Log in

Fiscal Responsibility Conference

One of the things I love about liberals is not just their deep hypocrisy, but also their confidence that the American public is to stinking stupid to see it.  In part they are right about that.  After all somebody keeps sending Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi back to Washington. Several million actually voted for this president.  The liberals have good reason to assume that the American public is to stupid to see the truth about them. Part of it really is.


Obama has announced that he is going to cut the deficit by half.  Well good for him.  I just have a question or two.  Does Obama intend to reduce the deficit by half of what the deficit was BEFORE he signed into law the 775 billion dollar Democrat wish list, the biggest spending bill in our history?  The same 775 billion dollar bill that is full of earmarks that we are not allowed to call earmarks?  That bill?  Can we reduce that by half? 


Maybe Obama intends to reduce the deficit by half of what it became after he also added the housing bill in which he decided to reward those who do not pay their mortgages by punishing those who do pay their mortgages?


 Is this reduction of the deficit going to at least get us back to the levels of the Bush deficit, as bad as those were? Can we reduce the bill back to what it was before Obama took the oath of office?  I mean. I would at least like to get back to that. 


Frankly this President who ranted and raved about the Republicans’ fear mongering and after ranting and raving about the debt he inherited from the Bush administration, used fear mongering to plunge this nation into even more breath taking crippling debt just last week. 


That was This week?  Why this is a new week.  This week he blatantly held a fiscal responsibility conference yesterday. A fiscal responsibility conference!!!  Like a liberal would recognize a responsibility if one walked up and bit him on the nose.   Still Obama after increasing the budget he decries by another 775 billion on pork projects that have nothing at all to do with helping the economy holds a fiscal responsibility conference.  I do recognize that for liberals looking like they are doing something is the same as doing something, still a fiscal responsibility conference? That is epitome of hypocrisy.


Obama and the liberals are counting on our not noticing this hypocrisy.  After all he signed the pork bill last week. Surely the American public will not remember.  He may be right.   The liberal media will inundate the non thinking with the idea that we should  applauded this president for his ‘courage.’  


Now all you Kool-Aid drinkers repeat after me:

Obama is going to reduce the deficit by half.

Obama is going to pay my mortgage

Obama is going to save us

Obama is going to make my life trouble free.

Obama is the messiah


 And the liberals love to have it so.

raise those taxes!!

Obama Seeks to Halve Deficit to Half Trillion Per Year by 2013
Obama wants to slash the deficit. Isn't that just good. First he raises it by 727 billion with a bill that the idiots still call a stimulus but the rest of us know is the biggest democratic spending bill in history.  The stimulus bill that tisn't is nothing but a Christmas wish list for every democrat in Washington.  It is a payoff bill. 

For an encore, this president decided that honest people who work and pay their mortgages will be punished and forced to pay the morgages of people who bought more house than they could afford. 

After increasing government spending to record levels, he now says that he is going to reduce the budget by half.  Right.  Is he going to reduce the debt to half of what it was before he spent us into oblivion or is he going to reduce the debt to half of the huge huge amount he has added still leaving us in more debt than at any time in our nation?  This isn't a promise. This is deceitful rhetoric designed to dupe the worshipers.  And the liberal Obama butt kissing media is buying it.

How is he going to do this?  By taxing the "rich".

Tax the rich.  Guess who hurt?  The poor. Who creates jobs? The rich including those who are not rich but whom Obama has classified as rich. 

Tax the rich?  Guess who pays more for milk and bread and clothes and cars and houses and everything? All of us including the poor. 

What a stupid man.  What a stupid liberal idiot man.  How sad are the   idiots that support him. 

Tax the rich. Why of course we should.  The rich must be punished!!!  We cannot have achievers in this society. It is not far to reward hard work and ingenuity and creativity in this society when there are people who do not work hard and who do not contribute to society.  Punish those who work hard and are responsible. It is not fair that those kinds of people succeed when the lazy and irresponsible do not. 

Help the poor by beating down the hard working person until everyone is poor. 

Stupid man. And the liberals love to have it so. 

These are the last days of the last days.  It is known that the US will not be a world power in the last days.  Obama is going to make it so.


Obama an abomination? You bet. Yes indeed.

Alan Keyes On Obama: “The Man Is An Abomination”
February, 21, 2009 — nicedeb
He also calls Obama a radical Communist. I happen to agree.


So do I.


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 administration 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/457townhall_com] ): "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, including 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 moving 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.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.


McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action

on Fannie and Freddie
by Human Events

Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below.
McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."
Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.


Oct. 4th, 2008


Bailout type Cost to taxpayers (Source: Reuters)
Financial bailout package approved this week up to or more than $700 billion
Bear Stearns financing $29 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization $200 billion
AIG loan and nationalization $85 billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill $300 billion
Mortgage community grants $4 billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments $87 billion
Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility $200 billion+
Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund $50 billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $144 billion
POSSIBLE TOTAL $1.8 trillion+

Last week, the Bush administration proposed a three-page bill to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion. It died in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this week.

