Republicans Shoot Themselves in Foot, with a Democratic bullet.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/29/saltsman.obama.song/index.html

I am a long time listerner and sometime fan of the Rush Limbaugh radio show. For practically as long as his shown as run on radio, he has frequently run parodies that poke a great deal of fun at politicians and celebrities. One of his most common philosophies is to "illustrate the absurd by being absurd".

One of the more recent "illustrations" was a parody/filk song created and performed by musical satirist Paul Shanklin who is frequently featured on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. This particular song, "Barack, the Magic Negro" was inspried by an similarly entitled article written by David Eherenstein for the LA Times which appeared on March 17, 2007. Now, I should expect that anybody reading this blog would clearly know that a) Mr. Ehrenstein is certainly no right-wing demagogue and b) that the LA Times is not exactly a champion of Conservative values. In fact, Mr. Ehrenstein's article clearly points out that Senator Joe Biden (who later was chosen to be Obama's running mate) expressed the opinion that people like Barack because he "articulate" and "clean" and that major figures in the Civil Rights movement are dubious about Barack Obama's "authenticity" as a black man. The major point of the article is that Barack Obama affords "white America" the chance to assuage their "guilt" of black repression by supporting a non-threatening less militant person of color.

The song by Paul Shanklin takes very liberally (and in some cases, very literally) from this article printed by a left-leaning newspaper and written by a left-leaning writer.

Nearly every time that Mr. Limbaugh has played this parody on his show he has reminded his viewers that this song isn't an expression of how Republicans or conservatives feel about the President-elect but about how long-time civil rights activists and commentators of the political left of this country feel about him.

And yet, we now have this current imbroglio where a contender for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee who distributed copies of this song to friends and acquaintances is now being held in contempt by his colleagues for encouraging "racist" views.

I'd like to remind all who read this blog to remember that in this particular instance, the song being pilloried was nothing more than a satire of the expressions of Mr. Ehrenstein and printed in the LA Times. Consider the source, folks. Consider the source.

Follow Up to the Previous Post... "Enough".

I've recently found a fantastic financial advice show on the radio. The host is Dave Ramsey.

His byline: "Where the new status symbol is a paid-off mortgage instead of a BMW."

I like it. :p

"Enough" Needs to Become Part of our Culture Again.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D958II200&show_article=1

The following excerpt is pulled from the article hotlinked above:

"Boy, it really looks ugly for the start of 2009," said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service.

"It's really difficult to find something between now and inauguration time that says people are going to feel better, they're going to drive more, they're going to ship more packages," Kloza said.

What Mr. Kloza was referring to is price of oil on December 22nd, which closed at about $38.00 per barrel.

I had a very good friend by the name of Monty King who expressed one of the most profound aphorisms I have ever heard. We were talking about how perverted the use of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution had become. Specifically, we use it to silence Political dissent but we use it to defend people spraying graffiti on other people's property or to publish smut. What he said was "Glen, we are killing ourselves with our liberty." Wow.

What he said is just as applicable here. Just read what Mr. Kloza said: "... going to feel better, they're going to drive more, and they're going to ship more packages...". What he is saying is that he wants Americans spending more of their money. What he is lamenting is that Americans are no longer exercising their freedom to spend borrowed money. We've been doing that for over four decades now. And right now, the American people and/or American lending institutions are speaking loud and clear by keeping their wallets closed.

Here's a stat: According this CCN/Money article, American consumer debt fell .08% in the third quarter of 2008. A large part of this was due to home foreclosures. It also is the result of jobs being lost in a shrinking economy. While people losing homes and jobs is never pleasant to consider or worse, to endure, we need to really think about what this means.

1. Americans and their Government have been spending like drunken sailors for over four decades. American household savings are at their lowest in the last century. Instead, we've been buying new cars and flat-panel tvs and home theater system and game consoles. Worse, much of this spending has been on revolving credit debt, which can easily spiral into 24% to 35% interest rates per year.
   
2. The one factor buoyed our economy for the last ten years is the housing sector, specifically new house construction. These houses were being 100% financed using risky lending products (ARMs, sub-primes and interest-only loans) to buyers who were not being scrutinized with regard to their ability to satisfy their loan agreement. Hence, when ARMs started increasing or house values started dropping and people suddenly saw that they were in a negative equity position they simply walked away from their house loan because they had no real interest in the house.

Like all major events that occur in our lives this crisis will leave an effect. Banks and other financial institutions are now requiring a sizable down payment on house loans and proof of employment before a loan will be approved. Cars are a different matter. It sounds like we will continue to see 0% interest loans for some time, but I believe that we will continue to see a tightening in the approval process as banks require that the borrower prove that they can pay back their loan.

The larger question facing our nation is: Do we really need a new car every three years? Do we really need three flat panel TVs in the same house? Do we really need our houses to stay at 72 degrees all year long? Our whole economy and in fact our culture is based on who has the newest most expensive things. As an example, when I bought my house in Phoenix Arizona because of a relocation in 2007, the real-estate agent and the loan officer kept pushing me towards $500,000 houses when I only needed three bedrooms and two bathrooms. In other words, my wife and I made the decision that a $280,000 house was enough. Now, with home values plummeting the fact that I put 20% down and that this house is only 8 miles from where my wife's office is, I am thankful that I stuck to my plan.

Our generation (and the one before it) are now harvesting the crop we sowed for ourselves when as a nation we forgot our history (the Great Depression) and abandoned fiscal common sense. I can only hope that the youth of today will remember this crisis, that they will change their own personal policies towards financial discipline and FAR more importantly demand that the U.S. Federal Government does the same.

The true tragedy would be that after having experienced this crisis, that we would listen to people like Mr. Kloza who lament that we aren't spending more of our money driving or sending packages. Through our freedom to borrow money we ought not to spend on things we don't really need, we have been forging chains of indebtedness that will hold us thrall to our national debt, foreign investors and our own banks for decades to come.

Trump, Madoff and Greed

I don't like Donald Trump. He's not a nice person. But he's a darn shrewd business man and has done extraordinarily well in the hotly contested New York real-estate market because people trust him and he delivers.

So when "the Donald" calls a guy like Bernard Maddoff (Investment scammer who bilked nearly $50 billion from people) a "scumbag" I think that he's right on the money.

"The Donald" also had a word of warning. When asked about people who had placed 100% of their investments, even mortgaged their houses to give Madoff more money to "invest", he had one word to describe them; "Greed". When asked what he thought of people that had completely trusted Madoff with 100% of their assets, he responded with "But when you think of a person putting up 100 percent of their net worth and even mortgaging their house, even though they had a lot of cash -- mortgaging their house to get more cash to this guy." and "The word is very simple. It's a word called "greed." Greed. That's all it is. People were greedy."

