More flying monkeys…

Apparently the earth is coming to it’s end! Got up this morning and turned on the news for a check of the weather and what did I see?

An actual MSM outlet (NBC) reporting that the Supreme Court will hold a conference today regarding the eligibility status of Obama! Of course they also said they it was “unlikely that the court will hear the case”.

I literally almost fell off the couch and I’m thankfull I was not sipping my morning coffee at the time! I screamed “Oh my God! It’s on the news!” while clutching my husband’s arm.

After months and months of people trying to get MSM to report what’s going on why now?

Easy answer is that they did not want to take the chance that they would be wrong and the Supreme Court might actually agree to hear the case. They would look like exactly what they are. Biased and in the tank. Can’t just let people find out they have not been doing their jobs. (Eyes rolling!) Like we haven’t seen that for the entire election cycle from the primaries up through the general election.

Most people have known for a long time they are not interested in doing their jobs or the truth. Only getting the Big Zero elected.

Some have even called them O’s 527 groups. That’s how obvious their bias and lack of integrity, proffessionalism and journalistic standards has been.

OMG! They are doing an in-depth report now as I type! Of course it’s a bunch of hooey! They are claiming the  COLB on his website is proof and that Hawaii “said” he was born there. Not true.

In fact Hawaii verified that he has a long form Birth Certificate, or Certificate of Live Birth, far different and more detailed than the Certification of Live Birth he has posted on Fight the Smears, that it is on file and they have seen it. They have not said that it verifies he was born there because by their own admssion they cannot divulge that information without either the permission of Obama or a court order requiring them to release it.

Actually, the state of Hawaii does not even accept the short form Certification of Live Birth for verification purpses in order to recieve state benifits because there is not sufficient information to verify squat on the document presented by Obama as “proof” of his citizenship status.

Also Hawaii allows for registration of births for a period of up to one year after the birth and because they allow persons born out of state and even out of the country to register birth records with the state and recieve, get this, a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Certificate of Birth which contains such information as actual place of birth, hospital, signature of witnesses, signature of attending physician and more. Don’t believe  me? Fine. Here it is from The State of Hawaii’s own website.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country (applies to adopted children). 


B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.


C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8.  A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.


D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error.  See, for example, HRS 338-17.


E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.


F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.  From its web site:  “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL

So there it is in black and white with links to the actual laws. As you can see the state even admits that the system is subject to errors and that even a person born out of the state or out of the United States can apply for and receive a  “Birth Certificate” in Hawaii. It does not prove they were “natural born citizens” of either Hawaii or the US. In fact ONLY the information contained on the long form Certificate of Live Birth can verify that. Apparently there is a vast difference between the Certificate and a Certification.

For a more detailed report on this and why it matters read this post from American Thinker.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.  That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.

C.  The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.  Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children.  Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life. 

1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today.  However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:  “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”

3.  Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently.  From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official:  “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”

The American Thinker article written by Joe the Farmer is well written and researched with all the links embedded so you can go check them out for yourself and it covers much more than I have written here. Go check it out.
Then if you still need more convincing read this piece at ireport wich effectively de-bunks the de-bunkers. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

And finally if you have any doubts that O and his cronies have been working to get around this requirement for quite some timecheck out this 26 page pdf file written by a Chicago lawyer with ties to Obama that outlines why they feel this constitutional requirement is “outdated” and should be abolished. 

Is the requirement outdated? I’m not qualified to answer that. Maybe it is maybe not. Maybe it should be axed or maybe not. Regardless it IS the law as it stands now and therfore it MUST be followed and respected as such.

Why has The One spent over $800,000 on lawyers fighting this. Why won’t he simply show the proof instead of hiding behind technicalities like lack of standing and lack of an established proceedure requiring verification?

That’s right he’s NOT arguing that he is in fact “natural born” but rather his lawyers are arguing that the voters do not have standing or an established method requiring him to show verification and that the voters can’t show injury that would result byhis taking office if in fact he is ineligible.

