Monday, October 27, 2008

What Obama really believes -- The Constitution has "negative liberties" and We need "redistributive change"



This day and age of the Internet can be a blessing and a curse. Today, I believe that it is a blessing because people's interviews and beliefs survive. The current media, who have turned a blind-eye toward Barack Obama's true beliefs, cannot keep these suppressed. Here are two AMAZING and DISTURBING interviews that Obama has given.

The first one is from a 2001 interview with the Chicago public radio station, WBEZ. In this interview, Obama speaks of the Civil Rights Movement; and, how the U.S. Supreme Court did not go far enough. He believes that the Court should have done "redistributive change"; and, the Constitution has "negative liberties".

What he means is that the government does not have enough rights to protect us from ourselves. I know that Obama taught constitutional law and should know that the U.S. Constitution IS a limiting document. Any rights the government has come from the PEOPLE! That is the way our founding fathers wanted it. They wanted to limited government intervention into our lives. They had lived under the oppression and taxation without representation under King George III of England. They did not want to live in a NANNY STATE!!!

Please click here to here the interview. It is really opens your eyes straight into what kind of change Obama REALLY wants!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Here is a partial the transcript from that interview:
"You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren
Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of strong negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

The second in 1995, where he is talking about his book Dreams From My Father. He is speaking of his disdain for white suburbanites who do not want to pay more taxes to take care of the inner cities. Obama admits his Redistribution of Wealth is to SAVE the African American community SO HE CAN ENSURE HIS OWN SALVATION! (and Our Countries Salvation) He compares the plight of African Americas to the ethic genocide's of Bosnia and Africa. He blames all of African-American's problems on "ONE GROUP" who suppresses them. And He says WHITE people don't want their taxes to help black children.

These are HIS words not mine. Listen, it takes only about twelves minutes to hear the who interview; but, it is well worth the time.




The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution clearly state the all rights granted to the government come from the PEOPLE!! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!



Thursday, October 23, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?


I found this article on The Drudge report. It is a commentary written by a DEMOCRAT JOURNALIST!!!! I could not have written it better myself. I just wish that it would get more play around the country. That is so refreshing to find ONE honest journalist in the country!! He should win the Pulitzer!!!


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper
columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:


I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.


This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.


What is a risky loan?


It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay. The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay?


They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose
the house — along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.


Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions
to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible
loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)


Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep
confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?


Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?


I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."


Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both
Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush dministration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.


As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457to] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."


These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.


Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!


What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?


Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie
Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the
ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign
actually consulted him for advice on housing.


If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.


But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.


You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, ncluding Obama.


If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.


There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that
Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there
was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)


If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are
actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.


Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.


But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.


If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences.


That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.


Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug,
treated it as nothing.


Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.


So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?


Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?


You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.


That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be loving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.


If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.


Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the
finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.


You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his
administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.


This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.


If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.


If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard. You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.


Friday, October 10, 2008

What is the deal with the stock markets?!?!?!?




There seems to be a real big disconnect between reality and the markets. They are acting totally irrationally. There is not a logical reason for the dramatic drop in value. I believe there is a "lemming" affect going on here. One market feeds of the other...Europe after the U.S.; the U.S. after the Asian markets. It is a vicious cycle fueled by panic. But, what is causing the panic????

The credit crisis is not the only factor. So, what is it?

I have a theory. Is it the fact that Barak Obama is leading our presidental race???? Do the markets fear an Obama presidency? I believe so. His socialistic policies are scaring the heck out of them. Theses investors are selling without regard to profit or losses.

GMAC is selling at $6.00!!! Six bucks!!! That is ridiculous!!! This is the time to buy! I mean, what is $6.00? That is what you pay for a cup of coffee! Not a blue-chip stock!

The market keeps falling and Obama keeps leading. I just cannot let the connection go. There is no other "reasonable" explanation.

So, what do we do??? Buy!!! AND, ELECT McCAIN/PALIN!!!

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

2nd Debate and the reaction


I do not know what debate the political pundits were watching last night. Every one of them said that there was "nothing new" and McCain did not do what he had to do to "change the momentum". The lead headline on the Drudge Report was a blaring "BORING!".

I have been active in politics for over 20 years; and, I have run for public office. What I saw last night was an energetic McCain. He was giving specifics and attacking Obama on every issue and question asked. I think that he did do what he needed to do. He laid the ground work for the next debate and the last days of the campaign. He should not of brought Ayers, Wright, et al, because he would have been attached for bringing up things that had nothing to do with the questions. It would of been a "no-win" situation for him. He and Palin can bring these things up in advertisements, stump speeches, and the final debate.

He introduced the buying of the loans of people who have negative equity in their homes that were caused by overly ambitious appraisals. These people are upside-down in their homes. They can't sale or refinance. However, McCain's proposal is NOT new! He first brought this up back in APRIL! Also, these so-called talking-head "experts", were "shocked" at this proposal. They thought that this was an additional $300 billion expenditure. I did not take this way. I took this to mean that he was going to use the money of the wonderful $700 billion bailout to implement this plan.

