Thursday, October 2, 2008

Taking A Break

I think I am going to be taking a break from the political scene for a little while, but might have to wait until after tomorrow night's debate with Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, it is going to be great. I can not wait to see what words of infinite wisdom Sarah Palin is going to have for us. I just hope that Joe Biden does not make faux pas that could make us look like total morons. For interested parties, you can pretty much catch the debate on any channel or you can watch it online at CNN.com.

My reason for taking a break is that my head is ready to explode, I now know more about McCain, Palin, and Obama than I would say at least 60% of the population does and it makes my head hurt. Another problem that I have discovered, is that no matter how bad a lie is and how hard I try to prove that it is a lie, people still believe it, or think that I am lying even though I cite valid sources from reputable people. I am going to go emo for a minute and say that I have virtually given up on people. The ability for people to look at things from a different perspective, or to consider an idea that maybe vastly different from their own, is seriously lacking in this country.

Granted I am a pretty die hard Obama supporter but I am sick and tired of people having no common sense whatsoever. People still think that his middle name "Hussein" ties him to Saddam Hussein, they still think that because he attended a "madrassa" (muslim school) between the ages of 6-10 that he has Muslim extremism ingrained into his personality. CNN, the ONLY new channel to go to the school he attended, found no evidence whatsoever of the "extremism" that so many people are so quick to attach to Obama. Another thing worth noting, is the fact that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of Americans have been lead to believe that all 1.4 billion of them are extremists. It does not take a whole lot of imagination to realize that if all 1.4 billion were extremists, we would be in a whole lot of trouble, much more than we are in right now. Not only that, but even if Obama were an Muslim Extremist, is it that unrealistic to think that in the almost 12 years that he has been in politics someone would have found it out a lot earlier than now? The same goes for his supposedly forged or missing birth certificate, which is posed on his website and many other places. But for just a second, lets just say that his birth certificate was missing, his mother is an American citizen, he was born in Hawaii, and therefore, Obama is a natural-born citizen. As some conspiracy theorists like to speculate, supposedly, Obama's mother was in Kenya at the time of his birth, then immediately after delivery, boarded a plane, took a nearly 16 hour flight from Kenya to Hawaii where she filled out the birth certificate. For one he is already a citizen of the US having been born to a US citizen, although he wouldn't be considered "natural born." For two, this is borderline psychotic, they are implying that Obama's mother thought, "Oh my god, I'm in Kenya and I want Barack to grow up to be president. I have to fly back to Hawaii immediately so that I can have his birth certificate signed there so that he can be a natural born citizen." While not entirely impossible, I seriously doubt that she would have been capable of boarding a flight having just given birth and fly an hours old baby back to Hawaii. Not only that but this is another area where someone could have discovered this well before he began his campaign.

I am pretty sick of all of this, it is almost as if we have lost our ability to think for ourselves and can only digest information if it is spoon fed to us and the person says "here this is true, take my word for it." It is bullshit and it needs to stop, immediately. As it currently stands, I am very fearful for my country, for many reasons. Some people dislike Obama because they claim that he is an "elitist." Excuse me? We have just spent the past 8 years with someone who is supposedly "just an average guy," "someone you could have a beer with," and "has small town values." So, how have the past 8 years been? We are fighting 2 wars, have a crippled economy, it has been the most secretive government ever, ethics scandals, torture scandals and those are just some of the things that we know about. I do not mind at all that Obama has a degree from Columbia University and a Harvard Law degree, he sat on the Harvard Law Review, and he also worked as a constitutional lawyer in Chicago. If he is supposedly an "elitist" and McCain, who's wife owns the largest beer distributor in Arizona with revenue of over 300 million dollars a year and she owns 7 houses, including their primary residence which is a 4000 square foot condo with a price tag of $4.6 million, is not an "elitist." Then I guess I need to be told what the definition of being an elitist is. Personally, I would not think that a member of "the elite" would work as a community organizer. It as almost as if Obama being an intelligent person is somehow looked down upon which is sad. And now, people are going around slamming Obama, saying that he's not fit to run this country but a former Navy man, who has been in the Senate for so long that he's almost a permanent fixture, who's Grandfather and Father were admirals, basically has virtually been surrounded by military his whole life, graduated 894 out of 899 in his class at Annapolis and does not believe in the simplest forms of diplomacy, and sings immature songs about bombing Iran, (Yes, he is on video singing Bomb, bomb, bomb....and then laughing, to the tune of Barbarann), and then selects a running mate who is incredibley inexperienced and does not even agree with half of McCain's platform, especially his reforms in earmarks, and is quoted as saying that "our national leaders are sending our soldiers on a task from god. (I have pretty much written a book on Palin) is vastly more qualified than Obama? Please, I am tired of it, honesly a vote for McCain will only continue us down the same path that we have been on for the past 8 years, lead to further deterioration of our foreign relations, and continue the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Gallup conducted polls in Germany, France, and England, the average of the 3 countries was 62% for Obama and 10% for McCain, that says a lot in my opinion. If McCain wins, I am moving to England.

