Regardless of your personal convictions on abortion, is it appropriate that America spend its taxpayers money to fund abortions in foreign nations? Is this a smart action at a time when we are heading into a depression, with national debt spiraling out of control?
In addition to the considerations of the unnecessary expense, once donated we will have no controls on how this money is used. Nations with divided loyalties could use the money to enforce abortions on their enemies. Nations with more lenient morals than the U.S. could fund the killing of small children under the umbrella of abortion. Don't say it can't happen - it already has, within our own borders.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Legacy Begins
Obama continues to build his legacy with today's announcement. "Obama Orders Guantanamo Prison Closed"
Obama has cemented in history his ignorance of politics, conflict, and history itself. Never in the course of history has any nation allowed the enemy to dictate its actions, and survived. How many people would play chess if the captured pieces were left on the board? It certainly sends a message to the soldiers engaged in the fight. That message is "take no prisoners". If an enemy combatant has the potential to be returned to the fight, then that combatant should be killed NOW! And, we have already found scores of former Gitmo detainees again engaged in combat with America.
So, what Obama has done is ensure that American troops kill even more people when engaged in conflicts. What Obama has decreed is that death is preferable to humane imprisonment as a POW.
Obama has cemented in history his ignorance of politics, conflict, and history itself. Never in the course of history has any nation allowed the enemy to dictate its actions, and survived. How many people would play chess if the captured pieces were left on the board? It certainly sends a message to the soldiers engaged in the fight. That message is "take no prisoners". If an enemy combatant has the potential to be returned to the fight, then that combatant should be killed NOW! And, we have already found scores of former Gitmo detainees again engaged in combat with America.
So, what Obama has done is ensure that American troops kill even more people when engaged in conflicts. What Obama has decreed is that death is preferable to humane imprisonment as a POW.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The First 100 days
So, today is Inauguration Day. As we go through the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency, we should get an idea of what he will accomplish during the rest of his Presidency. Granted, nobody knows what the future will hold, but we will see how President Obama intends to lead. Something that NOBODY has been privileged to witness heretofore.
His first act - a Proclamation. So far he is following the same pattern as during his few years as a Senator: meaningless, symbolic gestures; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The proclamation, true to his course, stresses Renewal and Reconciliation. But, what are we renewing and who is being reconciled?
From the Inaugural Address, it appears that we are renewing our resolve to read and understand the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Yet, we are also Renewing our dependence on direction in our daily lives by our ruling government, as expected by our one-time King George III. I think Obama expects us to renew our resolve to act for the 'common good' of our nation's citizens. In the tradition of the greatest Americans, we actually should renew our liberties by ensuring that we can provide for ourselves and our loved ones, through hardships and prosperity.
I can only assume that President Obama reconciles his supposed belief in our founding documents and his love of Socialism by invoking the name of Abraham Lincoln. As you may recall, in the process of holding this nation together and abolishing slavery, America paid a great price. Not only did we lose many Americans to the fighting, we also lost much of the strength that States' Rights brought to our Federalist system. President Obama seems to have no compunction against destroying any part of our Constitution, Law, or Procedure that does not fall in line with his goals.
In honor of the Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, I pledge to renew my resolve to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, AND secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND our posterity". I will NOT attempt to reconcile with any man or ideology. The only reconciliation that I will do will be between me and my Creator - to insure I am in line with His ideas of how to secure the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
His first act - a Proclamation. So far he is following the same pattern as during his few years as a Senator: meaningless, symbolic gestures; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The proclamation, true to his course, stresses Renewal and Reconciliation. But, what are we renewing and who is being reconciled?
From the Inaugural Address, it appears that we are renewing our resolve to read and understand the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Yet, we are also Renewing our dependence on direction in our daily lives by our ruling government, as expected by our one-time King George III. I think Obama expects us to renew our resolve to act for the 'common good' of our nation's citizens. In the tradition of the greatest Americans, we actually should renew our liberties by ensuring that we can provide for ourselves and our loved ones, through hardships and prosperity.
