Once again: Who caused the financial meltdown?

It saddens me that so many people think it was only the Republicans who were responsible for the financial meltdown. But it is only a small part of the story. The fact the Democrats also had a large play is not only fact, but recorded on CSPAN video. The Republican failure wasn't that they saw the problem coming much earlier, but they let the Democrats intimidate them and didn't stand up for their own principles.

It was kind of like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

I think putting the blame on only Republicans is a failure to take personal responsibility (see my earlier post about Barney Franks). This seems typical of the Democrat party today, and possibly most politicians.

Here's a compilation of CSPAN videos that will -- hopefully -- help enlighten those who can't see the actual truth. Or at least get you thinking critically, instead of using simple-minded talking points.



It's really not so simple, is it?

Rand Paul and his "extreme" views on race

According to Stephanie Condon at CBS news, Rand Paul, a Tea-Party supported libertarian who won the GOP Senate nomination for Kentucky,  has some pretty extreme views about race.

She quotes Rand Paul as saying this in an NPR interview:

"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.

But to Condon it gets worse. She writes "However, he added":

"I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions."

So supporting local initiatives as opposed to Federal mandates is now an extreme view. I guess in the liberal mindset, it is.

It gets better. I couldn't make this stuff up:

Paul's views on the issue first came under scrutiny last month during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of teling [sic] private business owners -- I abhor racism... I do believe in private ownership."

The Courier-Journal in an editorial said that Paul's remarks were "repulsive" and declared that it could not endorse either Republican in the Senate primary.

Paul's primary opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, attacked Paul's extreme views during the primary campaign, though that clearly did not deter enough voters from supporting Paul. Now that Paul is in a broader campaign, his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, is using the same strategy.

"These are not the views of mainstream Kentuckians," Conway said about Paul's beliefs in an interview with Talking Points Memo.

This is all well and fine, I guess, because she is quoting others, except for the reference to extreme, which is her own opinion inserted into a news story. She used the same term in her lead, which makes it hard to view this as an objective story. She should have stated that Paul's opponent used the term.

Now that the Tea Party-backed Rand Paul has the GOP nomination for Kentucky's open Senate seat, the media and his Democratic opponent are pouncing on his extreme libertarian views -- particularly with respect to his position on racism in private businesses and whether he would have supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [emphasis mine] 

This would have you believe that Paul would not have supported the Civil Rights Act and would not be against racist practices in private businesses, and while not true, Paul has a little trouble articulating his philosophy.

I could understand some neophyte reporter writing a weak report, but to have it clear her editors is beyond me. And for the Louisville Courier-Journal to label Paul's comments as "repulsive" is repulsive to me, but at least they did it in an editorial. But it seems nowadays if you disagree with the "establishment liberal religion" you are racist somehow. Not sure I understand this, but I get tired of hearing it. 
 
So, someone tell me how this CBS news article is an unbiased report. From my point of view, this is so biased that it makes the people over at Fox news look like amateurs.

For another look at Paul and racism in a more balanced way, see this article at Outside the Beltway.

Note: Condon's story has received several updates since I wrote this, but she has not changed her lead or the tone of the story.

As of 3:30 pm CDT, there were about 220 comments posted on this story. Obviously, CBS visitors are mostly liberals. It's hard to read such hate-filled, vile attacks they make on their political opponents. These people don't debate the issues, they just make personal attacks. After the second reference to Nazism, I quite reading...

A Chris Plante rant...

From Chris Plante, WMAL Radio, Washington DC. He can be heard at their web site, 9 am to noon, EST.

"They slime and they slander and they malign. This is part of an orchestrated campaign...to keep people at home. And you know why they're freaked out — and this is an expression of the fact that they are totally freaked out. Their rhetoric is just...it's Hugo Chavez rhetoric — it's just — I'm sorry — your Republican members of the House 'are aiding and abetting terrorism' (a charge uttered by House Democrat Whip James Clyburn). What terrorism, you hack — you sickening — and you know it's 'Well, people need to be responsible on talk radio.' ON talk radio? You're a member of Congress — you're a senior member of Congress — and you're accusing your fellow (congressmen) of aiding and abetting terrorism because of peaceful protest?