On Friday, though, the House approved a far bigger, broader, and beefier version of the bill--which has ballooned to a remarkable 442 pages. The vote was 263 to 171, with the bulk of the opposition coming from Republicans. Because the Senate already approved the measure, it immediately went to President Bush, who signed it into law.

On the theory that this would be a way to convince previously skeptical Democrats to approve the measure, one large chunk of the bailout bill is devoted to renewable energy, energy-efficient appliances, and so on (the "Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008"). The authors lured Republicans with protections from the alternative minimum tax (via the "Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008").

That includes, as the New York Post pointed out, millions in tax breaks and related pork for kids' wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum producers, auto race tracks, and corporations operating in American Samoa. (The likely explanation for the latter: StarKist has a large tuna-canning operation in American Samoa. And StarKist's parent company happens to be located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)

The bill has become, in other words, something almost unrelated to the business of bailing out Wall Street. The Beltway term for this is a "Christmas tree bill," meaning everyone gets to hang their favorite spending projects on it--though by the time Congress gets it through, it more closely resembles a slop bucket.

"We will not Christmas-tree this bill," Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat promised a few days ago. "The times are too urgent. Everyone has their own desires and needs. It's going to have to wait."

So much for that idea.

{Let me put this plainly. I am very angry at this. I am angry that we had to pass such a bill at all. I am VERY ANGRY that the blame for this mess isn't going toward those who are at fault: Barney Franks and the democrats. I am very very very angry at the crap attached to this bill. It is time fo vote out the whole mess of these idiots. }


It’s election season, so it is appropriate that an important vote will be cast this weekend. No, I am not talking about early balloting in Ohio or Oregon for the November presidential race. Rather, this vote is a national one — and it will be taking place at a theater near you.

This weekend, the returns will be tallied on box-office sales of the opening weekend of An American Carol — a marvelously politically incorrect take-off on the timeless Dickensian morality tale. Set around the Fourth of July in contemporary America rather than a Victorian Yuletide, it has been created and directed by my friend, the zany and wildly successful David Zucker

This Carol’s Scrooge character, played by Kevin Farley, is a dead-ringer for radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. The ghosts who visit him — including John F. Kennedy, George S. Patton, and George Washington — labor to teach their subject about the greatness of this country, the absurdity of the “Blame-America-First” Left’s toxic hatred for it and the opening the latter provides for Islamists bent on our destruction. Punctuated by trademark Zucker slapstick humor (his other credits include Airplane!, The Naked Gun, Scary Movie 3, and assorted sequels), the movie makes a deadly serious point: Everything is on the line in this War for the Free World and those of us who prize our freedoms will lose them if we fail to protect them against enemies foreign and domestic.

Be afraid. Be very afraid

Folks, it's time to batten down your personal hatches. If you're planning on riding out a hurricane, you'd better prepare.

One of the problems of my generation is we've always taken abundance for granted. Having never lived through hard times, we were probably bored with our grandparents' intense frugality that resulted from surviving the Great Depression. Why save aluminum foil or keep hairpins beyond their functional use when all you have to do is … buy more?

Is it a good idea to pay off all debt even  your house if you can?  Yes.  It is always a good idea to do that but especially now. 

Is is t a good idea to garden and can?  Yes. Always has been.  Home grown food tastes about a hundred times better than what you can buy and is better for you. It also saves money.

Is it a good idea to be able to grow your won meat?  Yes.  See the above reasons. My family are going to work toward that. 

Is is a good idea to be able to sew or do other things for your self. Yes. Always has been. 

I am going to be very plain about this topic. I am not fearful at all right now.  I am  looking up.  We are seeing end time prophecy being fulfilled right before our very eyes.    The only preparation for that is being right with God and serious with Him.  If your life is not holy and you are not living all out whole hearted for Jesus Christ, it doesn't matter one bit what you save up or pay off.  Real preparation? Get right with God.  Draw near to him.  Wash you garments and live holy lives.  Witness to you family and neighbors. 



Star Parker

Posted: October 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

As our financial markets totter, as homes go into foreclosure, as Wall Street executives lose millions, as Americans have more and more difficulty getting loans, can anyone be happy?

Certainly. Those on the left who now, with unbounded glee, pen obituaries for the free market.
One can sense their joy as they have, they think, the last laugh.
But, in fact, what we are watching is not a failure of markets, but the latest failure of the welfare state.






INDIANAPOLIS —  A convicted sex offender died Sunday during a struggle with a father who found the naked man in or near his 17-year-old daughter's bedroom, police said.

Police said Meyers was naked except for a mask and latex gloves and had entered the home through a window near the girl's bedroom with rope, condoms and a knife. He was familiar with the home's layout because it belonged to a relative, police said.

The girl awoke and screamed when she saw the man in her room, police said. The father responded and struggled with the intruder while the girl's mother phoned 911.


Got Opinions?

Latest Month

February 2009