The Housing Crisis and America's fear of the R-word

There has been enough media attention on the economy lately to make it difficult for me to get through the day without a mini panic moment. I've been scouring the latest news on the bailout bill and on the housing market several times a day. It may not be very good for my mental health, especially since I can't really figure out a way to protect my assets without contributing to a run on the banks, which would be ultimate bad ju-ju.



But I am very, very glad that Congress did not pass the bailout bill as it existed. The reason...in my opinion Congress did its job, which is a tough one consisting of 2 parts: representing the desires of its constituency and protecting constitutional rights and freedom. Protecting the economy has never been part of Congress' job description. And I fail to see how getting the country $700 billion dollars in debt will fix the crisis created by offering credit to those who couldn't afford to pay it back. See a parallel? Bank to overextended credit is as US Gov't to overextended credit. Any high school student prepping for the SAT should be able to spot that one.



I'm also very proud of Congress *gasp* listening to their constituency. Hubby was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had several congressmen from both parties who stated that essentially they have NEVER seen a public response of this magnitude on any single issue before, it far exceeds the response a while back on the immigration issue, and that there was NOT ONE call or email expressing support for the bill from a constituent. NOT ONE. And these were the words of a democrat congressman.



Basically, I think the American people, although totally freaked out about their 401(k) and how they are going to put food on the table, get what certain members of both parties don't...you. can't. fix. a. credit. problem. by. obtaining. more. credit. Just as Americans who are desperately transferring balances from one credit card to another realize that it won't fix the problem.



But the U.S. government doesn't have the option of transferring its debt, or at least it shouldn't, because it is not the government's money. It is OUR money. And I am unwilling to pay $10,000 of my money, with interest (yes, I know, the per-household estimates vary widely, just assume this is an example, okay?) to protect the jobs of CEOs with multi-million dollar golden parachutes.



And I feel the measure would have given the government WAY too much power. I'm pretty far to the right, at least fiscally. I believe that essentially the people have to be very, very careful about what rights they give the government the ability to enforce at the point of a gun, which is essentially what laws are. Laws are enacted and the government uses the point of a gun to enforce them. And I'm not so keen on my hard earned money being taken from me to finance the greed and laziness of others.



I read a fabulous article today in the Christian Science Monitor (which is a well-respected news source, not partisan) in which the author said the only cure for the economic crisis is recession. She (or he, one of those unisex names) basically stated that for some odd reason the government is scared to death of recession, or of using that word (I have a theory about that...recession doesn't seem to be so good for the party in power. Americans seem to think the government has some kind of magical power over the economy and that economic downturns are strictly the fault of governmental policy). She cites an "International Monetary Fund report that examined 124 banking crises in the past 27 years" which basically says the most healthy thing to do overall is let the failing businesses fail, sell the parts off, and deal with a very rough 2-3 year recession which is then followed by "a strong growth rebound."



This is what i've been saying for about a year now. CAPITALISM...let's all chant it, people. Capitalism is theoretically about allowing business to rise and fall without interference. Obviously we want to do what we can to help businesses succeed, because profits in business create wealth for all of us. Yes, I just stated that businesses being profitable is a good thing. The oil companies posting enormous profits is a good thing, for the CEOs of that company, and for the firefighters and nurses and teachers and video-game designers whose 401(k)s have a share in the company. And letting the failing businesses fail is a good thing too.



My husband likened it to our recent forestry management. Fires are a bad thing so you stop every fire that happens. And 50 years or so of this (give or take a few decades, this is an analogy, not a thesis) creates this huge mass of undergrowth that would have been burned off by the naturally occurring fires. So now we have fires that are uncontrollable, and we're still trying to stop every fire, because now they're even bigger, badder, and threatening more homes and lives.



Recession. Bring it on. It'll suck, and it will hurt, and I hope and pray that my husband's job is still here in 2 years (which is scary considering his company's current financial situation), and that some day soon someone will purchase our starter home so we can have a positively balancing financial sheet again (we recently purchased a larger home for our growing family...big enough to grow into but NOT a lavish McMansion, something big enough to fit our whole family around the table at once). I'm not saying that recession is the answer because i'm wealthy and can afford to take a loss, but because I don't think it's the government's role to try to beat out the flames of a fire out of their control, and I don't believe they would succeed anyway. There is evidence that the governmental interventions of the thirties actually lengthened the Great Depression. Other countries, which were in similar financial positions, basically let the natural market forces run their course, and they recovered significantly faster than the U.S.



But none of our politicians will ever say that, or state like the head of the bank of England that the standard of living will fall (such cheek!). Too bad.

Reasons not to vote for Obama: the Born Alive bill

Let me just warn you, this will turn your stomach. I have difficulty speaking about this without crying, and it makes me really, really mad (I'm all for impassioned politics, as long as its backed by reason and facts and not presumptions). But i'll try to explain the facts before I start on the rant.