I’d say that the voters ultimitely have standing and the injury would be the fact that anything he does, any international treaties or agreements he might sign or any person he appoints would be illigitimate if he were in fact proven ineligible.

Not to mention all those voters who sent him $600+ million dollars for his campaign who, were he proved to be ineligible, would have been frauded by a candidate who had no business soliciting funds for a campaign for an office he could not legally hold. I’d say that would qualify as standing and proof of injury in my book but we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

Let’s just pray, send positive thoughts and vibes or whatever your personal preference might be that the Courtin it’s wisdom will decide to hear the case and judge it on it’s merits rather than do the easy thing and not “rock the boat” out of fear and tredipation.

Our country, it’s citizens and our Laws deserve better than that. at the very least they deserve respect from the man who might be sworn in to the highest office in the land and would be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as all of our laws.

Seriously, the Court needs to hear this case if only to set the minds of voters atease and to establish asystem for verification or vetting of all future candidates once and for all.

There was a candidate on the ballot in 5 states, Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua, who was a candidate for president of the United States for the Socialist Workers Partythat no one bothered to vett properly either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Apparently he was on the ballot in 5 states in the 2008 election and in 9 states in 2004 in spite of the fact he was born in Nicaragua and therefore is not eligible for the office. How can this happen? The Supreme Court must hear this case and provide some insight or solution to prevent this in the future or abolish the requirement altogether.

Finally Mr. Obama must show the American voters he respects them, their country, it’s laws, it’s courts and it’s Constitution and he must step up to the plate and prove his eligibility if he can do so. He should do so out of respect but also because it is not fair to leave the voters with these doubts. It will not just go away and his presidency will never be considered legitimate unless he does this.

What do you say Mr. Obama? Please be a man and show the integrity required by the office you seek. If indeed you are “natural born” and eligible then what do you have to lose?


I cannot believe that I am actually quoting and linking to an article from Karl Rove! (Watch for flying monkeys!!) Much as I detest the man he is not an idiot and occasionally he actually tells it like it is.


McCain Couldn’t Compete With Obama’s Money

America affirms Chicago’s Golden Rule.

If money talks, we’ll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Both men and the national parties will report to the Federal Election Commission today how much money they raised in October and November. And what the numbers will probably show is that Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars.

On May 31, as the general election began in earnest, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee had a combined $47 million in cash, while the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee had a combined $85 million.

Between then and Oct. 15, the Obama/DNC juggernaut raised $658.7 million. I estimate today’s reports will show Mr. Obama, the DNC and two other Obama fund-raising vehicles raised an additional $120 million to $140 million in October and November, giving them a total of between $827 million and $847 million in funds for the general election.

Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election, including the $84 million in public financing Mr. McCain accepted in exchange for his campaign not raising money after the GOP convention.

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.


Snip     (Wait theres more)

To diminish criticism, Mr. Obama’s campaign spun the storyline that he was being bankrolled by small donors. Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, calls that a “myth.” CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way — 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more.

But that’s not the entire story. It’s been reported that the Obama campaign accepted donations from untraceable, pre-paid debit cards used by Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong and other questionable characters. If the FEC follows up with a report on this, it should make for interesting reading.  (Emphasis added)

The really sad and scary part of this is the FEC will most likely NOT look into this or audit Obama’s campaign contributions. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15497.html

Obama likely to escape campaign audit 


The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more – allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations – but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.

Through the end of September, McCain had socked away $9.4 million in a special fund to pay for the audit.

 The Obama campaign does not expect to be audited, but spokesman Ben LaBolt said it would be ready in the event it is.

“We have had a first rate compliance operation for an unprecedented national grassroots fundraising effort,” LaBolt said.

“Nobody wants to go through an audit,” said former FEC chairman Michael Toner. As the top lawyer for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, which accepted public financing, Toner prepared for that campaign’s mandatory audit, before he was appointed by Bush to a seat on the FEC.

