Voter fraud and the "Fairness Doctrine"

Election day is drawing near, and as per the usual tradition, voting fraud is rampant. ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is the instigator of much of the fraud. In Nevada, for example, the Feds recently raided an ACORN office, and for good reason... somehow the Dallas Cowboy's starting lineup had been registered to vote there (Link). There are many other examples of ACORN voting fraud in WA, MO, OH and elsewhere.

In Florida, unrelated to ACORN, more than 30,000 convicted felons remain registered to vote despite being stripped of their right by law. Predictably, the vote Democrat at a 2:1 rate.

What is interesting about ACORN is that Obama supports them. Not only has he previously done legal work for ACORN, when Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund (with Weathermen terrorist William Ayers), he issued over $200,000 in grants to Chicago ACORN. Naturally, ACORN endorses Obama.

But Obama denies that he is closely tied to Acorn. Obama's "Fight the Smears" website said, up until today, that "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and that he was not associated with ACORN in 1992." But, after a Cleveland Newspaper discovered archived documents that proved that Obama did indeed work as a trainer for ACORN and work with ACORN in 1992, the Obama campaign altered their website, saying Obama was a trainer for ACORN but was never hired by them, if that even makes sense? (Link)

ACORN receives federal funds, which need to be cut off immediately.

What we are beginning to see is a clearer picture of the real Barack Obama. Even though Liberals claim to be enlightened individuals who embrace all view points, they most certainly don't. Here are a few excerpts of the below linked article that foreshadow what is to become for any dissenters under an Obama administration:

"Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One."

"Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false.""

"Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities." (Link)

This is documented if you look hard enough, but not covered by the main-stream liberal media.

AIG update

Our legislators are so corrupt, I almost feel sorry for them. The moment they step foot in Washington, they encounter a system that thrives off of cronyism and a process that is institutionally broken. Take Barney Frank, for example. Here's a guy who played a MAJOR role in the economic crisis we are now in by rebuffing any attempts at regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 90's, even saying that calls to regulate the two institutions were unfounded and unnecessary. Just days ago, when the $700B bailout passed, Nancy Pelosi praised Frank for his "leadership." As another example, take Chris Dodd, the Democratic Senator who chairs the Finance Committee and played a prominent role in writing the bailout bill. He has received more political contributions from Fannie and Freddie than any other politician (followed by Barack Obama, who is a close second), yet he was responsible for leading the Democratic effort to pass the $700B bailout and was praised for his efforts by Sen. Harry Reid. These people would be fired, and possibly fined, if they worked in the private sector... yet they are praised in Congress. I really wish I could make this stuff up.

I say all this to make the point that a system that is fundamentally broken and run by corrupt clowns should not be entrusted to manage healthcare or any other program. Look at what Congress did with Social Security. When selling the social security idea to the American people, FDR promised that the funds put away for social security would not be touched. Naturally, today the social security "lockbox" is full of IOU's because Congress has pillaged it in order to fund other programs.

This is a reason I thought the bailout was a bad idea in the first place. Letting government play a major role in "rescuing" our economy, when government intervention was the problem in the first place, was and is a mistake. After bailing out Freddie and Fannie, our generous government spent $85B to bailout AIG, an insurance institution. Yesterday, it was revealed that AIG had sent corporate executives to a California resort. The price tag? Over $440k (source: ABC News).

How did our government respond? Today, the Federal Reserve gave AIG an additional $37.8B (source: CNN). This action defies logic... only a corrupt, centralized government could do such a thing.

So when I hear Barack Obama and other liberals advocate policies that give government more control over ANYTHING, I get nervous because the government rarely does anything well.

More government, more problems.

Monday's quick hits

As of 9:30 am, the Dow has slipped below 10,000. The economic package just passed will take a few weeks to take effect, according to Henry Paulson. Evidently the reason why the Dow has plunged almost 400 points this morning is because traders are concerned about banks failing in foreign countries.

Sarah Palin has begun to "take the gloves off." This weekend she attacked Obama for his associations with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. I can only hope that McCain will follow suit. In response, Obama has said he will begin to question the "Keating 5" scandal that McCain was involved in. McCain has openly said he regrets being associated in anyway with those involved in the scandal, but keep in mind... the Democratic special counsel in charge of that investigation recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated.

This morning's Rasmussen poll has Obama up nationally 52-44. Of course, national polls make no difference, its the state polls that count. But even those are looking pretty bleak for McCain right now. He is still up in Florida, but has lost his lead in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada. If he is to win the election, he'll have to regain his lead in those states, plus "steal" a state like Colorado/New Hampshire/Pennsylvania/Minnesota from Obama. BTW, McCain has pulled out of Michigan, conceding it to Obama.

Palin won the debate

Palin won the debate last night, in large part because expectations for her were low. Biden performed well, but some of his statements were factually untrue (i.e. saying McCain voted to cut funding for the troops, saying Art. I of the Constitution enumerates the executive power, saying McCain's health plan would leave millions without coverage, etc.). I think Palin did enough to re-energize the Republican base, which is important because the last week has been rough on Republicans. Not to mention, enthusiasm is running rampant among Democrats... the Dems are having to turn volunteers away, for example.

Palin's tax records from the past two years were released, and she and Todd paid taxes on 127k in 2006 and 166k in 2007. Much to the chagrin of liberals, the Palin's also donated over 8k to charity over the past two years (rougly 3% of their income, which doesn't take into account their tithing). Compare this to Joe Biden, who has given an average of $369, or roughly .2% of his average yearly income, to charity over the past decade. Liberals in Washington sure want to take your money, but they definitely seem hesistant to give their own!