Yup.

Greed can inspire and motivate. But like so many other things in our lives, unbridled and uncontrolled greed will bring disaster.

Update On March 12, 2009, Mr. Madoff plead guilty to the charges of running a "Ponzi" scheme and bilking thousands of investors out of billions. There is a very real chance that he will be sentenced to enough time in prison that once he goes in, he will never experience freedom again. OK by me.

To the RNC. Stop Asking for Donations. You Aren't Going to Get Any From Me.

What follows is a not so cleverly worded letter describing the primary reasons the RNC aren't likely to get any donations from me. I mailed this letter in response to a request from "Laura Bush" to donate after thanking me for my "unwavering support" of Pres. Bush. Heh.

---

Date: 12/17/2008

To: Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
PO Box 98206
Washington DC 20077-7561

Subject: Continued Support of the RNC

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the kind letter dated November 28th which thanked me for my “unwavering support” of President Bush and his policies during the last eight years and requesting an additional donation to the Republican National Committee coffers.

Regretfully, I do NOT support President Bush on a wide range of issues. Most certainly my support cannot be categorized as “unwavering”. While I appreciate and am thankful for President Bush’s efforts and policies with regards to the defense of the homeland and tracking down Islamic fundamentalist terrorists wherever they can be found, very little else about his policies find a sympathetic ear from me.

In 2004, President Bush presided over the single largest expansion of the Medicare/Medicaid system when they pushed through the prescription drug benefit program. This was a benefit that was written primarily by pharmaceutical companies for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies.

Under President Bush, although a commitment to control the southern border of this nation has been made we have less than 100 miles of electronic or physical barriers to illegal entry into our nation. We have anywhere from 12 to 20 million persons living in this country whom we no nothing about. These illegal immigrants perpetrate much of the crime in my home state of Arizona. Of the last eight peace officers lost in the line of duty in Maricopa county, six were slain by illegal immigrants who were either suspects of a crime or in the act of committing a crime.

Connected to the situation above, both President Bush and John McCain supported the 2006 Immigration Reform bill. This bill’s intention was quite clear. Provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants while hundreds of thousands of other immigrants who have been patiently working towards naturalized citizen status continue to wait, wait, wait. I have a Canadian friend who has been working towards U.S. citizenship for over 8 years. He is highly skilled, college educated with a good paying job in this country. Need I tell you how he feels about the millions of illegal immigrants who have “jumped the line”?

While “No Child Left Behind” was a great concept, the President failed to produce the necessary pressure to properly fund it and in my opinion this program has failed miserably in meeting it’s projected goals.

To this date the general public has not been given a satisfactory answer concerning the massive intelligence failure that lead the United States and the “Coalition of the Willing” to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation. As you are doubtless aware, almost none of the evidence presented by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to both the United Nations and the American people has been uncovered after more than five years of occupation by Coalition forces in Iraq. As a brief list to remind you; No mobile chemical weapon development labs, no evidence of nuclear weapons development after 1991, no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and no real evidence of Al Qaeda links to Iraq prior to the invasion. While I am not at all unhappy about the liberation of the Iraqi people from under the heavy-handed tyranny of the Ba’athist Party and the removal of Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi government, I am most unhappy that the those who provided clearly incorrect (dare I say falsified?) intelligence that prompted us to go to war have never been publicly sanctioned or otherwise prosecuted.

It is my belief that because of the focus on Iraq that we have lost critical progress in the Afghanistan theater. I further believe that the invasion of Iraq, now that the pre-war intelligence has been proven mostly false, squandered much of the good will that the world felt towards the United States in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th calamity.

United States unilateral attacks against targets of opportunity in Pakistan are further undermining our position in the world’s eyes. The United States must work with the Pakistani government, which up until now has been moderate towards us. These attacks are killing as many civilians as they are terrorist leaders are building resentment which threatens to push Pakistan completely against us.

While the mortgage lending crisis has been building for many years and whose genesis exists in the Clinton administration, the President as well as the Republican Congressional leadership failed to properly expose the danger to our general economy. I will give John McCain and Mitch McConnel credit for trying to expose Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but they didn’t do nearly enough. The “ebullient exuberance” of unrealistic property values, risky lending practices to those who could not be reasonably expected to repay their loans has generated the greatest financial crisis this nation has faced since the 1930s.

Under President Bush, the Federal Government has become bloated. Under his leadership at the helm of the Ship of State, the Republicans lost their way. Even if one accounts for the necessary increase in expenditure for Homeland Defense and the wars we are fighting abroad, government bureaucracy is larger today than ever. The deficit, even prior to the financial market collapse in 2008, was exploding. The Republicans have completely lost their credibility with regards to fiscal and financial discipline. For this reason, more than any other, I cannot in good conscience continue to donate to the RNC until fundamental changes are made to the basic platform that once distinguished the GOP from the leftist Democratic party. I doubt that this letter will ever be read or a response made to it, but please understand that until the Republican Party once against stands for smaller Federal government, less regulation and interference in the lives of individual citizens, I will not support the RNC in any other manner than occasionally donating to the election campaign of a candidate that opposes a leftist.

Respectfully and with much regret,


Me

So are Low Gas Prices Bush's fault too?

Hey! Mr. Lefty Liberal Bush-haters!

Gasoline is selling nationally for around $1.80 per gallon and oil (today) was trading for around $43.00/bbl. Since Bush is still in the White House, is it Bush's fault? Funny, I haven't heard a single libby source (CNN, DailyKOS, MoveOn, MSNBC, etc ad nauseaum) crediting the Bush Administration with lower fuel prices.

OK. I'm being a little capricious. I know EXACTLY why gas prices are down. It's because Americans (as well as people in other nations) are buying a LOT less fuel because of the economic melt-down.

But what really steams my taters is that when gas prices were high, nobody was blaming it on the true culprits, which were low supply, high demand from Americans driving cars that only get 12-17 mpg because they love their muscle cars, trucks, SUVs and big luxury sedans.

Americans have become so poorly educated that they are swallowing the swill being provided by the main media outlets without doing their own fact-checking or even using their natural ability to reason. The President, influential though he is, can no more control our economy than flap his arms to fly to the moon. CONGRESS has much more influence over economic policy. The President is, by design, our chief Law-enforcement executive. Other than by collecting fines for traffic tickets, since when did any law-enforcement agency ever contribute to our economy?