"How many arrests were there, Congressman? How many police officers were injured? How many windows were smashed upon Capitol Hill buildings? How many? How many? Tell them about this terrorism that you're so concerned about, you pathetic hack. Y'know — "why this situation is overheated" — why is this situation overheated? That's why it's overheated, because of what the congressman said right there. They're so freaked out because Middle America is waking up and they [the congressional left] mean to shut us up. They mean to make us sit back down, get back on the couch, and their strategy for doing that — and that's what this is — their strategy for doing that is to slime everyone at these protests with tar — with a broad brush saying you're all terrorists.

"Now they're aiding and abetting terrorists? So obviously Tea Party people are terrorists that the Republicans are 'aiding and abetting.' So now they're calling Middle America terrorists. Nancy Pelosi saying out there, with the swastikas and stuff.... Again, that's Lyndon LaRouche [a Democrat] — except one sign that I saw at a rally — one picture of a swastika with a circle and red slash through it — saying no national socialism. That was not an endorsement of Nazism. That was a suggestion that you're the new version of that, Nanny Pelosi.

"And you can agree or disagree with that, but if you're going to go after these people, then let's compare them with liberal protests, which the news media will not do. And they're going to show the peaceful protests of tens of thousands of Americans on the West Front of the Capitol, and then show you the video or that audio I just played of police coming in on horseback to clear out liberals who are smashing the place up? Of course not — of course they're not. The hypocrisy of the news media is staggering."

Liberal Hypocricy Once Again

While our sympathies go out to the Kennedy family over Sen. Ted Kennedy's death last night, the whole affair again points to liberal hypocrisy.

Back in March, Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the national heath care bill would eventually be named for Ted Kennedy. He caught all kinds of flack -- from Democrats and liberals -- for his comment.

For example, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Limbaugh's comments about Sen. Kennedy "truly outrageous." "“Leader Limbaugh crossed the line. National Republicans must stand up to their leader, Rush Limbaugh, and tell him that enough is enough.”

Yet now, after the Senator's death, Democrats are tripping all over themselves to name the bill in honor of Kennedy.

If a conservative suggests something, it's a horrendous deed; if a liberal suggests the same thing, it's just great.

If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're not living on the same planet. It is one of the reasons debating a liberal is just about impossible.

Hopeful signs are emerging

Both parties -- Democrats and Republicans -- have failed. Both are to blame for the problems we have, and both don't have real solutions. Our government has failed us. Politians are only interested in keeping and exercising power, and for decades have done nothing constructive, except dig us deeper into an already deep hole.

When George Washington stated "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master," he was right.

When Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, he was right. When Thomas Paine said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one," he was right.

Thomas Jefferson judged government correctly:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Have we lost our way? This nation was founded on the principal that excessive government was tyranny, and what we have today is quickly approaching that condition, if it is not already here.

The Constitution of the United States states that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are to be granted to the States and Local governments! Much of what our Federal government in Washington has done over the last several decades is unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court has gone along with this takeover.

The 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now we are seeing how our Republic works. If the people think the Federal government is taking too much power, we resist. This is not un-American, as Nancy Pelosi would have you believe. As one resident of San Franciso (Pelosi's home turf) said in a comment on www.sfgate.com:

I've been a Democrat since I came back from the War in 1968. Let me get this straight: When I demonstrated in the street for Affirmative Action, Womens Lib and Gay rights, I was being Patriotic. But if you demonstrate in the street against secret legislation not open to the public for discussion, you are Unamerican? What am I missing here? Obama declared August 1st as being: "The People's Deadline" for passing Healthcare that the Congress hadn't even read yet and the public didn't have any details about. He was acting and sounding just like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. All those enlightened 20th Century Progressive Dictators were always spouting off about "The People's This & The People's That".
I'm a Liberal Democrat, but this guy is a buffoon. POWER TO THE PEOPLE-EVEN THE REPUBLICANS!

Read more comments at the SFGate. I think you'll find the comments from this liberal bastion interesting.