Thanks for reading.

Anti-Smear Part 1

There are a plethora of emails, blog posts, youtube videos, and misinformed people out there that I feel the need to get things off my chest.

Barack Hussein Obama
There are those in this country who feel the need to emphasize that Obama's middle name is Hussein. This is by far one of the most annoying smears that I've found. First of all, all one has to do is do a quick Wikipedia search and do a little reading to find that his father's name is Barack Hussein Obama. Therefor, he was named after his father, and not the former president of Iraq like so many people like to say. Still not satisfied? Think his father was named after Saddam Hussein? Well that is a slight impossibility because Barack Hussein Obama Sr, was born on in 1936, also according to Wikipedia. Saddam Hussein wasn't born until April 1937, also according toWikipedia. Not only that, the likelihood of Barack Obama Jr's parents even knowing who Saddam Hussein was in 1961 when he was born is very slim. In 1961, Saddam Hussein was only 24 and his power and influence were next to none.

Fallen Soldier's Bracelet
As some of the more rumor mill people may have already read, there are people that have used Obama's reference of the soldiers bracelet during the debate against him. First off, early in the campaign, the mother asked the campaign not to mention the bracelet while giving speeches at campaign stops or during debates. While the campaign didnt' respond to the email, Obama never mentioned the bracelet until Friday night's debate. I agree, that perhaps he shouldn't have mentioned the bracelet because the family asked him not to. However, the reaction of the mother, who gave Obama the bracelet wasn't the highly negative reaction that has been posted on many websites. For the truth, you can go to The Associated Press or CBS News for the story from a reliable source rather than from a random blog. I have another issue with this though, and it relates to John McCain. If you watch nearly every speech that he has made there are two things that he always mentions, one is his time spent in prison in Vietnam, and the second is the bracelet that he got form the mother of a soldier. Granted, the mother may feel comfortable that he makes reference to this bracelet all the time, but personally, I feel it is disrespectful for McCain to make reference to it so much. Others may think that it is simply honoring the memory of this young man, which I agree with to an extent. My issue is that when do you cross the line of honoring the memory of the soldier, and move into, at least partially, using the bracelet for political gain. That may sound a little rude, but to mention the bracelet nearly every time that he speaks reeks of using it for political gain to me.

OMG WTF HE'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!!!
I actually received this in an email from an acquaintance today on Obama's supposed "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." There is a simple fact that many people do not realize. There are 535 people in Congress, for a bill to pass, you need at least 268 votes in the house before the bill moves onto the Senate where you need at least 51 more for the bill to pass. Quite honestly, there is no way that the majority of these things on this 10 point plan would pass, even if they were true.Factcheck.org did some investigation, as they usually do when ever a candidate comes under fire for one reason or another, into Obama's stance on the gun issue. They found that the NRA pretty much fabricated some of these 10 points out of thin air. For starters on where Obama stands on gun issues you can go to his website to view his position. If that doesn't satisfy you, you can go to The Washington Post or CBS News I worked at Lear Corporation, a supplier for General Motors for almost 8 years, there was a significant number of people who worked there who sided with the NRA no matter what a candidate would say about guns. My opinion is that the NRA, one of Washington's most powerful lobbyist groups, is one of the dirtiest organizations in existence. I find their tactics quite questionable at times. Even though Obama has clearly stated many times that he is not going to take away anybody's right to bear arms, the NRA still screams at their members and instills the fear that their right will disappear under a democrats watch. This is simply not true as this is a right that will never go away. It would be political suicide for a candidate for president to be so anti-gun as the NRA paints Obama to be.

