Obama and Tyranny

We, as a nation, cannot let Obama be President. I would like to make that known because it could be my last time doing so. Our rights as individuals are in danger, our system of life is in danger, and our children future may be altered for the worst. Our fundamental rights to be able to say what we think and let the public know those thought is 1) The freedom of the press. However, our possible President  has no wish to preserve such rights… Here is the evidence:

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/3565/is-this-freedom-of-the-press-under-obama/

And also:

http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html

In the previous, the Obama crew has denyed this station right to be able to produce any more of their interviews, and also, the have cancelled all future interviews!!! Why would he do such a thing? What is it that he is worried about, or what is it that he is trying to hide? The question that buffeled Biden so much was the reference to Marxism, I think that there is a strong relation amid Obama and the maxian school of thought. Most americans don’t want the maxian ideal, rather we want to have a stronger economic system where we can function without the ever-seeing eye of the government. Obama is trying to pull a quick one over our eyes, and we need to see it! We need to be aware that his intentions are not your improvment, but actually you subjection!

I appreciate that all those who read this, examin it and study it; look at my prior posts and examin them, and you will find that Obama does not want the type of change that you think he does. We must not let him take the helm and dive us into distruction.

BLAME the DEMOCRATS

I -usually- am not a big political guy. However, this election has been driving me crazy! Thus, I can no longer be silent. I have been listening to much of what has been said on the news, and when it replays the democrats lines or statements about the current presidential election, all i hear is how “this” (the Bush Administration) has failed. And that all the “trouble” we are in is due to him, and “his” war. Is this true? Is it really the case that the Bush Administration has created these problems? Is Obama and all the other liberals right? Perhaps, but let us examine the facts and see if that is the case.

Let us start our examination systmeatically with what problems are considered the biggest, namely the economy. 

1. The current economic structure is crumbling.

- the democrates feel that this is due to failed policy, but is it? They also hold that this is due to “relaxed regulations of the admistration on the market.”

All I am going to say to the former is bull crap! This is pure political spin. Let us look at the facts…            - In 1977 the democrats passed the “Community Reinvestment  Act.” This act gave more power to governement to insure certain financeing for “low income” individuals to buy homes.                                     – In 1995 President Bill Clinton gave this act much more strength by “Obligating” or requiring banks to process “sub-prime loans” for “disadvantaged individuals.” This obligation on banks was obviously government intervention that had the focus of establishing equality.

-Many of the “sub-prime” loans were high risk, and the government allowed the gov-backed institution of Fannie-mae, and Freddie-mac to purchase these loans. Many of the government appointed board members of these companies were democrats.  

- the REPUBLICANS, in 1995, tried to enforce more oversight of Fannie-mae, but it was blocked by Sen. Reid and many democratic members of the house and senate. (I think it is important to point out that Sen. McCain predicted financial turmoil if there was not something done to put more oversight on companies like this).

-2004 the bush administration sought caps on the loans that Fannie-mae and Freddie-mac could process and purchase. They also sought caps on certain sub-prime loans. This was blocked by many house democrats that claimed “ Fannie-mae was sound.”

In is even more interesting that the senators that blocked these caps and oversight of Fannie-mae and other institutions was principally: Sen. Dodd, Sen. Obama, and House Rep. Polosi. They have recived   also the HIGHEST campaign-donations that have ever been given by Fannie-mae.

Another problem that worries me about the demoncatic-controlled congress is that I think that they have intended for some time to allow the current market crash by “hedge funding and shorting” fannie-mae. The timeing of the colapse of the market is perfect. Just durring a new election with one of their own to lead the way, Barrack Obama.  This is interesting since 95% of the market is still paying on their debt just fine!

Take a look at this: http://usawakeup.org/USSA.htm

DEREGULATION WAS NOT THE PROBLEM HERE! IT WAS PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION THAT CAUSED SUCH CORRUPTION. BARRACK OBAMA wants more of this “control” so he can destroy things even more.

Is The “BAILOUT” Permissible

I guess you could suppose that this post is for all you economics freaks out there, and also all you philosophy nerds. The questions that I would like to take into consideration are: 1) is the purposed bailout morally permissible? 2) is it really going to create a long-term solution? 3) is this really a move toward “socialism?”

Is the bailout morally permissible? I think that before I propose to explain why it is or is not, let me first provide some back-ground about the bill itself and what it is supposed to “do.”

The bill (summarized version) is as follows, or you can see it at: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/20/treasurys-financial-bailout-proposal-to-congress/

-Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

-he Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

The objective of the bill is to aid financial institutions in freeing up their capital and allow for resumed lending by taking off the books of these institutions their failing sub-prime [and other] mortgages. By allowing these institutions to renew lending, it is hypothetically supposed that 1) Lending institutions will be able to lend more freely, 2) If (1), then people can take out more debt, 3) if (2), then banks make money, and the economy improves. I recognize that 1-3 are very simplified, but -from what I have gathered- that is the main point of the bill. I suppose that Paulson and Ben are correct in this, and that by injecting more money into the financial markets, you allow for renewed lending. However, is that what America needs? 

The problem of “the credit crisis” is not that difficult to understand. In simple terms, we can describe it as the occurrence of numerous foreclosures in the housing market that caused a chain reaction that brought down thrifts, holding, and investment companies. However, it is much more difficult to detect the cause of this crisis; perhaps, it is president Bush, and the so-called “ruined economic policy,” but that seems to be ad hoc. There, for it to be this big, must be something more; maybe a cluster of events and problems both in government and wall-street. However, I feel that we can start somewhere… In 1995 President Bill Clinton signed legislation making it easier for minorities to purchase homes. This idea was principally perpetuated by his had his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who -thanks to the legislation- rewrote the lending rules for the Community Reinvestment Act, opening the flood gates of mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers. These borrower were minorities and even at times illegal immigrants who had never been adequately qualified to purchase a home because the CR Act required lenders to “push them.” The final occurrence is that as energy-prices and instability in certain real-estate markets -and due to the IRRESPONSIBILITY of americans- caused augmenting number of foreclosures, and now, we run into the current situation. The problem was the initial flooding of sub-prime mortgages by the demand of the Clinton administration. Nevertheless, nor are therepublicans free from the blood of the people hurt by this crisis. They also engaged in erroneous ties with mortgage companies as the big-wigs of wall-street participated in their money orgy with the democrats -to prove that it was a “money orgy with the demarcates” just look at FNM and FRM (Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac) and do some research as to who the board, CEO, and other governmental affiliates were. So, I suppose it is safe to conclude that:

1) certain parties [i.e Democratic] were the main perpetuator of the problem at hand.

2) republicans did nothing to stop it. 

3) Wall-street was greedy

4) Americans are irresponsible with their money and equity. 

So, is it morally permissible? 

NO! I don’t think it is even close to being such. This bill will bail-out these institutions [if it passes] and it will cause the market to BOOM in relief that the Fed has saved the day (which is actually you). Regulations on lending will be half-heartedly addressed and fixed, the CR act will not be adjusted promptly as to sufficiently stop the same mess from re-occurring. Additionally, it causes one bad thing -morally- and that is it will not install any sense of responsibility into the american people or the “business world” of america. By bailing out some one and hence not teaching them, and us, a lesson, we are limiting their ability to self-improve or at least “learn from ones mistakes.” We could -possibly- be hurt by the lack of accountability that we still have because we know that the fed is there with its check book. 

Is it economically sound?

There is much debate here, so I shall leave this as an open question for you to consider.