Agency investigators fan out across the nation interviewing campaign staffers and vendors to account for even the most seemingly trivial expenses.

The resulting audits have dinged publicly financed presidential campaigns for billing the press for port-a-potties accessible to supporters at events (Bob Dole in 1996) and using the wrong formula to divide the cost of outfitting campaign planes between primary and general accounts (John Kerry in 2004).

Obama – the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election – certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FEC’s E Street offices.

Obama’s campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an $832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community organizing group that became a top target for Republicans alleging voter fraud.

And FEC analysts over the course of the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didn’t supply adequate information or from whom he accepted donations exceeding the $4,600 limit.


Spokesman LaBolt said the campaign has corrected errors as it was made aware of them. It’s  not at all unusual for the FEC to send many such letters – “requests for additional information” in agency parlance – to big-money campaigns. McCain’s campaign received at least a dozen, for instance.

But the media – first conservative outlets then mainstream publications – seized on the FEC letters to Obama, singling out donations from apparently fictitious donors as well as from foreign addresses – which are permitted as long as the donors are U.S. citizens. Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.

Seizing on Obama’s reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaign’s refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each – a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September – the RNC asked the FEC “to immediately conduct a full audit” of all of Obama’s contributions.

It’s very rare for a complaint to trigger an audit, campaign finance insiders say. And ironically, the historic volume of Obama’s small contributions, which may have made it tough for the campaign to weed out problem donations, may also help spare Obama an audit.

That’s because the byzantine formula the FEC staff uses to determine whether a campaign has engaged in “substantial” violations of federal election rules – the trigger to recommend an audit to commissioners – takes into account the size of the campaign’s coffers, according to David Mason, who served as a Republican appointee to the FEC until this year.

“So if a House campaign makes a $100,000 error, that’s huge and they’re likely to get audited,” he said. “If a campaign the size of the Obama campaign has a $100,000 error, then maybe not. It would depend on what the error is, obviously,” he said, explaining that mere accounting snafus are unlikely to prompt an audit. More serious and systemic problems, such as illegal contributions, result in campaigns getting tagged with more “audit points,” Mason explained. “If you get enough audit points, you get audited,” he said, adding “nobody outside the commission would know how many audit points the Obama campaign has.”

Mary Brandenberger, an FEC spokeswoman, declined to comment on the likelihood of an Obama audit. But she explained that if campaigns adequately answer the agency’s requests for information, it’s less likely they’ll be recommended for an audit.

Even if Obama’s campaign reached the audit recommendation trigger point, it’d be tough to muster the majority commission vote necessary to initiate the audit. That’s because the FEC is comprised of three Democratic commissioners and three Republicans and, as such, is prone to deadlock on partisan issues.

Well now! Isn’t that comforting? NOT!

So McCain, who made available information on every single donation, will be audited and charged a small fortune for it, while The  One, who has been far from transparent, will likely not.

Nope. He won’t be asked any embarassing questions about all those cartoon characters and people such as Doo Dad, employed by Loving and who’s supervisor is listed as You. Not to mention all those who donated purposely under false names to see if the fact that the name on the credit card was different than that of the donor would trigger any vetting process to make certain the donations were legal, legitimate and allowable. NOT!

What a crock! The One proves the saying  “Crime doesn’t pay.” is not true. At least not in American politics!




Warning: You will need a strong disposition but you will gain valueable insight. Once you start to understand what really happened and more importantly, how it happened you will find it is far worse than anyone is willing to admit.