Lower Gas Prices: Can this be Bad?

http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1881115149/Gulf-Oil-CEO-says-lower-gas-prices-ahead

According to the linked article, Gulf Oil chairman Joe Petrowski said that it's possible that oil could be trading for around $20 per barrel and that gasoline could sell for around $1.00 a gallon at the pump by "early" 2009.

While I would love to see gas go to a buck a gallon, it actually wouldn't be good for us, for the following reasons:

1) The US automakers (if they survive) are now heavily invested in alternative fuel cars. I believe it is in our best national interest to push these programs forward and offer these alternatives to gasoline or even diesel powered vehicles. Unreasonably low fuel prices will cause us to take our "eye off the ball" just like we did after the 1974 oil crisis. The United States needs to become a leader in economical vehicle construction. I should point out that the fleet MPG for GM is actually lower than the fleet MPG for Toyota. IN FACT, American-made cars made to sell in Europe compare favorably to their European counterparts. The problem is the American car-buyer wants a BIG car. On the non-automotive side, heating oil and gas being cheaper will be a welcome relief to people on fixed income, but at the expense of losing focus on developing alternative energy sources to augment what petroleum-sourced energy can provide. Solar, hydrogen, fuel-cell, wind, biofuel: All these can help reduce our dependence on petro-energy but none of them can replace it.

2) Americans are now seriously looking at alternatives to automobiles for daily transportation to-from work. Cheap gas will only encourage us to get back in our cars.

3) At $1.00 per gallon, we're not collecting enough in taxes. "What!?" you say? Glen is saying we need more taxes? Well, no. But I realize that for certain things, like infrastructure maintenance and growth, we need a certain level of taxation. Even with the taxes that were being collected when gas was $2.50+ per gallon we were unable to keep up with the maintenance needs of our existing infrastructure.

4) With oil generating significantly smaller profits for their producers, there will be less money to put into R&D for the very alternatives that we so desperately require.

So yes, $1.00/gallon gas is not as good for our economy as you might initially think.

Why isn't the rescue package working?

So even after almost 2.2 billion dollars in Federal taxpayer money being flooded into the financial sector, we are still hearing people complaining that the "credit market is tight", which apparently is a euphemism for "nobody can get a loan!" What!? After we've put over two billion dollars of Federal taxpayer money into the system?

Elizabeth Warren, the chairwoman of the oversight panel for the U.S. "bailout", complained about a lack of a coherent strategy to loosen credit. "You can't just say, 'Credit isn't moving through the system,' " she said in her first public comments since being named to the panel. "You have to ask why."

If the answer is that banks do not have money to lend, it would make sense to push capital into their hands, as the Treasury has been doing over the last two months, she continued. But if the answer is that their potential borrowers are getting less creditworthy with each passing day (empahsis by me), "pouring money into banks isn't going to fix that problem," she said.

I can tell you right now that just based on a couple of phone calls to some friends of mine in the real-estate business that the problem is more likely to be the latter rather than the former. According to an agent that works for Russ Lyon Realty in Phoenix, if you want to borrow to buy a house you better have 20% down (no more 100% financing) and prove that you can afford the loan (in other words, you have a steady job and that the mortgage won't represent more than 30% of your gross income).

Listening to the Rush Limbaugh show today, I heard the guest host (Rush was ill today) that banks reported an overall increase in their liquid cash holdings of between 14% to 18% since the previous year. How can that be unless they are not lending the money the Federal government has pumped into the system?

While this financial crisis is bad, it's nowhere near the level of calamity that befell our economy in the 1930's, where 30% of all banks failed, and 30% of our population were unemployed. However, with our citizens guilty of living a life of immediate gratification and failure to save for the future, it's impact is devastating to millions of households across our nation, not to mention the larger global community.

In 2002 I nearly declared bankruptcy. I won't go into the details, but in order to stave off bankruptcy I wracked up over forty-five thousand dollars in credit card debt. Since then, we have managed to pay down over 40% of that debt. That hasn't been easy. We are now trying accelerate that payoff and hope to have 60% of that debt gone by the end of 2009. That means no new cars, very few new clothes, and a virtual halt to our home improvement projects. But so be it. Fortunately, we have been paying into our retirements (401(k) mutuals, mostly) without fail. Even though our current "paper loss" is at about 30%, we are now buying stocks through our mutual funds for dimes on the dollar. When the market bounces back, as inevitably will, those who had the guts to stick it out are going to see a dramatic increase in their portfolios, provided that their holdings are diverse and not solely tied up in businesses that are going to fail.

So, knowing all of this, I checked my credit report and I also talked to a friend of mine in the banking industy. My Experian Credit score is good. Not great. Nope, you don't get to know my exact credit score. It's better than it has been in five years. However, having said that, if I wanted to buy a house the mortgage company would expect me to put at least 15% down and that would not earn me their best interest rate. If I wanted that, I would have to put down 20%, and I would also be better off going with a 20 year loan, not a 30 year loan. So even though I have held the same job for five years, the days where I could finance 100% of the value of a house purchase are over. In my opinion, good riddance.

But, it does mean that even though banks and other financial institutions have more cash on hand than they've had in the last couple of years, they aren't lending because they've tightened their lending standards (which is good) for people asking for loans to buy everything from houses to cars to electronics.

So, getting back around to the original question: "Why isn't the rescue package working?" The answer: Its because lending institutions are not willing to go back to the bad practice of financing 100% of a purchase for people who cannot prove that they cannot pay back the loans they are asking for. We don't have a credit-liquidity problem. We have a credit-worthiness problem. And all the money in the Federal Treasury (is there any money left in the Federal Treasury?) will not solve that problem.

America's Youth are more dishonest than ever.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081201214432.rjut4n2u&show_article=1

Well, I'd love to say it ain't so but as a person who has served on the adult advisory councils of both a young men's and a young women's organization, I can tell you that I've known about this for years.

According to the hotlinked article, which reports the findings of the "2008 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth":

1. 83 percent of all youth in public and private religious schools had lied to their parents about "something important", compared to 78 percent of those students in independent schools.
2. 30 percent students admitted to stealing from a store in the last year.
3. When asked if they had cheated on an exam, 64% of public schools students, 63% of religious school students and 47% of independent school students responded "yes".

This does not bode well for our next generation. These are the people that will be our political leaders, in the government bureaucracy, in our military in positions from enlisted to commanding generals, in our police and other law enforcement.

And yet we continue to support the NEA? What's worse, is that even in religious schools, cheating is up! Where are they learning this? Could it be that our culture's instant gratification and "gotta have it at any cost" mentality means that our children are putting material gain in front of any kind of firmly grounded principles. What has happened to the civic education of our children? I'll tell you. In my opinion, it is "moral relativism" that comes from not grounding what we teach our children in sound foundations of moral and ethical behavior. That means standards.