In 2001 a bill went before the Illinois senate. It dealt with the rights of and treatment for babies born alive during late term induced labor abortions. [The following is from the townhall website below.]

A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die... Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Barack Obama opposed the Illinois bill. Vehemently. And voted 'present.' He didn't even have the guts to vote 'no.' He gave numerous excuses for his position, and the one he has reiterated recently is that by requiring a second doctor "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that." So the constitutionally protected rights of a living person (no debate on whether a fetus is a person with constitutional rights necessary, this is now no longer a fetus and is an independently living, full-fledged person) are to be superceded by a 'burden' imposed on a woman who chose to have an abortion on a fetus on the cusp of viability?

This is infanticide. This is murder. I'm not going to debate whether abortion is murder, although I freely admit I am pro-life and anti-abortion. This isn't abortion. This procedure and the resultant suffering are the same as suffocating any newborn.

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. And he couldn't even take a stand on a bill that passed the Federal congress UNANIMOUSLY, and was supported by the National Abortion Rights Activists League (NARAL). Supported by a pro-choice lobbyist group!

Now, go hug your kids to try to get the ick out.

http://townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/08/barack_obamas_abortion_crime_a.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_abortion_challenge_1.html

Reasons not to vote for Obama: Iraq withdrawal delay

Barack Obama has been an opponent of the war and very consistent in his remarks about immediate pull-out of troops until he recently softened his position on troop withdrawal prior to his Middle East trip in July. He recently commented on Bill O'Reilly that “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” Analysts later criticized his remarks, saying in essence that there was nothing surprising about the success of the surge. It was from the beginning a sound strategic move (No, I don't have quotes...Google it if you want to find that specific response).

To me, it appeared that Obama was trying to 'save face.' His previous position on the war was, in essence, wrong. He was wrong, but he won't admit that he was wrong, he'll barely admit that the surge was a success. The US is in negotiations for a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yay! Everybody wins...safer Iraq, troops coming home. Everyone should be happy, right?

Wrong, apparently. Because according to some sources, Obama headed over to the Middle East and had some lovely closed-door chats with high Iraqi officials in which he tried to get them to delay the troop withdrawal until the new US administration was in. I am not making this up, see the below links. IF this is true, which I believe it well could be, it would pretty much be treason. Completely unacceptable to try to undermine the diplomatic relations of the current Commander-in-Chief. But, this is unsurprising to me. Because now that the Democrats have egg on their face regarding the surge, there's only one thing left to do...buy time so that it can happen on Obama's watch (if he's elected) and he can take the credit for it. He talks about how now is a time for action, to put politics aside...and then tries to basically sabotage the welfare of American soldiers and the independence of an entire nation. Nice.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/obama-camp-denies-he-tried-to-delay-withdrawal-agreement-of-troops-from-iraq/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

Reasons not to vote for Obama: Jeremiah Wright

Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor for over 20 years was a man named Jeremiah Wright, head of one of the largest and most diverse black congregations in the country. His church's website states their commitment to God, and then commitment to black families, black communities, etc. Um, if any church anywhere published their commitment to white families and white communities they would be vilified, and rightly so. He is blatantly anti-white and appears to blame all whites for all of the troubles of blacks in contemporary America. Wright continually uses hateful, racist rhetoric, and has stated that black Americans should not sing God Bless America, but God damn America.

In a political race in which Mitt Romney was excoriated for his religion, with Reverend Al Sharpton saying, and I quote "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that," and receiving only minimal criticism for the remark, it would seem that religion does appear to play a significant role in the current election. But should a candidate be judged by what type of person he chooses as his spiritual advisor? By the beliefs he holds? Absolutely. It is relevant. Because what we need (and should demand) in a leader is strength of character and integrity, and a person's values are inextricably linked with their religious beliefs. Mitt Romney's should have been judged by the beliefs of the LDS church and its leaders, at the time President Gordon B. Hinckley, a man who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004, and always preached love, tolerance, forgiveness, faith, diligence, and personal responsibility.

Contrast that with the hateful, intolerant, permissive, victimizing of Reverend Wright. This man should not be considered a spiritual leader by anyone, and in my opinion is definitely NOT a disciple of Christ. He masquerades, with varied success, as a Christian, but does not live the values or teachings of Christ, in my opinion. And while Wright was calling the 9/11 attacks a judgement on the country and stating that the white, US government purposefully inflicted the AIDS virus upon blacks, Obama responded to questions regarding his pastor saying things such as they're just words, they're not important, and comparing Wright to the Jewish uncle that says crazy embarassing things but you have to tolerate.