At the end of 2004, Eisman, Moses, and Daniel shared a sense that unhealthy things were going on in the U.S. housing market: Lots of firms were lending money to people who shouldn’t have been borrowing it. They thought Alan Greenspan’s decision after the internet bust to lower interest rates to 1 percent was a travesty that would lead to some terrible day of reckoning. Neither of these insights was entirely original. Ivy Zelman, at the time the housing-market analyst at Credit Suisse, had seen the bubble forming very early on. There’s a simple measure of sanity in housing prices: the ratio of median home price to income. Historically, it runs around 3 to 1; by late 2004, it had risen nationally to 4 to 1. “All these people were saying it was nearly as high in some other countries,” Zelman says. “But the problem wasn’t just that it was 4 to 1. In Los Angeles, it was 10 to 1, and in Miami, 8.5 to 1. And then you coupled that with the buyers. They weren’t real buyers. They were speculators.” Zelman alienated clients with her pessimism, but she couldn’t pretend everything was good. “It wasn’t that hard in hindsight to see it,” she says. “It was very hard to know when it would stop.” Zelman spoke occasionally with Eisman and always left these conversations feeling better about her views and worse about the world. “You needed the occasional assurance that you weren’t nuts,” she says. She wasn’t nuts. The world was.

That is just the tip of the iceburg. Go read the  entire post and be ready to be completely disgusted by the truth. It is absolutely a story that though completely true, seems too fantastic and far fetched too have really happened. Sometimes the truth is like that.

You’ve probably heard of the 30% Solution by now which I support. Women make up 52% of the population yet we are represented by a paltry 17% in government. The book The Tipping Point by Malcom Galdwell is about social trends and the point at which a trend or movement becomes viable and is actually able to influence policy.

The 30% solution is dedicated to voting more women into positions of power. At the point where a movement or trend reaches 30% change becomes not just possible but inevitable. Many of us PUMAS are already dedicated to this solution.

UPDATE: If you have not heard about the 30% Solution read about it here: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/the-30-percent-solution-why-democratic-women-are-voting-for-mccainpalin/

Now here’s a post from Shtuey at Oh…my valve! that discusses another solution that I also take to heart and support. I, like many of you have been struggling with what to do. It seems that we are not being listened to or respected by our parties and politicians. In fact quite the opposite.

I have tried to figure out should I stay a Democrat and try to fix the party from within or become an independant or even joining the Republicans in hopes of moving their party more to the center. Truthfully it is an agonizing decision many of us have been dealing with.

Well I will struggle with it no more as I believe the 50% Solution that Shtuey wrote about in this excellent post makes a lot of sense to me. I will not abandon the 30% Solution as I still believe and strongly support it but I feel we can do both.

Here is a couple of excerpts but you really should go read the entire post.  It is quite inspiring.


1. The federal government is now operating with not a care as to the opinions of The People. They are no longer even beholden to our votes. If numbers don’t look good Democrats have ACORN to pump up the votes. Republicans have their own fraud machine, which is apparently only willing to go to work for candidates that fit their ideological preference.
2. Politicians in office have one purpose; to maintain power for their party—NOT FOR YOU.
3. The federal government is operating outside the Constitution; they have gotten away with this because you are letting them and now, in their unmitigated hubris, they are taking liberties with your rights (this is being done by both parties so leave the partisan acrimony at home please).

This being the case, what do we do? How do we initiate the paradigm shift that must take place in order to change this? In order to answer this we must look at the sources of the problem. The way I see it, there are two main culprits: Partisanship, and External Financial Interests.


Currently, statistics show that approximately 30% of registered voters are Unaffiliated. Some of them lean to the right, some to the left. Why is it that there are this many people in the American electorate who are not members of either major party? I think it’s safe to say that it is because of the reasons I have stated above; and the numbers of us here in the Lagoon of the Unaffiliated seem to be growing with each passing election cycle. It is no wonder then that the Democrat Party, in conjunction with the Pampers campaign, unleashed such a widespread campaign of voter registration fraud; they must no longer have the numbers to win elections based on their legitimate voter rolls.

What do you suppose would happen if the American electorate, over the next two to four years, shifted from 30% unaffiliated to 50%? Suddenly both parties would actually give a damn about what the people think, what they want, where they want the country to go. Suddenly the levers of Roe v Wade, Reproduction, Gayness, etc would no longer matter. Both parties would be forced to ideologically disarm, and for once have a national discourse on policy.