Our culture is spiraling out of control fast. I'd recommend any parent that is not actively involved with their children, or more importantly, they and their children are not actively involved in some kind of youth organization (may I recommend either www.demolay.org or www.iojd.org as suggestions?) that they are only contributing to the ever increasing slide of our culture into moral decay.

At Least One Thing That's GOTTA GO if we Taxpayers Bail Out the Big 3.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

Holy schneike! This article was written in 2005! Do you know what it documents? The UAW "Job Bank" program. What is the "job bank", do you ask? It's very simple. People who are not currentlymaking cars or car components are in a "bank" of employees who still earn money.

The article illustrates the situation for Mr. Ken Pool who is "works" at the Ford Michigan Truck Plant. "Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits."

Essentially the Big 3 carmakers and Delphi (the major U.S. auto parts supplier) were estimated to pay $4.1 billion to the pool of laid-off workers. The idea was to discourage the manufacturers from outsourcing their jobs or to hire new cheaper employees to replace more experienced and expensive employees. However, this means that (IN 2005!!!) almost 12,500 employees were being paid by these same manufacturers even though they weren't working in plants, assembly lines, or whatever.

The UAW has managed to strong-arm the U.S. auto industry into a untenable position. If the auto manufacturers don't agree, then the UAW will strike and cripple a vulnerable industry. If the auto manufacturers agree then they must take on a burden that damages their competitiveness against foreign car companies who do not suffer from the same contract restriction. If I were the UAW, I'd be very seriously thinking about that right now, because their policy is about to kill the "golden goose".

As a U.S. taxpayer I can only say that unless this program is terminated, fuggedaboudit (<== New Yorker for "forget about it"). I will not have ANY of my tax dollars used to pay people that are being kept on the payroll by a foolish or worse yet, corrupt labor union.

Unbelievable.

Dallas Independent School District Knowingly used False SS Numbers to Pay Employees.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111408dnmetdisdsocials.3d93dbc.html

My comments are in boldface.

Doug Phillips, TEA's director of investigations and fingerprinting, said his office believed the district had stopped the practice because there was no evidence that it continued. He said Thursday that he didn't know which laws forbid issuing fake Social Security numbers. "Didn't know which laws forbid issuing fake Social Security numbers?!?" Are we kidding? Only ONE agency has the authority to issue Social Security numbers. It's called the Social Security Administration, a department of the United States Federal Government.

"We just knew it looked bad and smelled bad," Mr. Phillips said. "That was the first time we'd ever heard of that one." Mr. Phillips, apparently this issue has been happening for at least three years and maybe longer.

Mr. Phillips said it created "a mess" in a state database. He said teacher applicants who don't have a Social Security number can receive a temporary identification number, which begins with a "P," from TEA until they get one from the federal government. Part of the purpose of a Social Security number is to identify the person's Federal account that receives Federal (and State) tax witholdings, as required by both Federal and State laws. How in the heck did you people expect to adhere to these regulations?

The DISD-issued Social Security numbers began with "200" – a prefix assigned to people in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Phillips' office noted that many ended with sequential numbers. Nice. I wonder how many people in Pennsylvania are having inflated income reported, which could push them into a higher tax bracket.

The investigative report also found that the district hasn't been turning in "new hire" forms to the Texas attorney general's office, which uses the information to find parents who haven't paid child support. Failure to provide the forms to the attorney general can result in a $25 fine for each employee. The district doesn't know yet whether it will have to pay any fines. This speaks for itself. The DISD is clearly and intentionally violating the law here.

Ms. Olson said new processes have been put in place to address problems noted in the report, including making crosschecks with the Social Security Administration. Yeah, sure. And my grandmother was a test pilot.

"You can't just arbitrarily issue Social Security numbers," she said. "Even if your intention is good, it's not legal." Well, something I can agree on.

As long as employers in the U.S. think they can continue to flaunt the immigration and payroll laws this problem will persist. Those who perpetuated these policies should be severely punished.

We are Pushing the Russians too Hard

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_eu/eu_eu_russia_missiles

France's President Nikolas Sarkozy, who is a very pro-Western, pro-America ally, has made it very clear that he questions strongly the actual effectiveness that the proposed U.S. missile defense installations that are being installed in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

He said "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward,"

In my opinion: If the Europeans do not feel that this system is going to make Europe safer, then what the heck are we installing the things for?

I'm going to go with the French on this one. Let's stop antagonizing the Russians right on their front door and scrap this system.

Well, Some People Are Just Sore Losers.

So I'm listening to the Glenn Back radio program today (November 7, 2008) and he's talking about the great U.S. Constitution and the way our system is setup with regards to the bloodless revolution we have every 4 or 8 years when power is transferred peacefully from one administration to another. He also spends some time talking about the fact that even for those of us (including yours truly) that voted for the OTHER candidate, Barack Obama won't be the Democratic President, but he will be the President of the United States. His point is that he will be OUR president. That means he is also MY president.

A couple of days ago I wrote in my blog about this very subject. I said ...'my prayers will waft to heaven; "Dear Father, let Barack Obama be President for all of us. And Dear Father, let the American People accept him as the President of all of us."'

So of course, right after Glenn gets done with his monologue, the first caller says that Glenn is confusing and upsetting him. When asked why, the caller says that Glenn has been spending the last three months demonizing Senator Obama, drawing attention to his association with Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, as well as talking about his extremely liberal voting records (what little there is). The caller then states that President-elect Obama can never be HIS president and that he cannot support him. Of course, Glenn Beck pretty much went nuts on the guy and GOMP'd him (GOMP = "Get Off My Phone!").

America, you need to get this through your head. Every four years the U.S. Citizenry gets to poll for who they want to represent them as their President. Some people vote for this guy, while others vote for that guy, and still other vote for that OTHER other guy. At the end of Election Day, one of those guys gets more votes than anybody else. If he gets over 270 Electoral College votes, he get's to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in about 80 days. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Greens must all support this president and claim him as their own. That doesn't mean that I'll kowtow to a vast shift to the left by a Democrat President that rubber-stamps everything sent to him by a Democrat Congress. Where necessary, I will LOYALLY OPPOSE him. But where he needs my support in matters of civil responsibility, national security and other issues that are appropriately the responsibility of the Federal government, I will support him. And no matter what your political affiliation is, YOU SHOULD TOO. He is OUR President.

Morgan's Musings while Majorly Medicated: it lives!

Morgan's Musings while Majorly Medicated: it lives!