I see a glimmer of hope that the American people will not let the Federal government become the tyranny our founders feared so much.

Truth in Humor

A man wearing a Democratic pin walks into a bar and sees a picture of President Bush hanging behind the bartender. He calls the bartender over and says, "You should take that picture down. George Bush is a blight upon this nation. He should be impeached."

The bartender, a life-long Republican, is completely offended. "Why you liberal piece of garbage. How dare you come into my bar and tell me how to run my business!"

"Listen, I'm the customer, so I'm always right." the man says. "That picture offends me, so I want you to take it down."

"That tears it," the bartender says, "How would you like it if I came into your bar and told you what to do?"

"Well, you'd be the customer, so you'd be right," the man says.

"Fine, then let's switch places," the bartender says.

So, they do. The man takes the bartender's place behind the bar, and the bartender walks outside, waits a moment, and then comes back inside. The bartender sits at the bar and says to the bar, "You should take that pin off. The Democrats are destroying our country with their liberal agenda."

"Sorry," the man says, "but we don't serve Republicans here."

Hat-tip: Joke of the Day on iGoogle.

Facism Rears Its Ugly Head

It doesn't take a moron to see that the left-wing in this country isn't really about freedom of speech, woman's rights, equal opportunity -- unless you are totally ignoring everything going on around you. Take a conservative woman with five kids, not from New York, or Boston, or San Fransicso, but from a small town, and she's just not good enough.

We've been hearing this for years, yet we've not really internalized what the left thinks it means to be conservative from a small town.

But it's been this way for a hundred years. Modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with classic liberalism (as Thomas Jefferson stood for), is really a nice name for facism.

Yes, you read that right. I used the term facism, in its purist sense, and do not mean to relate it negatively to the evils of Nazism, etc. But facism is an ideology in which all people think the same, put the state ahead of the invividual in the sense that the state becomes the new religion. If having government control -- and provide -- everything you need from birth to death, then if that isn't facism, I don't know what is. It's a nationalistic socialism. Individualism is out, statism is in. This is modern liberalism.

With the nomination of Gov. Sara Palin to the Repuplican ticket for Vice President, we've seen how the media, the left, and hollywood view us middle class, middle Americans from small towns. We're just not good enough.

But regardless, Sara has the left scrambling fast. They are angry. If you don't think so, go to DailyKos, Huffington Post or TruthDig and read some of the opeds and reader comments.

I say bullshit to all this. We can out-vote them. We've done it before, and I say we need to do it again. My point is that regardless of how you feel about McCain-Palin, it's better than having a Muslim socialist in the White House.

The Stormy Political Scene

Well, it didn't take long for the Democrats to come out and say that Sarah Palin didn't have enough experience to become Vice President, regardless that Barack Obama has even less executive experience. It was fun to watch a couple of the debates between Republicans and Democrats.

It's just a fact that Palin has more executive experience -- not a lot, but more -- than Obama, but any good Democrat won't admit that.

The McCain-Palin team brings more experience to Washington that Obama-Biden. At least one has some executive experience. Romney would have been a better choice, given his expertise in economics and his vast executive experience. But Palin caught the nation's attention and that's what you need to do sometimes in politics.

On a more stormy front, it didn't take the liberal New York Times any time at all to point out the "failings" of the Bush administration over Katrina, as Gustav put New Orleans in its sites.

This time around, the party’s off. Or at least it is for Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, who on Sunday sought to focus attention on efforts to prepare for Hurricane Gustav at the expense of carefully laid plans for this week’s Republican National Convention.

In some ways, it was a nightmare moment for Republicans. The hurricane’s approach put front and center once more some of the worst failings of the Bush presidency at the very moment Mr. McCain was to begin presenting a vision of the post-Bush Republican Party to the nation.

You gotta get pretty tired of the "it's Bush's fault" whenever anything -- and I mean anything -- happens. Yes, our federal government was not as responsive as it should have been three years ago, but let's look at the real situation.