So what do you think? Could you support this solution? Do you think we might have more influence and ability to hold the politicians accountable with voting block that is larger than either of the two parties? I do!

I will unaffiliate myself and support both the 30% and the 50% solutions! Please read Shtuey’s post and join us!


On to the next rant…

Proposition 8 passed in California and the resulting chaos:

First I have to say that it really makes me angry that people actually think it’s any of their business what other people do in their lives, bedrooms and marriages. I don’t see how Jane and Sue getting hitched threatens or lessens in any way my marriage or anyone elses’. It’s their business and should stay that way.

Regardless though of how one feels about gay marriage, for or against, the really disgusting thing is that they are using the Constitution of California to make discrimination legal and that is just wrong.

Constitutions (both State and Federal) are documents that are created for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of individual citizens and preventing discrimination against them. To use or misuse these documents to legalize discrimination and take away rights from ANYBODY is morally and legally wrong. I’m not a lawyer but it seems completely against the intent of said documents. If it’s not illegal it should be.

Our Constitution ( Federal and the individual States’) say in no uncertain terms that all people are created equal and as such have certain rights. No it does not say the right to marry heterosexually or otherwise.

However to use the constitution to legally discriminate against any group or individual is a complete and utter perversion of the document, it’s purpose and intent.

To use public funds for a vote to take away rights from any group or idividual is ridiculous and should be a criminal offense. Discrimination is wrong. Period.

I’ve heard all the arguments for and against and honestly I still don’t understand why gay and lesbian people wanting the same rights and benefits as any other couple should concern or threaten anyone else. If you don’t like it don’t do it and ignore those who do. Why do people think they should tell others how to live?

If we use laws to take away rights of gays and lesbians today then who will we go after tomorrow or the next day? Maybe next they will decide that women should not have the right to vote or work or maybe hispanics should not have the right to have their relatives live with them or who knows what is next? Where does it stop?

Gay and lesbian rights are human rights and you cannot use the tools of empowerment and protection of those rights to deny them and call it fair, just or even sane.

On the other side of the spectrum are the folks who voted against this “law” and are now justifiably angry that it passed who are not just protesting and writting to their lawmakers. Now they have begun “outing” and “punishing” those who they find voted for it and contributed money to the cause. Boycotts and harassment are in full swing.

Yes it is their right to boycott businesses if they feel like doing so. It is not right however to “out” people that supported the measure and harass them, try to get them fired, ruin their lives and reputations for excersising their right to vote. Although I don’t support the measure or the fact it was even put on the ballot the fact remains that in our society voting is a right and is a private matter.

These people supported this measure for whatever reasons they have and as it was on the ballot they had the choice and the right to vote for or against it. That is their right and it is supposed to be private and it is just as wrong to persecute them for voting their consciences as it is for them to discriminate against gays and lesbians. You don’t right one wrong by committing another one.

That is violating the rights of those voters. We are all free in this country to vote our conscience be it right or wrong. Unfortunately there is no rule of thumb that a proposed piece of legislation must be morally and legally correct before being placed on the ballot. It’s placed there, voted upon and if it is proven to be illegal or wrong it will have to be legally overturned. It’s called due process.

No where does it say find out who supported it and make their lives a living hell, expose them to public shame and humiliation and destroy all rules and laws regarding privacy and voters’ rights in the name of your cause. You take it back to court and fight an unjust law the leagl way. You fight bigotry and injustice not with more of the same but with legal means and with education not fear and hate.

And that’s all I have to say about that.


Ok, so it’s been a while since I posted anything. Mostly because I am still shocked by the election results and sort of numb as one friend put it. Also because of some personal issues that have been at the top of my list lately. Today though, I think I am just pissed enough to set things aside for now and get to typing.

1st Up!