Fairness Doctrine: The Dems are either stupid or disingenuous.

Read all about it. On Fox News, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) made the following statement:

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

I do not wish to be rude, but are you b.s.-ing me??? How can anybody, especially a United States Senator possibly equate political speech in the radio forum with pornography? How in the heck does one do pornography on the radio, anyway?

I'd like to clarify the following for the Honorable Mr. Schumer. First, pornography isn't political speech. I am confident in my belief that the Founding Fathers of our nation weren't thinking of dirty magazines or filthy nudie shows in movie houses and cable TV (or whatever forums for this kind of thing that they had in 1790) when they added the First Amendement to our Constitution. But I am equally confident that political expression and especially the voice of peaceful political dissent is precisely what they had in mind when they were writing the First Amendment. Which is to say that you have the right to express your political views without fear of unwarrented search/seizure, incarceration or corporal punishment, so long as you are not advocating outright armed rebellion against lawful government.

I will support the Fairness Doctrine if and ONLY if it is applied to all forms of media. That would include radio, satellite radio, broadcast television, pay TV (cable and satellite), newspapers, news magazines AND the Internet. But if it is narrowly applied only to radio, the only forum in which the liberal media does NOT have a majority of influence (heck, not even a modicum of success, look at "Air America" for what I'm talking about), then I will be confirmed that now that the Democrats are in power that they want to squash and silence the voice of conservatism. And that I will not stand for.

The Fairness Doctrine made sense when commercial broadcast radio consisted of only three broadcasters and their affiliates; ABC, NBC, CBS. But now, with the huge proliferation of information portals the Fairness Doctrine in it's original form (radio only) is obsolete and inadequate. For it to be FAIR, it must impact all arenas of Political Expression. NOT JUST RADIO.

So I will get a chance to see the "Party of Change and Unity" in action. Their actions on this issue will speak louder than any conservative talk show host.

The Campaign is Over!

Huzzah! The United States has had a bloodless revolution! Congrats to Prez-elect Obama and the Dems!

No more political ads! Now all we have to do is look forward to two freakin' months of Christmas music and advertisements from every media source encouraging us to SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! for the Christmas Holiday.

Can we have another election?

A Historic Day for America

Nearly 150 years ago, a great Civil War divided the people of the United States as had never been before or has since. Although that great conflict did not start because of the issue of slavery, by mid 1863 with Lincoln's Proclamation of Emancipation of slaves, the Civil War became the ultimate referendum on whether a nation conceived by the principle that "all men are created equal" could stand while the institution of slavery endured. Many hundreds of thousands of American's died or suffered horrible injuries in that conflict, and the Abolitionists prevailed but with a terrible price.

Yet another 100 years would pass, however, before Jim Crow laws and segregation would die the mean and ignoble death that it deserved. And even today in the 21st century, Americans as a people must still continue the fight against those corners of our culture and society that would still judge a man by any criteria other than his character.

I am a Republican. I wanted John McCain to be my next president because I believe that he truly could have reformed Washington and even his own party from within. I still believe that his experience makes him a better choice when it comes to the security of our great nation in a world that is still a very dangerous place.

However, tonight my fellow citizens have spoken and their voice has made it clear that they want a new direction. And so history has been made. A man of color is now President-elect of the United States and in January the mantle of responsibility will be his. He will become the leader of the free world, with all of the perks and obligations that such a position is bound with. President-elect Barack Obama will be President of the United States. All of it. From Canda to Mexico, from Maine to California, and to all of our protectorates, provinces and territories.

I am proud of my nation. I am proud that Barack Obama has attained the highest office of the land. I don't agree with him politically or fiscally. I do not relish the next four years if he pushes a far-left agenda. But unlike many of my Democratic friends who never acknowledged George H. Bush as "their President", I will certainly embrace Barack Obama as mine. I will support him when he and I are in agreement and I will loyally oppose him when we do not. But make no mistake. He is President for all of us. I hope and pray that my conservative comrades will take the same wise course. I hope that we will help President-elect Obama truly represent all of us by taking the middle of the road. If he comes part way, so shall I. But I will not meet him on his end of the spectrum.

I expect that we will disagree on many things: The "Fairness Doctrine", Taxation, Universal Health Care, Military Policy, the Sanctity of Life, especially those with no voice of their own and the War. But I expect we will agree on things too. I believe in my heart that President-elect Obama truly wants a United States that is prosperous, where our people can be productive and innovative; where our children can have a chance to a better life than their parents and that our people are respected in the international community. I don't agree with him on how to get there, but I have no doubt that in his own way that he is patriotic. In some ways, much more patriotic than my "angry meat-eating gun-toting leather-wearing" self, for he has stepped into the glare of the public spotlight to serve his country in an arena that I have no stomach for.

As Barack Obama made clear in his victory speech, while today is momentous it is only the beginning. It's not winning the White House but with the help of the American People what he does with it that will be the stuff against which the historians of the future will judge our times. I pray that President-elect Obama can be the uniter that he claims to be. For all that we have been through for the last 21 months I still really don't know him very well.

Tonight, my heart goes out to him to congratulate him and his precedent setting, history making achievement. Tomorrow and every day thereafter, my prayers will waft to heaven; "Dear Father, let Barack Obama be President for all of us. And Dear Father, let the American People accept him as the President of all of us."

The Day We Lose the Will to Fight is the Day We Will Lose Our Freedom.

Today is October 30th, which is only four days prior to the U.S. general election.

I am truly fearful for the direction our country is taking. It is a genuine concern that applies to both major political properties, to both candidates for President, to all those Senators and House Representatives that are up for re-election this year.

Should we elect a Democratic party supermajority in the U.S. Senate, here's some things that I believe will ABSOLUTELY happen in the next four years.

1. We will abandon our mission in Iraq, and leave the Iraqi government and people in a state that will find them inadequately ready to resist the violent fundamentalism and sectarian violence that will threaten to return them to a state of tyranny and subjugation. And yet, Breitbart.com posted an article indicating that "If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain". Those people, who clearly have recently spent more than two generations under a tyrant, know the importance of vigilance and more importantly, the price that must be paid for freedom. If we back out, Iran will fill the power vacuum and the Sunni people in Iraq will be destroyed, and Iraq will become a client state of Iran and convert to fundamentalist Islamic rule.
2. The government will EXPAND it's powers over private citizens and private concerns. The government is ALREADY making moves towards ownership and nationalization of the financial sector. The Democrats want to increase taxes on one class of people in order to "share the wealth", clearly a socialist policy.
   