National disaster preparation and action starts with the local government, then state, then federal. Three years ago, New Orlean's local government was a total failure, as was the state. FEMA wasn't prepared to meet the lack of planning at the local level. So it took a team effort to fail, just as this time, it took a team effort to succeed.

When we start relying on the federal government for our well-being -- instead of ourselves -- we are in big trouble. This is a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. One group wants the feds to be responsible for everything, the other group looks to the individuals involved.

We are at a critical point in our history. Do we want big government to take care of us, or do we want to take care of our selves?

Whose Failed Policies?

While out promoting her new book, rather than attending to the business of the American people, Nancy Pelosi is defending her stance on energy policy.

"I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy," Pelosi said. “When you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

What debate? She won't allow it on the House floor. And whose failed policies?

"She's got time to go out and promote her new book tour and her new book, but she doesn't have time to schedule a vote on the floor of the House and let the American people have their will expressed?" Rep. John Boehner told FOX News.

"For 25 years, Democrats have blocked more American-made oil and gas. That's why we're in the predicament we're in," said Boehner, R-Ohio. Voters want Congress "to vote on more American made oil and gas. We want to do that. She, Harry Reid, Barack Obama are standing in the way."

House and Senate Democrats are using their control of Congress to avoid voting on opening up the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil exploration, which they say is unnecessary because oil companies already have leases to millions of acres of federal land. Because of the deadlock, Democratic energy priorities have stalled, too.

Pelosi countered the criticism by issuing a statement that listed a series of editorials from newspaper boards critical of the GOP plan to allow more offshore oil drilling.

"American families and businesses are struggling with skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, but President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand in the way of real relief," Pelosi said in the statement. "Instead, the Bush-Cheney policy, an energy plan crafted by two oilmen in the White House, revolves around the best interests of Big Oil – from protecting tax breaks to expanding domestic oil and gas drilling."

David Rogers at the Politico newspaper reports that Pelosi, who initially promised an open debate, has now resorted to what he calls hard-nosed parliamentary devices to block any Republican proposals on offshore oil and gas exploration.

Rogers also calls Pelosi "Nancy the Navigator" because she says, "I have always loved longitude. I love latitude; it's in the stars. But longitude, it's about time... time and clocks and all the rest of that have always been a fascination for me."

This is beyond belief. Even liberals (I assume posters at Huffington Post are liberal) are getting fed up with this Do-Nothing Congress.

In response to Robert Borosage's latest post, where he attempts to blame everything on Republicans, some of the resposes are telling.

Chris: "Wow it is funny how leftiest during the republican control of congress encouraged obstructionist. But now it is bad? Why is that exactly?"

People Proffessor: "Government cannot do everything. And it shouldn't do everything as enumerated in that wonderful document known as OUR Constitution."

PATina: "The Democrats have wasted the last 8 years... DOING NOTHING. There was the voter disenfranchising problems of 2000 and 2004... they should have come up w/ concrete plans to introduce legislation to improve (or change) the way we vote in this country. But they did nothing and then In 2008... it was the DEMS that were accused of disenfranchising voters in FL and MI. Pathetic."

In another reponse to Borosage's post, even some stauch Democrats are finally getting angry:

I heard Nancy on Jon Stewart blaming the lack of progress on GOP obstruction, but let's face it Nancy, you got the ball rolling (or stopped it from rolling) with "Impeachment is off the table" - why didn't you at least LOOK like you were going to changing the course of disaster the GOP had put us on, and said nothing at all or at least "Impeachment is worth looking at".

Nancy and those who rolled over with her right after the elections of 2006 don't deserve to be elected again.

Seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to a real American revolution, in which the majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, are getting fed up.

I say it's about time.

Gramm's Comments Hide Bigger Story

Phil, you're not helping the conservative or Republican cause when you stay stupid shit. Of course, it doesn't matter that the "mental recession" comment was made in private and then later relayed to a journalist. It gave the liberals more ammunition about insensitive conservatives.

I know everyone with a blog or computer or typewriter will be commenting on Phil Gramm's idiotic comments yesterday. If you really want to know what some people think or feel, take a look at Melody's rant at the DailyKos.