I can only assume that President Obama reconciles his supposed belief in our founding documents and his love of Socialism by invoking the name of Abraham Lincoln. As you may recall, in the process of holding this nation together and abolishing slavery, America paid a great price. Not only did we lose many Americans to the fighting, we also lost much of the strength that States' Rights brought to our Federalist system. President Obama seems to have no compunction against destroying any part of our Constitution, Law, or Procedure that does not fall in line with his goals.
In honor of the Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, I pledge to renew my resolve to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, AND secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND our posterity". I will NOT attempt to reconcile with any man or ideology. The only reconciliation that I will do will be between me and my Creator - to insure I am in line with His ideas of how to secure the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Economic Crisis 2008 - Call To Action
In the previous post (below) I provide a simplified version of what happened to the Stock Markets and Financial Industry. The reason everyone needs to understand this now is because the same thing is happening in governments. In order to stave off the problems this has brought to the markets, and thereby every major company that relies on these markets, governments are incurring large debts with no thought of their future ability to pay.
Pretend that you have credit card and car loan balances totaling $50,000. Also pretend that your house is worth $200,000, and you only owe $100,000. As long as you are paying your bills, you are a good credit rating and can get credit if you need it. You know you can refinance your house, if necessary, for money to pay off your obligations. But, what happens to you if the value of your home drops to $100,000? Now your ability to pay is reduced through no fault of your own, even if your income is the same.
Let's assume that you don't currently rely on debt for the day to day business of your home. But, if your car breaks down or you have a non-routine medical expense you no longer have the ability to get the cash you need to meet your obligations. You can ask your boss for a raise, but this minor increase in your income cannot help you to pay off the large obligations that are dragging down your credit rating. With this new obligation, your ability to pay your other existing obligations is further diminished. Due to your diminished ability to pay, your credit cards are closed by the banks and your interest rate goes up. You no longer have access to any funds other than the income from your job. As long as your income holds, and you don't have any unplanned expenses, you may be able to hold on. But, consider that the change has affected many others. This could easily impact your employer, and your income.
Now, simply assume that you are the government. It works exactly the same. When the ability of your government to acquire capital is reduced, all of the existing debt becomes a greater burden. The government can raise taxes, but there is not enough money in the system to pay off the debt enough to improve our credit rating. It will have to reduce its expenses. Not only that, in a recession, overall income is reduced. This means that less tax money will be collected, even if the rate is increased.
Every person in America needs to reduce their expenses now. You can stop spending on discretionary purchases and obligations (cell phones, cable, etc) while it is still an option. You cannot stop spending on debt. You don't want that to be all that you can afford. Everybody needs to speak up so that Congress and The Fed stop spending money while it is still discretionary. They will refuse to listen until a large section of the electorate speaks out.
Pretend that you have credit card and car loan balances totaling $50,000. Also pretend that your house is worth $200,000, and you only owe $100,000. As long as you are paying your bills, you are a good credit rating and can get credit if you need it. You know you can refinance your house, if necessary, for money to pay off your obligations. But, what happens to you if the value of your home drops to $100,000? Now your ability to pay is reduced through no fault of your own, even if your income is the same.
Let's assume that you don't currently rely on debt for the day to day business of your home. But, if your car breaks down or you have a non-routine medical expense you no longer have the ability to get the cash you need to meet your obligations. You can ask your boss for a raise, but this minor increase in your income cannot help you to pay off the large obligations that are dragging down your credit rating. With this new obligation, your ability to pay your other existing obligations is further diminished. Due to your diminished ability to pay, your credit cards are closed by the banks and your interest rate goes up. You no longer have access to any funds other than the income from your job. As long as your income holds, and you don't have any unplanned expenses, you may be able to hold on. But, consider that the change has affected many others. This could easily impact your employer, and your income.
Now, simply assume that you are the government. It works exactly the same. When the ability of your government to acquire capital is reduced, all of the existing debt becomes a greater burden. The government can raise taxes, but there is not enough money in the system to pay off the debt enough to improve our credit rating. It will have to reduce its expenses. Not only that, in a recession, overall income is reduced. This means that less tax money will be collected, even if the rate is increased.
