The Effectiveness of the News Media

In the aftermath of this election, conservatives, Republicans, and anyone who supported John McCain was asking themselves one question: “how the heck did this happen?”.  I mean, seriously, if you told me two years ago that we were going to elect a man for president with virtually no executive experience, with an ideology far left of mainstream America, and with a middle name of Hussein, I just never would have believed you.  But, I guess, that’s water under the bridge now.   So, how did this happen and how do we prevent a hoax like this being pulled on us again?

The reason that this election was an elaborate hoax is because the majority of people who voted for Barack Obama simply had no idea what he stood for.  They had no idea about his past accomplishments and no idea about his past associations.  They, in large part, didn’t even know what he voted for or against in the past.  They simply didn’t care because he looks nice, gives a great speech, and apparently touches the emotions of millions because he is a black man.  All I can say is bravo to the Democrats for running a phenomenal campaign….you managed to pull a good one on us this time.  Let’s see if you can manage to fool the electorate again in four years.  They only way that will happen is if we and the rest of America isn’t paying attention.  We obviously weren’t this time.

A poll was conducted by Zogby and paid for by a man named John Ziegler into what Obama voters knew and believed about the candidates running for election.  Also included are some general questions about government.

  • 57.4% of Obama voters could not correctly say which party controls congress. (The Democrats have for the past two years, by the way)
  • 82.6% of Obama voters could not correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot
  • 88.4% of Obama voters could not correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket
  • 56.1% of Obama voters didn’t know that Obama started his political career at the home of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist.

Surprising?  Not so much.  But what is surprising is how good they are at associating certain things with Sarah Palin.

  • 94% of Obama voters correctly identified Sarah Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter.
  • 86% of Obama voters identified Palin as the candidate who spent $150,000 on a campaign wardrobe.
  • 86.9 % of Obama voters though that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though the quote actually came from Saturday Night Live.

What this shows is how effective the news media is…extremely effective when they want to be.  CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC all did plenty of leg work to destroy Sarah Palin and it worked.  What would have been the result if those comments about bankrupting the coal industry were as widespread as Palin’s pregnant daughter?

This video is well worth watching.  If you’re still wondering how Obama got elected, this video will clear the air for you. 

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.

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?”

Dear Mr. Obama

The liberal media have attacked this as made by the McCain campaign.  It wasn’t.  This was made by one individual and it expresses the sentiments of the majority of military personnel.

MoveOn.org Wants $10 Per Gallon Gasoline

I couldn’t quite believe it when I had a friend of mine tell me that he really believed that $10 per gallon gasoline would be a good thing.  He actually wanted the U.S. to face a recession similar to the one that Japan faced in the 1990’s.  Apparently my friend’s sentiments weren’t all that unusual.

In this video, Barack Obama supporters at a MoveOn.org rally readily admit that they want gasoline to cost $10, $20, even $30 per gallon.  When asked how this would affect a single mom with a minivan, their response was, “she shouldn’t be driving a minivan”.

These are the types of people that will be in an Obama administration.  For those of you on the fence, keep this in mind!  Don’t think that the “progressive” agenda won’t amount to outrageous energy costs.

They just want you to sit there and sweat in your hot, dark house all in the name of global warming.

RINO Warner Proposes 55-mph Speed Limit

As a recent Virginia resident, I spent a year and a half thoroughly unimpressed with my elected Senators to the U.S. Senate. I became a Virginia resident just in time to vote for George Allen, who promptly lost to Jim Webb in the fall of 2006. One of my main disappointments with Senators Webb and Warner was that both were on board with the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (aka Amnesty Bill).

However, my disappointment with the overall government and commonwealth of Virginia didn’t stop there. We had high state taxes and ridiculous speeding fines. While I was a resident, Virginia instituted a minimum $1500 fine (as much as $3500) for speeding 15 mph over the state instituted speed limit. You were only smacked with this fine if you were a Virginia resident. Out of state commuters speeding in Virginia didn’t face this same penalty.

Warner

Going along with the theme of an overreaching government, Senator John Warner is proposing a nationalized 55 mph speed limit for the nation’s interstates, the same speed limit that was in place from 1974 through 1995. Apparently Senator Warner thinks that the American people are too dumb to drive and pay for gas themselves.

This from the Associated Press:

An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year

“Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America’s highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater,” Warner wrote Bodman.

Gas prices in this country are a made-to-order issue for the Republican party. If the Republicans, including John McCain, ran a campaign based on a platform of domestic drilling and exploration, they might stop a looming Democratic onslaught. All the polls show that a dramatic majority of American voters support more domestic drilling and exploration, including in areas such as ANWR and the outer-continental shelf.

The energy department responded to Senator Warner with the following:

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner’s letter but added, “If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production.”

BINGO! Forcibly decreasing usage of oil and gasoline will not cause the price of oil to drop. This same thing happened in the 1970’s and the price of gasoline went up. There were fuel shortages during the Arab oil embargo.

Democrats want to attempt to drop prices by curving demand. The only you curve demand is by ultimately stopping growth. If you stop growth in this country, you stagnate the economy. If we have a slowed economy, we have higher unemployment, more poverty, and more people depending on government for their welfare. Perhaps that is what the far left in this country wants.

We hear the phrase, “We can’t drill our way out of this.” Well, I’d like to throw out my own phrase: “We can’t conserve our way out of this.” Solar panels, mandated fluorescent light bulbs, and wind turbines aren’t going to drop the drop the price of a barrel of oil one penny. Only the principles of supply and demand will. Demand is already falling with $4 per gallon gas. The only way you get the price lower is increasing supply.

The most effective way to lower the price of oil is by flooding the market with more oil. This may take several years, but at least we’ll be on track to become less dependent on foreign oil. As of right now, we don’t have ANY tenable solution to this crisis from either Republicans or Democrats in congress. But as long as the Republicans have a guy like John Warner leading the charge for more government regulation as a solution to our problems, you can count on the Democrats having a strong majority in congress. Republicans don’t win by embracing liberal policies.