3. Currently, the right-wing of political thought and expression really only dominates one aspect of our media, which is "talk-radio". Nearly all other forms of broadcast or print media (Broadcast TV, Cable/Satellite TV, Major newspaper syndicates and weekly/monthly magazines and the Internet) have a clearly "liberal" or "progressive" bias. This is so well documented that I will not bother with citations here. Just Google it if you don't believe me. The interesting dichotomy is that so-called "right-wing talkers" on radio make no claims of neutrality, but most of the liberal (dare I say "controlled"?) "main-street media" profess neutrality. A claim I clearly dispute. In fact, recently, even Democratic campaign staffers recently stated that the attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP VP candidate were "over the top". Yet the only media that a Democratic Congress (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA; Senator Harry Reid, D-NV) supports imposing a new version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is on talk radio. How interesting that they only want to impose this doctrine on the only media that has a conservative dominance. How "fair" is that? This means that conservatives will have no easily accessible "forum" to voice and hear issues from their point of view, while liberals will continue to enjoy the vast dominance of all other forums. In other words, the Democrats will stifle the conservative voice in our political dialouge. If you don't believe this can happen, just look at Australia. Read this article for details, but essentially they will implement "Chinese style" restrictions on Internet access. As usual, it starts with a universally distateful (and yet highly profitable) child-porn industry. But it will end, like China, with restriction on access to dissenting political speech.
4. There will be a definite assault on the American right to firearms. I do not need to elaborate on this one. Suffice it to say that a people that cannot resist tyranny are not free.
5. Provide public healthcare to those who currently don't have healthcare (including those that have OPTED OUT) at the expense of many who have paid for healthcare all of their adult lives.
   

All of these issues are associated with a panicky scared populace who are looking to the government to bail them out. The problem in this situation is that government CREATED the mess to begin with. We the PEOPLE need to ride this one through, instead of asking for more of "mommy's hand". Every great endeavor created in this country was done in spite of government, not by it.

Those who trade liberty for security will have neither.

Tire Pressure Maintenance -- It'll Help but It's Not The Fix

Everybody has heard about Senator Obama's suggestion for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. So the question is: Just how much fuel can the average motorist save?
I wrote this piece primarily because I wanted to see if a complete energy layman of Conservative principles could determine the following. First, was Senator Obama's tire pressure suggestion factual or a lot of hooey? Second, is Senator McCain justified in lampooning his suggestion? What I found was that both Senators are correct. McCain is correct that we must advance all forms of energy production available to us. Senator Obama who also supports quite a few of the same energy policies expressed by Senator McCain (except the drilling part, of course) is absolutely correct that at the national level, proper automobile maintenance can help reduce our need for foreign oil. If you want to read my lengthy proof then proceed.

Senator Obama asserts: Improper tire pressure can cause a vehicle to lose as much as 3% of its fuel usage efficiency. If the American electorate maintains proper tire inflation we could save more fuel than can be produced though offshore drilling. Is this true or false? My research concludes that this is somewhat true, but that his position is based on some overly broad assumptions.
www.carcare.org suggests that improperly inflated tires can reduce gas mileage by as much as 3%. They do not cite the source of any studies or provide any hard evidence. But hey, it's www.carcare.org, right? Let's roll with it. I currently drive a 2001 Dodge 3500 1 Ton dual-wheel pickup. When it's running well, which is all the time, and I don't drive like Dale Earnhardt, Jr., it gets 18 MPG on the highway and about 14.5 MPG in the city, for a mixed bag of about 15.6 MPG. These are actual statistics I have compiled over the years of driving this vehicle. I drive about 20,000 miles per year. So, at optimum tire pressure (amongst a whole lot of other things) I should use about 1,282 gallons of diesel in one year.

Now, let's say that I let the tire pressure go but maintain everything else. Assume that I suffer the maximum suggested performance hit of 3%, or in other words I only get 97% of my optimum efficiency. That would be 15.1 MPG (actually 15.132 but I'm rounding everything down to the nearest 1/10th). So, dividing 15.1 into 20,000 means I would use 1,324 gallons. This is 42 gallons per year. At the time I wrote this, diesel in my neighborhood was selling for $4.70 a gallon. This means I would spend $197.40 more for diesel annually. But keep in mind that I would have paid $6,025.40 for the other 1,282 gallons so in the great scheme of things this isn't a whole lot of money, nor is it a whole lot of gas. In fact, it's only 3 PERCENT. More importantly, if diesel went up by only 25 cents during the calendar year, that would wipe out any financial gain that I would get from running optimum tire pressure all the time.

Everything to this point has been a discussion about how it affects ME, the individual. Let's apply the same thing to the nation. First of all, we need to know what the average MPG is for the entire United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov), the average MPG for all passenger vehicles currently registered in the U.S. for 2006 was 22.4 MPG. Total miles driven in the same year for passenger vehicles only was 2,670,145,000,000 miles. That's right! 2.67 TRILLION miles! Now keep in mind that this is a very SIMPLE example. At 22.4 MPG, that means that American passenger vehicles consumed about 119,202,901,785 (119.2 billion) gallons of gasoline and diesel. Now, drop the MPG to only 97%, which is 21.7 MPG. This would result in 123,048,156,682 (123 billion) gallons needed, or four billion gallons more than we used with 22.4 MPG.

Now, who the devil is going to argue that it wouldn't be prudent for Americans to maintain proper tire pressure in order to save FOUR BILLION gallons of fuel? Nobody. However, what is the total impact to the United States? Here's where it gets really interesting.
In order to understand what four billion gallons of gasoline means to the CRUDE OIL market, we first have to know how much gasoline is IN a barrel of crude oil. And there's simply NO standard answer to this question. Crude oil comes in many varieties. Some Texas and Arabian crude oil deposits are very "light/sweet" and can produce up to 30% "straight run" gasoline (very little refining effort here). Others, like Venezuelan crude may produce only 5% "straight run" gas. However, in both cases, the remaining crude can be refined be various processes, which I won't go into here, to further refine the heavier crude into gasoline as well. So, if you ask 15 petrochemical engineers, you'll get 15 different answers. Based on my not very exhaustive research, anywhere from 19 to 28 gallons of oil can be obtained from one 42 gallon barrel of crude. And remember, the remainder can be used for many other uses, such as heating oil, fuel oil for large ships, etc. So I have a range of 19 to 28 gallons from a single barrel. Let's just split the difference. Subtract 19 from 28 leave 9 divide by 2 = 4.5 add to 19 gives us 23.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel. EXCELLENT! If we divide the 3.846 billion gallons by 23.5, we get 163,627,867 barrels of crude wasted by our 3% penalty because of our lousy tire pressure maintenance. That's 163.6 million barrels.