Bailout BS Syndrome:

With the economy in the toilet and the Bankers, Insurance Companies and Auto Makers all lining up for their cut the amazing thing (ok, not really amazing I’m being sarcastic here) is that the people in charge of this “jump-start” for our economy are in fact the very same people who brought it to the point (read:killed it) it is today!

Isn’t that nice? Why don’t we just hire Bugs Bunny to guard the carrot crop while we’re at it? I’m sure he would do a fine job. Snark!

The whole thing is maddening. They want to bail out all these banks that actually deserve to fail because of the extreme greed and unscrupulous lending standards and investment strategies they have been promoting and using for decades.

Granted the economy needs banks and many people would lose their jobs if these giants failed as with the auto industry I concede that we have to look at the bigger picture but really, isn’t that the principal of business? Those who run them in the proper manner and those who don’t are all taking the same risks that any business owner or investor takes. So why should we reward their bad decision making and risky “get-rich-quick” schemes when the risks they took prove to be bad ones?

I know a lot of peope depend on them for loans and jobs and all that but when does the personal responsibility end and the government responsibility begin? And above all, why is it up to US, the taxpayers (many of whom have been totally screwed by said banks) to bolster them? If I have a business and I run it into the ground I would not expect the government to pay my way. Nor would they even consider it.

We’re being told these companies are simply too big to allow them to fail. We’re being told we must look at the greater good, the big picture, think of all the havoc that would ensue both nationally and globally.

Ok, there may be something to that but isn’t the main reason for all of this the fact that all those sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgages they sold the public have now predictably gone sour as no one can pay the incredibly high interest rates and the resulting huge payment increases? And who’s fault is it again?

Of course there are/were some borrowers who knowingly got in over their heads and there will always be people who will do that but doesn’t some of the responsibilty for these risky loans also belong to those lenders who arranged for those loans all the while rubbing their greedy paws together in glee with visions of sugar plums (read: huge interest payments) dancing in their heads?

After all those borrowers could not have taken those loans out without the lenders making it possible. They are proffessionals who should have forseen the consequences of these actions. Why is it the taxpayers’ responsibility to absorb their losses?

I won’t even go into the AIG thing or the Big Three and their troubles for now although it’s more of the same. Businesses taking risks they should have known better than to take and now crying because those risks did not pay off with the huge profits that they expected to make. Failure to properly assess, manage, innovate and protect their bottom lines. Completely out of line with anything you would be taught in business school.

The thing that really takes the cake is the simple fact that although they expect Joe and Jane taxpayer to pay for their mistakes and flat out greed, they have done absolutely NOTHING, NADA, ZIP fr the people who are losing their homes. Nothing to help them stay in their homes and be able to afford to make those payments.

It seems they want to punish all the home owners who can’t pay the huge payments that resulted from these lenders and their greed. These people are supposed to be the proffessionals and as such are actually more responsible for the forclosures than anyone yet they want the home owners to pay the price for their greed and incompetence by losing their homes and their credit and the taxpayers to pay the bill for their bad business decisions.

Nobody is concerned at all that bailing out the banks is doing nothing at all to stop or even slow the forclosures which is what is needed to stop the bleeding. I could not care less if Citigroup goes under. I do care that many people will lose their homes, the investments they have in them and will be far worse off afterwords when most of them would gladly make their payments if we just found a way to refinance them at rates that are reasonable and affordable.

As far as I’m concerned the banks who made bad business decisions because of greed deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.

However if they do not help the home owners refinance at fixed rates so they can afford the payments this crisis will go on indefinitely. The ONLY way to stop the bleeding is to help the home owners which will in turn help everybody including the banks. To continue to worry about the banks’ profit margins while ignoring the cause will only make it worse for all of us and will leave the banks in the same position six months down the road.

Simply put the banks need to suck it up, take the losses and give people options to stay in their homes and keep paying their mortgages. Take a small loss now or a complete loss when the home owners walk away. Otherwise it’s just like putting a bandaid on a ruptured artery. Pointless, ineffective and doomed to fail.