Yes, I occasionally peruse sites like DailyKos and Huffington Post. If you have any stake in what's going on, you gotta know what other people who might disagree with you are thinking. Then you need to think about what they're thinking before you throw it out. Otherwise, you're no better than the left-wing koolaid drinkers.

Anyway, Melody makes some valid points, even though some things aren't quite right factually (like her whining about it being hot in Texas, which it is every summer and this one is not even close to a record, the public pool has closed because the Democrat leadership in Dallas can't manage their budget; like her "cottage" decreasing in value by $50K; home prices in Dallas have been relatively stable, unless you're living in a $750K house, which in Dallas equates to a $3 million house in L.A.), and telling him to stick it up his ass several times losses its one-time punch.

But as a fellow middle-class American, I have to agree with her point that the recent rise in price of gas, energy, and food have made an impact on us, and it's just not mental. So Gramm has done everyone a disservice, and a great one at that.

But he does have somewhat of a point: we are becoming a nation of whiners, especially on the left.

But there is more to this story than meets the eye, especially at first glance. At nearly the same time Phill is making an idiot of himself, Michelle Obama put her foot in her mouth as well. Phil sounds elitist, but so does Michelle when she says, "Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings..." I assume she's talking about the May rebate checks (this isn't a gift from the government, they're just returning my money). Full story here.

Earrings? My wife and I received $1,200 in rebate checks; we're not going to go buy earrings for God's sake, or anything else frivolous. We used it on things we need.

But where is the outrage? The Obamas get a free pass again from the main street media. The conservative gets hammered, and rightly so, but the liberal is so cute. Even the somewhat-more-conservative-than-most U.S. News and World Report ignores it...

That's the bigger story.

Getting Facts From Statistical Mushiness

In the course of my continuing research into the state of our current challenges, I came across a blog entitled, "The True Conservative." Through some means of logic, self-invented I think, the author of this blog, Steve Roth, has decided that the "True Conservatives" are actually Democrats.

While this in an interesting concept, and one I'll probably deal with in a later post, I wanted to spend a little time on how he uses statistics (polling data) to come to the conclusion that even Republicans (he calls them Pups) don't like Republican policies. His conclusion:

Example: Only 38% of Republicans support Republican tax policies.

Tell them it's the "Republican" policy position? All of a sudden 66% support it. Whodathunkit...Their problem is that even Republicans don't like Republican policies. They prefer Democrats' policies—except when they're told that the policies they approve of are Democratic policies.

Now that's interesting, isn't it? I thought I'd take a look at the source, and see if I came up with the same conclusion.

First of all, the sponsor of this survey is NPR, a more liberal outfit than say, Fox News. So I'm a little suspicious of the conclusions, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, I thought I'd take a deeper look.

What I'm looking at are two charts, but Mr. Roth comes to the wrong conclusion. The study premise is that two different groups were asked the questions, one identifying the question as a partisan position, the other non-partison. They did not ask the non-partison question, then identify it as partison to the same group.

In addition to this wrong conclusion reached by the liberal Mr. Roth, you must read and analyze the questions on page 31 of the study. Then study the charts on page 32. The questions are so close to each other, I'd have a hard time picking the best one. And the design of the survey is based on this:

On four issues - the economy, Iraq, foreign trade, and taxes, we read voters the issue positions of both political parties and asked them which statement came closer to their own views. Half of the respondents were read a version that included the Republican and Democratic labels, while the other half received questions without partisan cues.

To back up a minute, the first part of the survey, based on a telephone interview of 800 likely voters, has a margin of error of 3.46%, 95% of the time. That is a large margin of error, and many of the charts are statistically insignificant.

So in the second part of the study, the survey sample has actually dropped to 400, instead of 800, because the reseachers divided the groups in half. This increases the margin of error. In my experience, 400 likely voters is not a large enough sample.

So based on just this simple analysis, the study is inconclusive. Mr. Roth, what you are trying to tell us just may not be true, so don't write about it as if it is a fact. At this point, any honest researcher would conclude that more study is needed.

(Just for the record, I have a background in doing research of this type, and have taken statistics at the graduate-school level).