To summarize everything we've done to this point; We've determined the average MPG of the US passenger car fleet (22.4) in 2006, the total number of miles driven (2.67 trillion) in the same year by the same class of vehicle, and the total extra barrels of crude we would have been consumed caused by a three percent drop in average MPG because of poor tire pressure maintenance (163.6 million barrels). This does assume that EVERY single passenger car in the US fleet is not properly maintained, which is most certainly NOT the case. This is a worst-case scenario.

Now all we have to determine is if increasing US offshore drilling would produce more barrels of crude than is lost from poor tire pressure maintenance.
To quote from the June 18th, 2008 LA TIMES, which ran an article about this very subject entitled "Bush Calls for Offshore Drilling, Citing Gasoline Prices":
'The Energy Information Administration said that opening access to undersea oil fields "in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." Drilling in domestic waters off all the coasts except Alaska's would increase annual production from 2.2 million barrels a day to 2.4 million barrels a day, the agency estimates.'

Excellent! So we estimate that while it would take nearly twenty years to get these fields 100% online, at that point in time we would increase domestic crude oil production by two-hundred thousand barrels A DAY. Multiply that times 365 days per year (except leap years of course) and we get 73 million barrels of new crude production annually. Keep in mind that only a portion of this gasoline will actually go to passenger car usage. Much of it will go to commercial and public transportation (rail, city public transit, government usage, etc). I did not find that statistic.
OVERLY SIMPLISTIC CONCLUSION: In twenty years we could be producing an additional 73 million barrels of oil annually. Assuming that every single barrel was destined for passenger car usage and that every single car on the road was wasting at least 3% fuel economy due to incorrectly inflated tires not only would the 73 million barrels be completely consumed, but we would still have 90 million barrels that we would need to get from somewhere in order to handle the shortfall. So, Senator Obama's suggestion has some merit. There are modest savings to be had at the household or passenger car owner level. At the national level, Senator Obama's suggestion could reduce American fuel usage by over one hundred million barrels of crude per year. But there's a tremendous caveat here: A large fraction of the American people properly maintain their vehicles, including monitoring tire pressure. So the consumption of 163 million barrels of crude caused by poor tire inflation is VERY speculative. I simply could not find any metrical data to establish even a rough guess number, so the scenario I have presented to you is a worst-case scenario.

Based on my research, I think that we can conclude the following.
1. The US needs to expand all sources of energy production. This includes fossil fuels, nuclear, natural gas, shale-oil, tar sands, clean coal, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro-electric, fuel-cell and others that I'm probably not listing here. Incidentally, John McCain supports this idea.
2. The US needs to expand the grid to efficiently transport energy from the point of collection/production to the point of consumption. T. Boone Pickens wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for this one. I for one say that we should get government out of the way and let the entrepreneurs, who have never failed us yet in a crisis, to solve this. But make sure that they do so in a manner that does not unduly harm our interests. Make them responsible to cleanup when they are done.
3. American auto manufacturers must step up to the plate with vehicles that can use fuels other than gasoline/diesel. They've made progress but we aren't there yet.
4. Those American who are not properly maintaining their vehicles should be considered for punishment, as they are directly adversely affecting our nation's strategic security and increasing our dependency on foreign fossil fuel sources. I really like this idea, but I doubt the Progressives do.
5. The American people need to accept that we can no longer count on being the only consumer of energy in the world. Growing industrial economies in South America, Asia and India will have tremendous impact on the worlds resources. We must accept that this is not an American problem, but a Global problem of which America is only a part. Republicans have to accept the fact that we do live in a global community. Democrats have to accept the fact that government kowtowing to the extreme environmentalist lobby is probably the single largest reason why we don't produce domestically more of the energy that we use.

A couple of final things I just have to get off my chest. The chorus of cries that the oil companies need to invest in alternative fuel and energy sources. Is it my imagination or are they called "oil companies" for some reason other than they are specialists in the finding, pumping and refining of naturally occurring crude oil? And the other hue and cry is that drilling NOW will not lower cost of fuel in the short term. Yup, they're sure right on that one. We wouldn't start seeing benefits for at least seven to ten years, with fruition taking nearly two decades. AND YET every day that we delay exploration, drilling for oil or exploiting shale-oil or other fossil fuel deposits is one more day that we will not be able to lower the cost of fuel. To stand by and do nothing is worse than insane. It is national suicide. And there's NOT ONE STUDY that indicates that any other energy technology can produce the same quantity of usable energy at the same cheap cost as fossil fuels or is mature enough to provide energy to the United States, much less the world, in quantities to satisfy our need (not desire) for energy.

And This Too Shall Pass

Well... the "rescue" ain't working!

It's now early on Friday, October 10th 2008 and yesterday the Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped another 600+ points, leaving the Dow at just over 8500 points. We are now down over 40% from the high water mark of exactly one year ago of over 14,600.

What's the problem?

When the US Congress first failed to get the rescue package passed after Speaker Pelosi's poisionous rant on the House floor, the Dow dropped over 800 points. That was a little over a week ago. Once Congress passed the amended rescue plan, with $150 billion in "sweeteners" (also known as PORK BARRELL SPENDING!) the Dow hasn't had a single "up" day since.

So what's the problem?

Well, I think that we can find a few things. First: Consumer confidence is in the sewer. The average US consumer is worried about his job. He's worried that his retirement fund has lost 40% of it's value in one year ( on average ). He's worried that Joe six pack is no longer buying washing machines, automobiles or large screen TVs. He's more worried that Bernard the Billionaire isn't spending money to buy his new Bentley, his new 4,000 sq ft addition to his house that will be tiled entirely in Italian Marble, or that new $300,000 boat. He's really worried that he won't have a job in six months. So he's saving money and for the first time in two decades, he's paying off debt faster than he can incur it.

Second, I think that the We the People smell a rat. It wasn't market economics that got us into this mess, especially with the financial industry. Social engineering and tinkering of home finances brought into this mess by encouraging financial institutions (especially Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) to lend money to people that ought not to have been approved. So when the same people that either a) created this mess or b) ignored this mess; now claim that the "rescue" will fix this mess, we are reacting with what can only be called skepticism.

There is actually some good coming out of this. Oil is back down to $88.00 a barrel. The American consumer purchased 8 million barrels less gasoline in August of 2008 than they did in August of 2007. The American consumer is starting to hold on to their hard-earned wages, and they are beginning to pay off their debt. We have been drunk on debt spending and revolving credit for over two decades now. It's going to take some time to get off the habit. But when we do, America will be leaner and meaner than we have since the early 80's. That's a darn good thing.