I had a couple more things to rant about but I think maybe seperate posts would be better both in the interest of not making this one way too long and also to make discussion more structured and not have a bunch of different things going in all different directions. So feel free to rant with me and possibly offer your own solutions or ideas on this.



Well now what?

After spending the better part of the last two years being totally and completely obsessed with the election it’s over. The outcome was not even close to what I had hoped for. Not by any means. I’m not even sure that the outcome was in any way acceptable but accept it I must.

It’s not a ringing endorsement for the intellect in this country as once again Americans proved that more than half of us are stupid. I would have thought we would have learned our lesson after not one but two terms of GW Bush but I digress.

The really hard part is not so much that my candidate lost, or even that my second choice candidate lost but who “won”. Sure Obama won and it’s historical and all that. It’s not that I didn’t want to see a black man elected. It’s that I would have liked for that man to have been elected fairly, with honor and for him not to be a socialist/marxist/communist with a penchant for sexism and misogyny.

Truth of the matter is Obama won but America lost BIG. We will feel the consequences of our actions for a long time to come as we discover that sadly, race relations and womens’ rights have been set back decades by this election cycle and all the rotting, stinking, festering wounds that come with it.

It’s been a real wake up call for sure. Not only has it made me realize how many people were completely duped by this fraud I have also opened my eyes to things I would never have seen before. I’ve come to realize that, as much as it pains me, my party is just as complicit in “dirty fighting” as the GOP and maybe even more so this time around. I see now that it has been this way for far longer than I care to admit.

Democrats who I believed were the “good guys” the ones who stood up for the little guys and women and minorities, the ones who I though were all about principals and were above all that stuff were in fact the purveyors of some of the worst and most un-democratic behaviour I have ever witnessed.

Suddenly the party that has never missed an opportunity to remind me they are the party I can trust to stand up for women has become the party of trendy, young women wearing T-Shirts that degrade and denigrate women as a fashion statement. Who would ever have thought that it would be trendy for one woman to call another woman a derogatory term for her reproductive parts?

It has also become trendy to shove more qualified, experienced candidates aside as if they were garbage in order to insure a less qualified, inexperienced, arrogant and manipulative man gets elected at any cost because apparently all that fighting to be “equal” was just noise they made to attract the boys. Gotta find a husband somehow huh?

Yes it’s the latest fashion to be seen trashing women and treating them as second class citizens even if you are one! It’s a sick world we live in when things like this become the “norm”.

It’s also the latest and greatest to make sure anyone who disagrees with you or asks an answer and actually expects an answer is humiliated, smeared, outed, threatened, harassed and “taught” that they dare not try that again!

The way forward? I’m torn about that. Part of me wants to stay a democrat and fight to oust those who are false Dems. To take the party back and return to the principals that are so neatly laid out in the charter. You know pesky things like One Voice, One Vote and Free Speech. Stuff like that. A long road that frankly, I’m not sure is even possible any more. So infested with rot and corruption and people who have no morals or principals it may not be salvageable at this point. I’ve lost a lot of faith this cycle and I’m quite sure that I’m not alone. I’d like to see the party back to what it should be but I’m not sure it can happen.

Another part of me wants to run not walk to the nearest registration site and register as an Independant, beholden to no one and not associated with the sub-human element that is in control of the party now.

Even yet another part says “Hey if enough of us joined the republicans they would become more moderate simply as a matter of the numbers and we might actually get something done!” (I’m quite sure conservative republicans would dread this and I’m not sure I could go through with such a rash action but there it is.)

It’s taken me almost two weeks to be able to even write this post so I imagine it will take a bit more than that to decide what’s next but you can be sure that no matter what I decide with regard to party affiliation I will continue to watch Obama like a hawk and prepare to defend democracy and the American way of life should my worst fears about him prove to be true.

That’s about as far as I can go for now.