Um, Obama? No, you don't. You denounce such hatred and fight against it. But Barack Obama took a month of hemming and hawing after the March 13 ABC report that broke the story to go from saying Wright's remarks were "unacceptable and inexcusable" but a few days later that he "couldn't disown him" to saying their relationship had been permanently damaged after Wright said that criticism of his sermons amounts to criticism of black churches in general. I believe the reason that Obama was so mild in his reaction was that he actually agrees with Wright. I mean, wouldn't that be why he attended his church for 20 something years? Would a person attend a church regularly for 20 years if he disagreed with its basic tenets?

"Politico describes Wright in this video as "deeply racially confrontational." Which might be an understatement. He rants and rails against "rich white people who run this country," demonizes white people, calls Jesus a "poor black man" oppressed by "Italians," says that Barack Obama "ain't privileged" -- this, even though Barack and Michelle Obama are Ivy-league grads in the top two percent of Americans in income. And so forth. This Wright is a clown.

True, Hillary ain't never been called a n---er, but she also ain't got a racialist, Farrakhan-loving, crypto-Marxist goof as her closest spiritual advisor. Obama has this reputation of being a conciliator, an irenic figure who can move us past the divisive politics of the past. The rap on him is that beneath that 1000-megawatt smile and his massive charisma is a politician who holds views on the hard left of the mainstream US political spectrum. Fair or not, Rev. Wright's big mouth, and the paramount importance he plays in Obama's spiritual life, serve to validate that criticism." (from beliefnet blog)

http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=4443788

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/barack-obamas-jeremiah-wright.html (good description of the issues)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html (transcript of Jeremiah Wright interview)

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/29/1460529-timeline-of-barack-obamas-relationship-with-jeremiah-wright (timeline of Wright and Obama's association, with quotes from Obama on the Wright issue on different dates)

Reasons not to vote for Obama: William Ayers

Barack Obama was employed for 8 years by a man named William Ayers, who just happens to be a radical terrorist who blew up buildings in the 60s or 70s (I've read a lot of stuff, I don't remember the dates) and got off due to a technicality. Ayers confessed, to the authorities, to doing this. He also, in his 2001 memoir, said he does not regret setting bombs, only wishes they had done more. (This man is now a 'well-respected' professor, by the way...love that liberal education. Let's have him influencing our best and brightest).

Obama has repeatedly played this association down, saying things to the tune of why should I be responsible for bombs placed by this guy when I was 8 years old? (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote). No, Mr. Obama, you didn't plant bombs when you were 8, but you sure as heck knew who Ayers was, and had your big career launch party at his house, and accepted a paid position on a foundation he chaired, and let him help grease your wheels with the corrupt Chicago political machine.

"It is of vital importance to clarify Barack’s relationship with Ayers. This is not a casual relationship. It is not a recent relationship. And, as reported in an earlier piece on this blog, Ayers has not changed his tune of political radicalism. I don’t challenge his right to believe such things, but Ayers certainly does not reflect the views of most Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. Why is Barack lying about this relationship? That is the question voters deserve to have asked and answered." (from the noquarterusa link)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74486 http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/24/debunking_obamas_ayers_fact_sheet http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/

4 LEGITIMATE reasons not to vote for Barack Obama

Firstly, let me say that I wish I felt like there were 2 spectactularly fabulous candidates and that either would be a major boon to our country. I do not. Although I would much rather be voting for a candidate than against a candidate, I do feel that for those who do not want to vote FOR McCain there are legitimate, significant reasons to vote AGAINST Barack Obama (and yes, that means actually casting your vote for McCain). I personally have issues with some of McCain's policies but he aligns much, much closer with my policy views. And then there's this other stuff.

There has been a lot of mud-slinging (*gasp* huge shock) in this election and much of what has been said against Obama is in my mind irrelevant. I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim (but no, he's not, and the slip-up the other day about his Muslim faith was just a meaningless slip of the tongue such as all of us are prone to).

I do care that his mother supposedly renounced her citizenship, and that his father is a radical, and that his wife had a job working at a hospital trying to shift poor patients away to other hospitals (for which she made a 6-figure salary), but none of those are significant enough to make me not vote for him. His mother, father, and wife and not candidates in this election.

There are however, more pertinent and serious issues with HIM, both on policy and also with his personal associations.

Wait...I just said his mom and dad weren't huge issues, but these upcoming people are? Well, yes. He didn't get to choose his mom and dad, but he did choose these other associations. And although no candidate can be responsible for all of the words and deeds of everyone they've ever known, it is perfectly legitimate to question long-time, chosen associations with and defense of hateful, anti-patriotic racists and unapologetic terrorists. That's right, terrorists. Read the next post for details. I've broken this down into separate posts for each issue, because they're rather long.

1. Obama and William Ayres

2. Obama and Jeremiah Wright

3. Obama and the Iraq delay

4. Obama and the Born Alive bill