You know what? I was RIGHT and the "experts" were WRONG! Today, on McCain's campaign site, they have the details of this plan. GUESS WHAT! They are going to use the existing money already allocated. Click here to see the Homeownership Resurgence Plan:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/Read.aspx?guid=b9af0d4c-9c0e-4a97-b27f-19df8cfec83d

I LOVE BEING RIGHT!

Anyway, I think that the McCain definitely WON the debate last night. Obama is employing the same strategy that he used in the democratic primary. He is running out the clock. He believes that as long as he does not do anything outrageous. He will coast to the finish line. This strategy almost cost him the nomination. I hope that he continues because this time ALL of the delegates (electors) are voted on in ONE night!

Then, we will be inaugurating President McCain and Vice-President Palin! WOW, that sounds GREAT!

Monday, October 6, 2008

Here, Piggy, Piggy - Part II


As you know, a lot of other interests not related to mortgage finance or liquidity of markets were included in the bill as $150 billion in spending was added to attract support for the measure including:

1. $18 billion in clean-energy tax credits
2. $8 billion for hurricane and flood victims
3. $192 million to provide a 98% excise tax cut on imports of rum from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
4. $397 million in incentives for film and TV companies
5. $2 million to exempt children’s wooden practice arrows from a 39-cent excise tax
6. $49 million for fishermen affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill
7. $33 million for economic development in American Samoa
8. $4 million to train mine-rescue teams
9. Over $100 million for businesses on Indian reservations
10. $331 million for short-line railroads
11. $100 million for NASCAR
12. $148 million for the U.S. wool fabric industry.

Who knew this was what was wrong with the economy!?!?! I am SO GLAD that Congress acted so quickly. It really help Wall Street so far!

WHATEVER!

Tuesday's Debate


First off, I am so glad that Congress passed the bailout law because it is really helping the stock market. NOT!!!!!!

I cannot remember that last time the market was below 10,000!

Now, what McCain needs to do on Tuesday at the debate.

First, he needs to bring to light the FACT that the Republicans tried to reform FannieMae and FreddieMac starting back in 2001. President Bush realized that they were becoming a problem. In 2004, Fannie was under fire for accounting scandals that rivaled Enron and Worldcom. No convictions and no action from Congress. In fact, the House held hearings on it, the Democrats defended Fannie and Freddie (while they were receiving LARGE campaign donations from them) and the Republicans wanted reform. The Democrats would not let it out of the committee. In 2005, John McCain, himself, filed a bill that would have prevented the crisis that is happening right now. The Democratically controlled Congress would not even bring it to a vote.

Secondly, he needs to link Obama, Acorn, and all his other questionable associations. Also, Obama and Acorn can be linked to the Fannie and Freddie debacle. Obama was Acorn lawyers while they were forcing banks into making questionable loans to unqualified borrowers.

It is time to take the gloves off, and release the "hockey mom" pit-bull!

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Mortgage Meltdown and Financial Crisis explained in video.

I received an email back in February, 2008. Attached was an anonymous power point explaining (what we thought at the time) was only the mortgage meltdown. This mortgage meltdown led to the current financial crisis. I have taken this power point (cleaned up some of the language) and added the music of Pink Floyd's Money.

Stick figures work their way through the tangled web of the mortgage process. They start with the home buyer and go all the way to where we find ourselves today. They take the complicated and make it simple.

Please enjoy and post any comments.


Saturday, October 4, 2008

Bailout bill/law....now what? Here piggy, piggy!


One of my employees ask me yesterday how this bailout bill affects us. I acutally had to think for a minute. How does this affect this industry and us personally?

As for the industry, I HOPE that it will allow some of the lenders to loosen up the lending practices. Congress and the President says it will free up credit. However, for the lenders that keep their own paper, it does not affect them at all because they do not rely on the secondary market to buy loans and free up their lines of credit. Now, for the lenders that originate loans and sale their paper, it should immediately allow them to free up the credit lines and make more loans.

What really scares me about this law is the part where a judge can change a contract between a lender and borrower (i.e. the note and deed of trust). Under the new law, a bankruptcy judge can throw out the terms of the loan and reconstruct the terms. For instance, if the current loan terms are not favorable to the borrower, the judge can lower the interest rate or lengthen the term. Whatever it takes to make the borrowe able to make the loan payments. THIS IS INCREDULOUS! In America, we have the freedom to contract. There is not any uneven barginning power between the parties. By federal law, the borrower always has three days to rescend the loan FOR ANY REASON! If they did not like the terms of the loan, they could back out. Now, a judge is going to say that the borrower is too stupid to know what they were doing! As I have said before, over the last six years, I have closed over 5000 loans. Every borrower was told what the terms were; and I told them that they could cancel the loan for any reason. I am truly concerned that a judge can have such power.
With the bill in general, I have a HUGE problem with the amount of pork attached to it. The Senate added so much pork to it that it overwhelmed the original intent. There is pork for wooden arrows and wool research. John McCain lost a great opportunity. He should have voted "NO"; and, exposed all the wasteful pork and earmark spending. He should have said that he knows that we need to do something; BUT, this is not the way to do it. Either pass the bill as is; or, write a new bill that will pass.

How does it affect me and other households personally? I really do not know, yet. I hope that it will help my business with more closings; more home sales; and more refinances. But, that remains to seen. Hopefully, I will be able to blog about that later and be pleasantly surprised. However, I do not see in this bailout law.