Every person in America needs to reduce their expenses now. You can stop spending on discretionary purchases and obligations (cell phones, cable, etc) while it is still an option. You cannot stop spending on debt. You don't want that to be all that you can afford. Everybody needs to speak up so that Congress and The Fed stop spending money while it is still discretionary. They will refuse to listen until a large section of the electorate speaks out.
Economic Crisis 2008 - Explained
Feel free to correct me where I am wrong, but here is my understanding of the complex contributors to our current economic crisis. Clearly, no single person or group is to blame. It is the culmination of poor accounting practices and unsound policies in several markets working together. Do not think for a minute that it is somehow not the "1929 Stock Market Collapse" for our time.
The fundamental unit for the current crisis is the housing market. The housing bubble allowed homes to be purchased for much more than their "real" value. The money that was lent on these homes was indisputably provided by the lenders and received by the seller. Where this money was spent is entirely at the discretion of those that received it, even if they are greedy capitalists. Unfortunately, much of this money was invested back into the overpriced and overstocked real estate market.
The multiplier for the crisis is the financial instrument called the Credit Default Swap. Let's make a comparison using common, household situations like Life Insurance. When Skip is raising his children, he takes out a Life Insurance policy for $1 Million. This is important because his children are directly benefiting from his salary, leadership, and housework. This is covered by the insurance company because they are investing his payments into the markets for returns that will cover their outstanding policies.
The first risk they take is when they start wagering that Skip is healthy enough that he will live until the policy has expired (if Term Life) or is fully funded by Skip (if Whole Life). The benefit of this wager is to lower premiums and thereby bring in additional business. By itself, this risk is usually well-calculated, but still can result in the failure of an insurance company. As a simple example, a large group of healthy wage-earners could suddenly be impacted by a natural disaster, bankrupting the insurance company. The remedy for this is to insure people across various geographical locations.
The second risk is when the insurance company decides it can continue to sell life insurance to Skip's children when they start earning their own money. There is no longer a need for Skip's income and help. There is merely a desire for payout on Skip's death. Originally it was accepted in order to cover the costs of burial or cremation. But, it has grown to where it is wholly discretionary. In our example, Skip's 3 children each take out a $1M policy on Skip. Now the Insurance company has grown, due to the ability to offer more payouts. If we only look at the boom to the industry, without acknowledging the increased risk then we increase the likelihood of unforeseen, and thereby catastrophic, failure. Let's assume now that we have one-fourth of the people affected by the aforementioned natural disaster. The payout is the same as before, if there are now 4 policies on each person. We have increased our risk by 4, but not increased our premiums to accommodate that risk. More likely, we have decreased the premiums further because we have increased our income by doing so.
The third risk adds another multiplier. Investors, watching the growth in the insurance company, decide to invest directly into the company. Bear in mind that insurance companies rely on the markets to store and grow their income. Premiums paid by the policy holder are minor compared to the income earned through investments. These premiums are critical, mostly as an indicator of the health of the company. Now the investment company makes money when the insurance company makes money. The only risk to the system is the death of a lot of healthy people, like Skip. But, we have spread that risk across geographies and income levels.
Now we see what really happened. Instead of insuring Skip against death, we are insuring Skip's mortgage against foreclosure. When the housing bubble burst, many homes were lost. More importantly, the rating of the lenders and insurance companies were reduced. Once this happened, their ability to invest and be invested in was reduced. With a reduced income stream, some of these companies failed or were in danger of failing. The investment companies that had invested in these companies now had to be downgraded also.
Remember Skip's children in the original example? They are still there. Multiple policies were issued against the mortgage companies ability to pay. When one group started to have trouble, it rippled across many others. There was no oversight or regulation on the insuring of loans, investments, and the companies that engaged in it. Until we hit this crisis, it was unclear how extensive this practice was or the impact it could have. In addition, it is far removed from most people so it was not a priority when some people called attention to it.