Thoughts on new housing bill

I think McCain effectively sealed his fate by voting for the new bill. Despite promising to have nothing to do with pork barrel legislation, McCain signed a bill loaded with pork. Over 80% of Americans were against the bill... he could have voted no and taken a stand for the American people. He chose not to, even though his numbers are falling in the polls. Brilliant.

Leave it to Congress...

How do they fix a bill that failed to pass on Monday? They triple its length by cramming it full of earmarks.

New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill

- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill

- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)

Source: Statesboro

Funny youtube clips

Obama saying he wouldn't be ready to run for POTUS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU

Mike Dukakis explaining Obama's significant accomplishments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Uvv9cVxBs

Biden saying that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be POTUS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lknTPvH1wSg

Kirk Watson on Obama's accomplishments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Biden being a racist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU&

Biden telling a handicapped man to "stand up":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4

McCain gaffes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRUhlws5TOI

McCain saying he wouldn't run in '08:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf_omg5tfi4&feature=related

The case against Barack Obama

Barack Obama will likely be the next POTUS. Congratulations to him and Joe Biden, I hope we only have to deal with them for four years.

Part of the reason why Obama will win is because President Bush and other Republican congressmen let Washington change them. Instead of advocating true conservative principles like smaller government, we've seen the federal government grow exponentially over the past eight years. Even so, I think Americans are giving Obama a free pass on too many issues.

First, Barack Obama will raise our taxes. His claims that he will provide tax cuts for 95% of working families is mularkey, but people believe it. Even if true, the top 5% of wage-earners who will see a tax increase under the Obama administration already pay 60% of the nation's federal income tax. Putting more of a tax burden on these individuals will not help the economy, but will rather slow job creation. Aside from the federal income tax, Obama will raise capital gains rates from 15% to somewhere between 20-28%, despite the fact that government revenues historically go up when the capital gains rate is lowered. He will raise payroll taxes and the business tax as well, despite the fact that our business tax rate is the second-highest in the world. Unfortunately for Americans, businesses don't pay taxes. Instead of paying taxes, these businesses will increase the costs of their products, effectively passing the increased tax to the consumer.

Barack Obama is also wildly inexperienced. Despite not having one significant achievement to his name (per a supporter, he did win the Democratic nomination, that must count for something, right?), Obama will be the leader of the greatest country on earth.

People forget that he voted "present" instead of "yea" or "nay" over 100 times in the Illinois state legislature, or that he proposed that we seek a UN resolution after Russia invaded Georgia (oops, turns out Russia can veto any resolution that goes before the UN), or that his running mate, who supposedly bolsters the foreign policy aspect of the ticket, proposed we partition Iraq into sections based on religion and ethnicity.

People also buy Obama's explanation ("I never heard any of those things said") for his twenty years of sitting in the pews of an America-hating church, listening to Jeremiah Wright say things like "God d*mn the USA" or "its the US of KKK," despite the fact that this same man married Obama and his wife and baptized their two children. People will overlook the fact that Bill Ayers, his next door neighbor and fellow Woods Foundation boardmember, bombed American buildings as part of the "Weather Underground," later saying he wished he would have done more. People will also give him a free pass on his dealings with Tony Rezko, a felon who gave Obama a sweetheart-deal on the lot next to Obama's house (but, but, but... Obama is a different kind of politician!).

Obama also is for meeting with our "enemies" without preconditions. Sounds like Jimmy Carter, to me. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, would probably see this as a sign of weakness and would welcome these meetings because it would legitimize him on the world stage.

If Obama signifies change, then I want nothing of it.

A free market approach to the financial crisis

A free market approach advocated by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

The source of the problem: The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

Solution: The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Counterargument: Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

But... Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

Bottomline: The rush to pass a bailout bill and the fears associated with not passing it looks to me like scare-mongering. Instead of trying to fix the situation with more government, there should at least be some debate about eliminating the conditions that put us in this mess by removing government intervention from the picture.

Against the $700B bailout

Over the past week, our beloved Congress and President have attempted to pass a $700B bailout package under the guise of saving the country from sure economic ruin.

I don't buy it.

First, over 40% of Democrats and over 60% of Republicans voted against the bill. Not surprisingly, Democrats who did vote for the bailout bill have received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from sources in the finance, insurance and real estate industries over their congressional careers than Democrats who opposed the legislation.

Second, big Government is not the solution. Government intervention in the free market got us into this mess in the first place. In 1999, a New York Times journalist wrote "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on signficantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

Fannie and Freddie had an incentive to issue risky loans because the government backed the loans. In other words, the Government's meddling in the market produced a housing bubble, which in turn has led us to where we are today. Now, the same individuals who caused the mess are demanding $700B to "fix" the situation. When is the last time Government actually fixed something? Our Government sent our troops into Iraq with insufficient armor, raided the Social Security "lockbox", and couldn't get aid to Louisiana in an efficient manner after Katrina. And some say more Government is the solution?

Before voting on the Financial Crisis bill on Monday, Nancy Pelosi praised Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) for his extraordinary leadership during these troubling times. This is the same Barney Frank who two years ago, when the Bush administration attempted to impose stricter regulations on the ability of Freddie and Fannie to purchase subprime loans, said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html)

The bottomline: Government intervention is not the solution, but rather the problem.