Wednesday, October 27, 2010

obama doesn't like America...or Western Civilization

We’re In Denial, America, About Our President
By Dr.Keith Ablow
The greatest gift of my training in psychiatry has been the ability my mentors nurtured in me to really listen to what people say. This is harder than it sounds.

It took me years to overcome the natural tendency to gloss over the very important things people say—the ones that might trigger anxiety or sadness or anger if focused upon clearly or at length.

This avoidance of hearing messages that people convey is a very human reaction when what they are saying is almost too big to take to heart.

The same dynamic explains why people fail to recognize predators even in the face of much data that they are unsafe, why they fail to hear the desperation in the words of a loved one who later goes on to commit suicide, why they fail to internalize expressions of genuine (and boundless) love from another person and why they fail to follow-up with questions about true revelations another offers about his or her deepest feelings and most powerful experiences.

It is as if the mind and soul are fitted with shock absorbers triggered only by the biggest bumps in the road—a kind of onboard, on call denial—so that special focus is required to register them.

I believe this internal shock absorber has prevented many Americans from really listening to the most significant messages President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have delivered.

One of these messages is that the Obamas are profoundly ambivalent about whether America and Americans have historically been a force for good or ill in the world. This is why the president has repeatedly apologized for America’s behavior, in a way that not only signals other nations that our leader is at best uncertain about our moral character, but may plant self-doubt about our decency in own population.

It is why the first lady honestly stated during the campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime" she was proud of her country.

It is why the president would remain in a church where the pastor has been quoted as saying, “God damn, America!” and would bring his children to that church to listen and learn.

These are not accidental facts. They are not meaningless. They encourage denial because they are so stark and so massive in scope that they make us not want to grapple with the inevitable conclusion that our country is being led by someone who isn’t so certain he likes his countrymen.

Another significant message from the president is that he is sincerely suspicious of businesses—large or small—unless those businesses are controlled by the government in a way that approximates government ownership of them.

This is what is meant by stating plainly that redistributing wealth is good, by teaching businesses to come to the trough to drink up bailout monies, by seeking oversight over which executives companies hire and how much they are paid and by burdening businesses with social agendas like “health care reform” and other red tape that can bring them to their knees.

Again, these are not accidental facts, nor meaningless. We can screen out the huge impact and import of them because they are almost unthinkable—constituting, as they do, this reality: Our commander-in-chief isn’t so sure he likes us, or our way of life. In fact, it certainly sounds, if you listen, to him, that he does not.

Americans are behaving a lot like the children I treat who grew up in homes in which their parents did not love them. They deny it. They do everything they can to believe, otherwise including wondering whether they themselves are to blame.

If we were deprived of denial, if we were willing to really listen and really be shocked, if we were willing to be wrong and wronged, we would have to admit that we elected a man to lead our country who just doesn’t express much love for it—or us.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a forensic psychiatrist

Friday, October 22, 2010

It's about time the housing bubble was blamed on Cuomo ( and also Frank and Dodd.._)

****Today ( and, if you pay attention, you'll hear this refrain over and over again from liberals speaking what they consider universally-accepted truth) a knee-jerker started a rant with "Everyone should own a home. It's the American Dream. Fannie and Freddie are essential for this." Actually, none of these things is necessary or even true.Not every should, or even wants to, own a home. Renting provides flexibility, leaves maintenance responsibilities to others and, over many periods, is economically advantageous. A good life might be the American Dream and an apartment renter with color TVs and two cars is hardly divorced from this idea. Since ownership entails financial risks, the necessity of Fannie and Freddie is clearly less obvious than our liberal friends would like to pretend.