Next Post: Why EVERYONE needs to know this NOW!
The fundamental unit for the current crisis is the housing market. The housing bubble allowed homes to be purchased for much more than their "real" value. The money that was lent on these homes was indisputably provided by the lenders and received by the seller. Where this money was spent is entirely at the discretion of those that received it, even if they are greedy capitalists. Unfortunately, much of this money was invested back into the overpriced and overstocked real estate market.
The multiplier for the crisis is the financial instrument called the Credit Default Swap. Let's make a comparison using common, household situations like Life Insurance. When Skip is raising his children, he takes out a Life Insurance policy for $1 Million. This is important because his children are directly benefiting from his salary, leadership, and housework. This is covered by the insurance company because they are investing his payments into the markets for returns that will cover their outstanding policies.
The first risk they take is when they start wagering that Skip is healthy enough that he will live until the policy has expired (if Term Life) or is fully funded by Skip (if Whole Life). The benefit of this wager is to lower premiums and thereby bring in additional business. By itself, this risk is usually well-calculated, but still can result in the failure of an insurance company. As a simple example, a large group of healthy wage-earners could suddenly be impacted by a natural disaster, bankrupting the insurance company. The remedy for this is to insure people across various geographical locations.
The second risk is when the insurance company decides it can continue to sell life insurance to Skip's children when they start earning their own money. There is no longer a need for Skip's income and help. There is merely a desire for payout on Skip's death. Originally it was accepted in order to cover the costs of burial or cremation. But, it has grown to where it is wholly discretionary. In our example, Skip's 3 children each take out a $1M policy on Skip. Now the Insurance company has grown, due to the ability to offer more payouts. If we only look at the boom to the industry, without acknowledging the increased risk then we increase the likelihood of unforeseen, and thereby catastrophic, failure. Let's assume now that we have one-fourth of the people affected by the aforementioned natural disaster. The payout is the same as before, if there are now 4 policies on each person. We have increased our risk by 4, but not increased our premiums to accommodate that risk. More likely, we have decreased the premiums further because we have increased our income by doing so.
The third risk adds another multiplier. Investors, watching the growth in the insurance company, decide to invest directly into the company. Bear in mind that insurance companies rely on the markets to store and grow their income. Premiums paid by the policy holder are minor compared to the income earned through investments. These premiums are critical, mostly as an indicator of the health of the company. Now the investment company makes money when the insurance company makes money. The only risk to the system is the death of a lot of healthy people, like Skip. But, we have spread that risk across geographies and income levels.
Now we see what really happened. Instead of insuring Skip against death, we are insuring Skip's mortgage against foreclosure. When the housing bubble burst, many homes were lost. More importantly, the rating of the lenders and insurance companies were reduced. Once this happened, their ability to invest and be invested in was reduced. With a reduced income stream, some of these companies failed or were in danger of failing. The investment companies that had invested in these companies now had to be downgraded also.
Remember Skip's children in the original example? They are still there. Multiple policies were issued against the mortgage companies ability to pay. When one group started to have trouble, it rippled across many others. There was no oversight or regulation on the insuring of loans, investments, and the companies that engaged in it. Until we hit this crisis, it was unclear how extensive this practice was or the impact it could have. In addition, it is far removed from most people so it was not a priority when some people called attention to it.
Next Post: Why EVERYONE needs to know this NOW!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Obama's Destructive Change
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because it will definitely NOT be covered by the Mainstream Media. Barack Obama was one of a group of lawyers that sued Citibank for not giving loans to prospective homebuyers that could not afford them. This puts Barack Obama on the front line in the war to destroy our economy.
Not only that, but Barack and his friends are still working to take government funds for these groups, like ACORN. What is even worse, these groups are being used to campaign for Barack Obama. That means they are using general government funds, earmarked for assisting the poor, to benefit a particular candidate. If this is not a violation of Campaign laws, it is only because the Democrats have made sure that it doesn't come up for consideration.