Obama Supports Infanticide
I recently saw a video on youtube that I have some issues with. For starters, the group that put this video up on youtube is called, American News Today, from just browsing their website I instantly had a few problems with it. For one, they are obvious about the fact that they back McCain. I question any source that is as blatant about their endorsement of a candidate as a reliable source for finding out information about their opponent. I admit that it is difficult sometimes to make take an unbiased position on things. However, it seems that the further to the right or the left you go, the harder it becomes to look at things from an unbiased perspective. Some people may think that this is simply someone having strong convictions; I call it stubbornness and arrogance. Another thing is that a link on the side of the page is to a website nohussein.com, which I have already covered the "Hussein" issue above. The website instantly loses a lot of credibility for having that link there. I checked out "nohussein.com" and it is filled with complete lies and half-truths. I always have issues with websites that don't' cite their sources, and this website cites very few if any at all. Remember math class when your teacher said "show your work."? It applies to reporting and trying to convince people of a point. Simply referencing a blog from Clark Anderson from Kalamazoo, Michigan, doesn't count as a credible source. A real source from real people with real credentials isn't too much to ask, as long as you aren't one of those people who like to take things out of context. Another issue, is that this organization "American News Today" is nothing more than a huge blog. Granted I didn't spend much time there as it is 1am and I need to get to sleep, but blogs are not credible sources unless they are written from a generally unbiased perspective and/or cite their sources, and the sources you cite must be credible one.

Anyways, back to the point. Obama stated that his reason for voting no, and many of his colleagues in the Illinois state senate as well, was because he believed it to be an attack on Roe v. Wade and a law already existed on the books similar to the "born alive act" passed by the federal government. This statute stated in the very first section:

Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. 
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.

I think that makes it pretty clear. However, I will agree that this is a very complicated issue that I could probably write a book on governing the philosophy involved in this issue, I won't do that here. In this New York Times article, it give a full explanation on what the Illinois bill contained, among the things in the bill, were:

But the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill. The accompanying legislation, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, would have allowed legal action "on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth."
…that bill would have introduced the possibility that doctors could be sued for failing to take extraordinary measures to save the lives of pre-viable infants, those born so prematurely that they could not possibly survive. As a result, they argue, it is disingenuous of anti-abortion organizations to claim that Mr. Obama was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law.

It is also fairly interesting to note, that this bill that if you voted no for it you supported infanticide, was not passed even when Republicans were the majority in the Illinois State Senate. If Obama is guilty then they all are and I haven't heard any mention of the other people who voted against this bill, because apparently republicans and democrats alike are in the same boat as well. Another issue that I have, if this woman, Jill Stanek (and don't' get me wrong, I'm not calling her a liar) did witness this, happening, it would clearly be in violation of Illinois state statues and that attending physician should have been charged with at Class 3 Felony.

I've rambled, but anyways, for more information you can visit Obama's site he doesn't just claim things he cites sources, like Illinois Compiled Statutes from the state governments official website, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

Well, I'm tired and I have to go to bed. I'm going to write more later. Thanks for reading.

Dow Slides 777 points

McCain suspended his campaign and nearly the debate to go to Washington to work on the bailout plan. I thought that his postponement was a sham, political pandering at the highest level. He keeps making reference to "putting his campaign on hold" it makes me thing that what he is really saying translates to: "Hey Look at me, see, Look what I'm doing." He saw this moment as a time to possible get a campaign boost. Thats how I see it and how a lot of others see it too. At a campaign stop today he had another "look at me" moment when he told people, "Put my campaign on hold for a couple days last week to fight for a rescue plan that put you and your economic security first.'' Pander, pander, pander. I have serious issues with McCain, among these are the fact that his campaign manager is none other than Rick Davis, a Newsweek article highlights some of the finer points. Granted, I wouldn't have a problem with him being so for this bailout plan if not for his statement issued in March of 2008:

"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."

While it is not a horrible statement, it does show a little bit of hypocrisy.

