PLAINTIFF BERG FILES MOTION for EXPEDITED DISCOVERY and the DEPOSITION of BARACK OBAMA and HOWARD DEAN

Press release and motion attached below

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 09/10/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States, filed a Motion for Extensive and Expedited Discovery including the Depositions of Barack Obama and Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee [DNC] with a Special Master in the case of Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, on 09/09/08. Berg stressed to the Court the urgency of this case as, we the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Friday, September 5, 2008

It's all about experience and good judgement!

Understanding how to protect American lives and American interests from serious threats in Iran, Iraq and Russia and helping the U.S. establish real energy independence in the years ahead are among the defining issues of this presidential campaign. Senator Obama and his chief advisors all but concede he has almost no foreign policy experience. He was, after all, a community organizer and has spent most of his time in the Senate running for President. But to a man, the Obama camp says experience is not that important. The central and defining issue, they argue, is a candidate’s judgment. This is why Sen. Obama himself said in his

acceptance speech in Denver: “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.”

It is indeed a debate worth having. The problem is, Senator Obama has shown disastrous judgment on Iran, Iraq, Russia and energy independence, as Governor Palin and Rudy Guiliani noted so effectively on Wednesday night.

Consider a few examples:

OBAMA SAID IRAN IS A TINY COUNTRY AND NOT A SERIOUS THREAT: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union,” said Sen. Obama in a May 2008 speech to a town hall meeting during his primary campaign. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” The media and Democratic establishment was stunned. The next day, Obama changed course and gave prepared speech saying Iran is a grave threat. But his initial, gut instincts were telling — and wrong. Iran is a real and grave and growing threat to the national security of the U.S. and our allies.

OBAMA SAID THE “SURGE” IN IRAQ WOULDN’T WORK, AND WOULD MAKE THINGS WORSE: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there [in Iraq],” said Sen. Obama during a January 2007 TV interview the night President Bush announced the policy of putting more troops in Iraq. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Just one problem: the surge has worked phenomenally well. We’re winning in Iraq. And we will soon be able to bring our troops home in victory and with honor.

OBAMA STILL REFUSES TO SAY THE “SURGE” IS WORKING NOW: During a July 2008 interview with Sen. Obama on ABC News, Terry Moran noted that “Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country,” that ”attacks are down more than 80% nationwide,” and “U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.” He then asked Sen. Obama, “If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?” Sen. Obama said “no.” Moran was stunned. But the Senator continued, “Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.” Moran finally concluded: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge.” It’s one thing to have flawed judgment and makie a major foreign policy mistake. But should one not at least concede the obvious and give credit where credit is due? It was Sen. McCain who championed the “surge” and persuaded President Bush to go along. The facts are clear, even to the media. McCain was right. Obama was wrong.

OBAMA TOLD GEORGIA TO SHOW RESTRAINT WHEN RUSSIA INVADED HER: “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Sen. Obama said in a statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war.” The entire free world condemned Vladimir Putin and the Russian government for raping and pillaging a small but free and democratic country. Why in the world would Sen. Obama urge Georgia to show restraint in defending her people and her freedom? Eventually, Obama corrected his mistake and sounded a little tougher on Russia. But his first instincts were dead wrong, demonstrating his judgment was seriously flawed.

OBAMA OPPOSES DRILLING FOR AMERICAN OIL IN AMERICA AND OFFSHORE: “[O]ffshore oil drilling will have little impact on prices,” Sen. Obama said in an August 2008 speech in Iowa. “It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next administration. In fact, we won’t see a drop of oil from this drilling for almost 10 years.” Without drilling for American oil in America, how does Sen. Obama plan to wean us off of Middle Eastern oil and protect our energy security? After all, we actually have a lot of oil we could use for ourselves — if we could only drill for it. “The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters,” noted Investor’s Business Daily in July. “That’s enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years. That’s not counting the trillion barrels locked up in shale rock — three times the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.”