Plumber Joe and Barack Obama: The Full Video

h/t New York Post

This is an excellent video showing the full conversation between “Joe the Plumber” and Barack Obama.  Obama is clearly off script here, because he lets it slip that his tax plan is really to “spread the wealth around” (translation: income redistribution).

Close to 40% of Americans pay no income tax!  So how can someone who pays nothing, get a tax cut?  Answer: They can’t!  It’s really pretty simple.  If you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut!

The Wall Street Journal published a fine article this week explaining how Barack Obama plans to give a “tax cut” to 95% of Americans.  It has to do with redefining what a “tax cut” is.  A Barack Obama “tax cut” to someone who doesn’t pay any taxes turns out to be a check from the government.  Call it what you want….welfare, income redistribution, etcetera….but it’s no tax cut.

When you take money from one group and give it to another, it’s called income redistribution and it isn’t American.  Where is the federal government given power to redistribute income?  How do they get to determine how much each person is entitled to?  Why does Barack Obama get to decide what is enough? “$250,000 a year is enough for you, so I’m going to take it from you and give it to someone else.”  I guess the American dream only goes up to $250,000 a year now.

Barack Obama plans to redistribute income and wealth in this country via the tax code and has no business becoming our next president.

Advertisements

Angry, Mean Obama Supporters?

I keep hearing about all the reports of rage and hatred at McCain-Palin rallies.  The liberals are outraged and scared of the McCain “mob”.

What a joke.  This is how liberals treat McCain supporters in New York city.  Anything at a McCain rally would likely be pretty tame compared to this.

The Democrat Housing Crisis

Here is an area that John McCain can put his money where his mouth is.  He was one of a number of Republican Senators who called for reform of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, back in May of 2006.  Notice that the letter is calling for reform and regulatory oversight of these agencies.

The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a Democrat scandal. Here is a brief time line of the developments over the years:

1977:  Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.  The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify.   The Premise:  Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.   Despite this act, statistics show that it did not help.

1992:  Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993:  Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies.  This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994:  Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995:  Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules.  Robt. Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating.  The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks.  Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 – 1999:  Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a big way.  Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks.  Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities requiring no money down and no verification of income.   Worse still was the cronyism:  Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.  384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie.  Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities.  During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work?  Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie’s excesses.  Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.  “We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,” Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser (according to the Washington Post), bragged to investors in 1999.

2000:   Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the “special status”.  Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to reward and punish.  “We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets” Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.  It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001:   Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003:  Bush proposes what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago”.  Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005:  Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress:  “We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk”.  Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, “If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole”.  Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP of trying to “cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership”  The bill went nowhere.

2006: Republican Senators, including John McCain, call for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reform yet again in the above letter from May 2006.

2007:  By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market.  The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.  As the housing market fell in ’07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses.  The crisis was on,  though it was 15 years in the making.

2008:  McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times.  Still the media have repeated Democrats’ talking points about this being a “Republican” disaster.  A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

A video from the hearings.

Another fairly well done video summarizing the crisis from beginning to end.

The fact that the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media are attempting to hang this stinking albatross around the necks of Republicans is just dishonest.  Could 2008 be the year known as the “death of the objective media?”

Terrorist Group Offers To Protect Obama In The West Bank

As reported by World Net Daily, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been called upon by the Palestinean Authority to help in the protection of Barack Obama in his tour of the Middle East. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terror organization.

Members of the most active West Bank terror organization are set to serve in security forces being deployed to protect Sen. Barack Obama during his trip to the West Bank tomorrow, WND has learned.

Obama is due to visit Israeli officials in Jerusalem and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah as part of a wider Middle Eastern and European tour that includes Jordan, France and Germany.

According to security officials coordinating deployments of forces with the PA for Obama’s Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Brigades is listed as a terror organization by the U.S. State Department. The group took credit along with the Islamic Jihad terror organization for every suicide bombing in Israel between 2005 and 2006 and is responsible for thousands of shootings and rocket firings. Statistically, the Al Aqsa Brigades perpetuated more terrorism from the West Bank than Hamas, according to the Israeli Defense Forces.

Does the fact that a terrorist organization is participating in protecting Barack Obama while in the Middle East give anyone some level of discomfort? The Hamas endorsement several weeks ago was pretty blatant, but does there still remain a question in anyone’s mind that anti-Israel terrorist groups want Obama elected as our next president?

Obama On Your Shoulder

Obama’s New Presidential Seal Likely Illegal

Just in case you didn’t think the Obama campaign couldn’t get more arrogant, the Obama campaign unveiled a new Presidential Seal in his run for the Presidency. I’m not sure if this is just supposed to be a cheap campaign gimmick or we’re supposed to actually take this seriously. Is Obama really supposed to look more “presidential” sitting behind this thing?

The hilarious thing is that this silly seal might just land him or one of his staffers in jail for 6 months because it’s an obvious rip off of the Seal of the President among others.

18 USC Sec. 713 …
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

The real question is who is going to call his campaign on this? I would imagine that President Bush might have some say in this….it is a rip-off of his seal after all.

Obama Vows to Disarm America

In this remarkable 2007 video, Barack Obama pledges to an anti-war group that he will eliminate and severely reduce America’s nuclear arsenal.  He also promises not to weaponize space and that he wants a world without nuclear weapons.

Now that’s a nice thought.  Wouldn’t we all like that?  There’s just one problem…there are a number of rogue nations (North Korea, Iran, etc) that have the ability to make a nuclear weapon.  So, do we honestly believe that if we eliminate all of our nukes, that they’re going to do the same thing?  Give me a break.

If Obama and his “progressive” followers don’t want America to be the worlds lone military superpower, then who do they want leading the world?  China?  North Korea?  Oh yeah, the world would be much safer under them.  If we’re not the world’s military superpower, somebody else will be.  There are plenty of nations ready and willing to take our place.

If you think back to September 11th, 2001, could you have honestly believed that America would have lasted nearly 7 years without another major attack on our soil?  Most of us believed (including me) that it would be two and maybe three years at the most before we were hit again.  Because of President Bush’s leadership we have lasted this long and America has nearly completely dismantled the Al Qaeda network.

We’re winning the war against terror.  We’re winning the war in Iraq.  We removed the Taliban.  We removed Sadaam Hussein.  Al Qaeda is utterly ineffective and losing to us on every front.  Why would we stop now?  Because we have hope and we want change?  Barack Obama will bring change all right–from winning against terorrist to losing against terrorists; from being the world’s lone superpower to not being a superpower; from being strong to being weak.  Oh yeah, that’s change I can believe in.