In a campaign stop in Iowa, McCain stated:"Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems. Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship in the process.'' He can think that, but when you look at the votes cast today in the house, 140 of the 235 (60%) Democrats voted for the bill, while only 65 of the 199 (33%) Republicans voted for it. And McCain blames Obama and the Democrats for the bill not passing? Simply sounds like more partisan politics to me.

I've done some research on this whole "sub-prime lending" issue and through my research, I've come to a conclusion. The banks do not, under any circumstance, deserve this bailout. Essentially, it is the government rewarding these banks for horrible lending practices. A video I watched on youtube stated that it was Clinton's fault for loosening the regulation due to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). However, after reading the bill, there is a little more to it than just the loosening regulation. Basically, the meat of the bill was to require mortgage lenders to grant a percentage of their loans to low income people, loans in low income areas, and to minorities, think of it as a mortgage lenders version of affirmative action. The only requirement was they had to give the loans to a percentage of people. However, these areas often required them to approve loans for people with poor credit, so, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others, would buy these loans from the lenders essentially guaranteeing them, even if the borrower defaulted on the loan. What I find horrible, is that lenders would give loans to people with "teaser" rates, these were given in what were called "2-28 loans," "3-27 loans" or "5-25 loans." These loans would give the "teaser" rate for a fixed term of 2, 3 or 5 years, and then for the remainder the loan the interest rate would go up for the remaining time of the loan. Like my previous blog stated, referencing the couple in the USA Today article, a large percentage of people were unable to afford these loans after the interest rate went up. This practice was not required by the CRA, it was a method invented by the lenders themselves to get people in, here's another example:

Ana Cecillia Marin, a 36-year-old single mother of three, owns a 20-year-old ranch house on a dusty, garbage-strewn acre in Palmdale, Calif. She says she earns $34,000 a year managing flower sales at a Los Angeles food store and selling clothes on the side. She bought her house in 2005 for $385,000. By taking out a first and second mortgage, she was able to buy it for no money down.

There are two almost obvious problems with this:

1) If Ana Cecillia Marin had gotten a normal 30 year fixed mortgage at 6% on $385,000, her monthly payment would have been $2,308 [ref].

2) If you make $34,000 per year, you are only making $2,833 per month (ignoring taxes, FICA, etc.)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is no way she can afford this. However, these lenders would grant the "teaser rates" for a period of 2, 3, or 5 years at a much lower interest rate of usually 4%. After the initial term would expired, the borrower could then refinance into another loan, resetting the "teaser rate" and it would then be good for another 2, 3, or 5 years. As one article I read says: "This is a great idea for people to get houses they can't realistically afford until:

a) housing prices start falling instead of rising, or… b) interest rates go up, or…

c) the excesses get to be so great that regulators finally start sniffing around (followed by the press), or, in the worst case…

d) all of the above.

Take a guess at which one happened? Millions and millions of these subprime mortgages were given out. If you multiply the 4 million people who were behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure by the average cost of a home in 2006, which was a staggering $305,900, you come up with a figure of $1.2 trillion, which this bailout would not cover, double it would but I would agree with that even less. The problem is, we are talking about a huge number of mortgages granted between 1996 until the present that could very well be subprime mortgages. We still don't know the extend of it as there are more and more foreclosures every day. My verdict is it is the lenders fault, through lax regulation, and predatory lending practices, we have driven this industry and this country into the ground. People were given loans that they shouldn't even have considered. The most guilty party in this is by far the lenders, instead of putting people in houses they could afford they put them in a very expensive house where they would make a ton of profit, simply because by selling these loans to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, they loans were guaranteed.

The Dow plummeted today losing nearly 800 points, nearly 7%, NASDAQ lost nearly 10%, the New York Stock Exchange lost almost 9%, and the S&P 500 lost almost 9%. For people who aren't familiar with the stock market, those are huge drops, the largest in a long time. Here's the real kicker, I am currently in a position, where I don't really care. Let them fail. It's the banks fault, and I don't feel sorry for them at all. This is simply more proof, just like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and others that there is need for regulation, better regulation than there is right now. Businesses cannot keep screwing investors and consumers, and relying on the government to bail them out. Yes, the stock market is going to suffer, and there is going to be a lot of people who are hurt by this. I believe the government should really stay out of it.