New York's Paladino blames Cuomo for housing bubble By Daniel Trotta and Edith Honan
Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:08pm EDTNEW YORK (Reuters) - Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, blames the U.S. housing bubble that triggered the global financial crisis on a single person -- his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo.
"The housing bubble occurred because of one man -- that was Andrew Cuomo," Paladino told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.
Paladino linked the bubble to policies carried out by Cuomo when he was housing and urban development secretary during Democratic President Bill Clinton's second term from 1997 to 2001.
Paladino, a Buffalo real estate developer with support from the conservative Tea Party movement, faces Cuomo, the state attorney general and son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, in the November 2 election. Paladino, who won an upset victory in the Republican primary, trails Cuomo in most polls.
Paladino has livened up the New York governor's race with a series of colorful comments, including some he has apologized for or admitted were mistakes -- a trend that has coincided with his drop in opinion polls.
He held Cuomo individually responsible for the housing bubble by pressuring the Federal Housing Authority and housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to promote greater home ownership by reducing mortgage standards.
That political goal, he said, was the main reason banks offered millions of mortgages to unqualified buyers, who later defaulted and left the financial system in tatters.
Cuomo's campaign did not immediately respond to calls and an e-mail seeking comment.
Paladino cited former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his case against Cuomo.
"How did we get into this thing? We got into it by one man. And Alan Greenspan said it. The housing bubble started the subprime meltdown. How did the housing bubble occur? Andrew Cuomo, for his own self-interest, laid on FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards," Paladino said.
"He ... was so proud of saying, 'Yes, every American is going to own a home," Paladino told a panel of Reuters reporters.
Greenspan and others have made the link between the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis, and the federal policy of promoting home ownership under Clinton has received some blame.
Experts have cited a number of other reasons for the bubble, including the long period of low interest rates the Fed maintained after the recession of 2001 and the securitization of mortgages into financial instruments by the banks.
Millions of unqualified buyers subsequently lost their homes when they were unable to make their payments.
"The poor people that did that, they bought a home, they took out these mortgages, now all of a sudden they're learning about adjustable rate," Paladino said. "They never understood that. You can't explain that to the normal everyday Joe."
****It was an unholy alliance of HUD Secretary Cuomo, Cong. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd as the salient malefactors, although they hardly take responsibiity.****
Is Barney Frank? By Thomas Sowell | You would be hard pressed to find a politician who is less frank than Congressman Barney Frank. Even in an occupation where truth and candor are often lacking, Congressman Frank is in a class by himself when it comes to rewriting history in creative ways. Moreover, he has a lot of history to rewrite in his re-election campaign this year.
No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than Congressman Barney Frank.
His powerful position on the House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest investments around.
All this was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would meet traditional mortgage lending standards.
To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."
Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear.
With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the "underserved population" in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures to meet arbitrary home ownership goals. But Barney Frank counter-attacked against these critics.
In 2004 he said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to, rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back. So it is no surprise that Barney Frank was very protective towards these two government-sponsored enterprises that were buying up mortgages that banks were willing to make under political pressure, but were often unwilling to keep.
The risks which banks were passing on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ultimately risks to the taxpayers. Although there was no formal guarantee to these enterprises, everybody knew that the federal government would always bail them out, if necessary, to keep them from failing. Everybody except Barney Frank.
"There is no guarantee," according Congressman Frank in 2003, "there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee." Barney Frank is a master of rhetoric, who does not let the facts cramp his style.
Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the financial markets in general — and with them the whole economy.
Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he said, "right-wing Republicans." It so happens that conservatives were the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that Barney Frank pushed, but why let facts get in the way?
Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you saying in the past: 'Oh, let's open up the lending. The housing market is fine.'" His reply? "No, you didn't see any such tapes."
"I did. I saw them on TV," she said. But Barney Frank did not budge. He understood that a good offense is the best defense. He also understands that rewriting history this election year is his best bet for keeping his long political career alive.
****Barney is a real-life version of Groucho Marx: "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?"****

Tax-funded PC Left apologists for jihad exposed
We Owe a Debt of Gratitude to Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Selling seed corn or one's patrimony for a mess of pottage
E.g. Selling the parking meters of Chicago for 25 cents on the dollar to Arab sovereign wealth funds.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Jefferson's Koran was better to understand the Islamist enemy

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad By Ted Sampley
January 2007
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources. ****Not exactly the correct inference, but a good try by a Muslim ****
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Gold buyers are targeted by Obamacare! ???

Among the many timebombs hidden in the Obamacare bill is this one relating to gold ownership. Henceforth, reports will have to be made of anyone purchasing $600 or more worth of gold. Recall that FDR's administration made every gold owner turn in their holdings to the Federal government and, shortly thereafter, the dollar-gold ratio was revalued thus obviating a citizen's protection against currency devaluation. The only possible explanation is that the Obama Administration is contemplating doing something similar. This is another of the irrelevant items hidden in the Obamacare bill, a previously noted one was the requirement that all business purchases of $600 or more be reported on a 1099 form. Only people with no business experience ( and no common sense ) could not anticipate the negative and job-killing consequences of this.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Is voter fraud bipartisan? Hell no! How else did Al Franken win in MN?

****With Rahm Emanuel as Mayor of the city, Chicago should be able to deliver more Democratic votes than the population of Illinois.****

ACORN now calls itself “COI” Community Organizations International
23,207 Fraudulent Texas Voters Registered by SEIU Member
“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County appears to be under an organized & systematic attack…” Warner Todd Huston

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – Service Employees International Union (SEIU) member Steve Caddle of Houston, Texas has been caught registering 23,207 fake voters in Harris County alone due to the hard detective work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project.

This is one of the best examples of what good citizen activism inspired by Tea Party principles can do for their community.

Catherine Engelbrecht was sick and tired of the vote fraud perpetrated by unions and Democrats and set out to expose it herself. Along with many friends who donated their time, computers, and sweat, they’ve uncovered thousands upon thousands of illegal Democrat “voters” in Texas.

“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized & systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes,” the Harris voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, charged as he passed on the documentation to the district attorney.

A spokesman for the DA’s office declined to discuss the case. And a spokesman for Vasquez said that the DA has asked them to refrain from commenting on the case.

The union thug behind this particular criminal enterprise admitted only that there “had been mistakes made.”

“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said.

“We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.”

The other registrations included:

o One of a woman who registered six times in the same day

o Registrations of non-citizens

o So many applications from 1 “Houston Voters” collector in 1 day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability, and

o 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.

Does anyone have any doubt that this sort of crime has been perpetrated by Democrats the nation over? How many millions of fake, dead, nonexistent, and/or fraudulent voters have Democrats foisted upon the voter rolls in every corner of the nation?

Well, due to the excellent work of Catherine Engelbrecht and her “True the Vote” project, we see exposed at least some of the criminal behavior of Texas Democrats and Union thugs.

So what was the outcome of Engelbrecht’s hard work?

All of Harris County’s voting machines were torched in a three-alarm fire by person or persons unknown. Bet those shadowy firebugs hold SEIU membership cards, too!

Great work, Catherine. Now let’s see this replicated in every city in the nation.