I'm a diehard fiscal conservative and moderate social conservative. But I do not trust the current Congress nor either candidate a plug nickel when it comes to fixing this mess. Personally, I believe that Government cannot solve this problem. If you are going to live in a free-market society, you must allow the free-market to work without tinkering with it. Congress got us into this mess. They ignored the warning signs back in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (even though to their credit several notable Republicans did try to sound the alarm about Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae).
Banks are going to fail. People will lose their jobs. The economy is going to go backwards for a while.

Fortunately, the United States has one of the most robust economies on the planet. This will knock us down temporarily, but not forever. Most definitely not for the long term. On the flip side, I'm buying stocks right now at a ridiculously low price. Imagine how they'll increase in value as the economy rights itself.

When did Healthcare become a right?

In a recently posted CNN article concerning Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's fiscal policies the following quotation was reported:

"For a drop in the bucket, every single kid in the state could have health insurance," said state Rep. Les Gara, a Democrat from Anchorage. "For a drop in the bucket, we don't have to be one of the worst states in terms of high school graduation rates."

This was in response to Gov. Palin sending a $1,200 check to every man, woman and child in the State of Alaska, which were the result of a windfall profits tax on high oil profits in 2007.

Since when is it the government's job to require that every kid (or anybody else, for that matter) have insurance? Who will administer the insurance program? The government? The same United States Federal Government whose oversight gives us $600 hammers and $1200 toilet seats for the U.S. Air Force? Give me a freaking break!

Democrats routinely take the position that everybody that does not have insurance wants it if it was affordable. Well, I sold insurance for a year (most miserable time of my life) and 95% of the time I was rejected by the prospect. Most of the rejections were based on the fact that they felt that buying insurance was a "gamble". And darn near every prospect that opted not to buy ... lived in a single-family home, owned at least one car of which one car was 3 years or less old, owned at least one late-model color television set, owned at least one high fidelity stereo or sound entertainment system.

Yes, there are *some* Americans who do not have insurance because they truly cannot afford it. But the many Americans who do not have insurance have elected to buy consumer goods or go to ball games instead.

I will never support nationalized healthcare insurance because at the same time that it theoretically "uplifts" those who "can't" afford it, it penalizes us who have made the sacrifice and pay for healthcare of our own choosing.

Who in the heck needs the US Gov, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? We need FAMILIES!

Ask any kid of a normal working-class family "What's the hardest part about buying a new house?" Most will say "Coming up with the down payment." And they'd be right.

So here's what we're doing. Laura and I made this offer to Mat and Heather (son-in-law and daughter) when they announced their engagement: You can live with us for three years. You will pay us $700.00 per month. We will put that money in a separate bank account. On month 37, we are going to kick you out, but we will also give you your rent money back, which should be worth about $25,000 at that point. That's 10% of a quarter million dollar house. To date they've already saved nearly $8,000.

That's how my kids are going to get into a house without using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae or one of these dumba** risky loan types.

More Americans need to think like families again, and solve problems for each other by helping each other, instead of expecting government to bail them out.

I thought I'd share this with you just to let you know that I'm not just ranting because I'm some right-wing neocon unsympathetic psychopathic nut job.

It's not a bailout, it's a rescue. Hello CNN! Hello NBC!

A lot of airwaves and newsprint are being used to talk about the pros and cons of the so-called "bail-out" that is backed by Prez Dubbya and SecTreas Paulson.

There are a bunch of reasons to hate this idea. There maybe one GOOD reason to do it.

A little history. Back in the 1990s, Freddie Mac (FM1) and Fannie Mae (FM2) were essentially constituted to provide an available outlet to 100% home loans to those who were living "on the margin". This is a nice way of saying that these two institutions were supposed to finance the entire cost of a new/used home purchase for those who would otherwise not qualify. I should point out that this is one of the dumbest of downright dumba** ideas, which is to lend LARGE sums of money to people who cannot be reliably expected to pay that LARGE sum of money (PLUS INTEREST) back. Social engineering does not play nice with the cold hard reality of the mathematically-based world of finance.

Back in 2004, a bunch of Republicans wanted to create new oversight on FM1 and FM2 because of concerns about increasing number of home loans going into default. Dem representative Maxine Waters and Dem representative Barney Frank had nothing but high praise for then Freddie Mac chairman: Waters said "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines."

Well, Mrs. Waters, it looks like you may have been wrong.

This is not a simple problem, but essentially it's like this. There are a large number of loans that have been either defaulted on or are likely to go into default in the near future. Most of these loans were either interest-only or "sub-prime" adjustable rate mortgages. To put it another way, these were very risky loans that would have only been successful assuming that property values continue to rise over time. However, with so many loans now in default, banks are not only seriously containing new loans, but they are even reluctant to lend money to corporations or for other reasons. Further, with the glut of housing now on the market housing prices are in free fall. Banks not wanting to lend money is bad for companies like General Motors or U.S. Steel, who often borrow money on a short-term basis to make payroll, etc.

Back to my main point. Everybody is calling this a "bailout". A bailout in classic terms, is when a large amount of money is essentially gifted to some organization in order to sustain their "liquidity of assets", which is a fancy way of saying that they continue to have enough money for day-to-day operations (like paying rent, payroll and the light bill).

The proposals in both houses of Congress is not a bailout. It's a rescue. What Congress will do is use $700 billion of U.S. Taxpayer money (incidentally, money that we don't have and will probably have to borrow from either China or the Middle-east) to purchase the risky loans from a large number of banks. This means that these risky loans will be owned by the People of the United States. The U.S. will be responsible for controlling these assets (homes and properties) and selling them off over time. The banks and mortgage brokerages will then have new money assets that they can use to begin lending money again.

Over time, as the properties held by the U.S. government raise in value again as the economy corrects they will be sold to new buyers under safer more conventional loans. In theory we could even make some profit on the sale of these properties over time.

However, this is socialism, pure and simple. Capital assets will be held by the U.S. government. I hate it. I hate the liberal progressive social tinkering in the real-estate lending process that has brought us to this crossroads. Clinton should have done something about in prior to 2000. Bush should have done something about in 2001-2002. But we don't have a choice. If we don't approve this, banks will stop lending money to anybody and you won't be able to buy a car or appliance unless you can pay cash. And when people are no longer willing or able to buy consumer goods, that's when our economy completely collapses.

Oh, by the way, you and I are to blame for this. We elected the moronic chuckleheaded U.S. Representatives and Senators that allowed this to happen. When O' when are we going to learn?