Not only that, but Barack and his friends are still working to take government funds for these groups, like ACORN. What is even worse, these groups are being used to campaign for Barack Obama. That means they are using general government funds, earmarked for assisting the poor, to benefit a particular candidate. If this is not a violation of Campaign laws, it is only because the Democrats have made sure that it doesn't come up for consideration.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Obama's Closest Friends
Are you voting for Obama, expecting change from insider politics and greed? If so, you will be sorely disappointed. Here is a quick rundown of Obama's well known friends:
Jeremiah Wright - Militant black preacher
Connection: Married the Obamas and baptized their children. Longtime friend and Spiritual Advisor.
Issues: Hate speech against whites and America. Supports militant Muslim leaders such as Louis Farrakhan.
Tony Rezko - Businessman, Lawyer
Connection: Business Associate. First political contributor to Obama and first fundraiser. Fellow Real Estate investor.
Issues: Fraudulent business practices (wire fraud, passing bad checks, extortion, et al). Influence peddling (using influence with public officials to demand kickbacks from companies desiring to do business with the government).
William Ayers - Terrorist, Professor, Community Organizer
Connection: Friend, Fellow Board Member
Issues: Remorseless Terrorist Leader of the Weatherman Underground.
James Johnson - Businessman, Politician
Connection: VP selection committee leader
Issues: CEO of FannieMae, Managing Director of Lehman Brothers. Improperly deferred expenses to get a substantial bonus. Substantially underreported compensation. Received unethical loans from Countrywide CEO. In addition to his connections to the failed companies previously noted, his resume includes being failed candidate Walter Mondale's Campaign Manager. You may want to avoid investing in other companies where he sits on the board - KB Home, Target, Goldman-Sachs, Gannett, Temple-Inland, and UnitedHealth.
Rashid Khalidi - Professor, Activist, Founder of Arab American Action Network
Connection: Friend to the Obamas, AAAN received $75000
Issues: Openly espouses the viewpoint that Palestinians are within their rights to terrorize Israeli soldiers and citizens because he considers it resistance fighting.
Obama established most of these friendships during his early days in Chicago Politics. All of these people have maintained these relationships as they're careers have progressed over two decades. All of these people have stated they support Obama specifically because he thinks like they do.
Jeremiah Wright - Militant black preacher
Connection: Married the Obamas and baptized their children. Longtime friend and Spiritual Advisor.
Issues: Hate speech against whites and America. Supports militant Muslim leaders such as Louis Farrakhan.
Tony Rezko - Businessman, Lawyer
Connection: Business Associate. First political contributor to Obama and first fundraiser. Fellow Real Estate investor.
Issues: Fraudulent business practices (wire fraud, passing bad checks, extortion, et al). Influence peddling (using influence with public officials to demand kickbacks from companies desiring to do business with the government).
William Ayers - Terrorist, Professor, Community Organizer
Connection: Friend, Fellow Board Member
Issues: Remorseless Terrorist Leader of the Weatherman Underground.
James Johnson - Businessman, Politician
Connection: VP selection committee leader
Issues: CEO of FannieMae, Managing Director of Lehman Brothers. Improperly deferred expenses to get a substantial bonus. Substantially underreported compensation. Received unethical loans from Countrywide CEO. In addition to his connections to the failed companies previously noted, his resume includes being failed candidate Walter Mondale's Campaign Manager. You may want to avoid investing in other companies where he sits on the board - KB Home, Target, Goldman-Sachs, Gannett, Temple-Inland, and UnitedHealth.
Rashid Khalidi - Professor, Activist, Founder of Arab American Action Network
Connection: Friend to the Obamas, AAAN received $75000
Issues: Openly espouses the viewpoint that Palestinians are within their rights to terrorize Israeli soldiers and citizens because he considers it resistance fighting.
Obama established most of these friendships during his early days in Chicago Politics. All of these people have maintained these relationships as they're careers have progressed over two decades. All of these people have stated they support Obama specifically because he thinks like they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
