Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Mark-to-Market explained

Many have asked what the mark-to-market rule is.  The best explanation I found is this Forbes article by Brian Wesbury and Bob Stein:

Imagine if you had a $200,000 mortgage on a $300,000 house that you planned on living in for 20 years. But a neighbor, because of very special circumstances, had to sell his house for $150,000. Then, imagine if your banker said you had to mark to this "new market" and give the bank $80,000 in cash immediately (so you would have 20% down) or lose your home.

Isn't that ridiculous?  This single rule is forcing banks, on a regular basis to lower the value of mortgage related assets on their books.  Because, by law, banks have to have a to keep a fixed ratio of assets, deposits and loans, they must stop lending until they add enough capital offset the markdown. 

Banks stopped lending - that's the credit crunch.

All because the "toxic paper" the government injected into the system, since the 90s, had to be marked down at fire-sale prices.

According to the Washington Post, this "accounting standard, has been cited as a contributing factor in the collapses of American International Group, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers".  The Post continues, "each quarter, companies must affix a price tag to those securities and report it in their financial statements, even if they do not plan to unload them right away"

So, today - the last day of the fiscal quarter - would be a perfect day to relax the rule and let banks price these complex assets closer to their "book value" rather than a "fire-sale" price.

.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Stand Up McCain!

At the 2008 GOP Convention, you eloquently challenged all of us to stand up:

"Fight for what’s right for our country.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children’s future.
...stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history."

Now, I'm asking you to stand up for freedom and against the Paulson Plan.

I listened to the speeches on the House floor in support of and against the Paulson plan.  It is clear that more than just $700 billion of taxpayer money is at stake.  One after another, Democrats rose to speak about the failure of the free markets, about the failure of the Bush-McCain ideology.  What ideology are they talking about?  Capitalism, free markets and freedom from government abuses of power.

Free Markets are on trial and they're losing badly.

You and Sarah need to stand up for free markets and set the record straight.  This is not a failure of free markets - quite the contrary , it's a failure of government intervention into free markets.  It is a failure of the Clinton Administration's efforts, in 1993,  to force banks to lend money to people they would not have otherwise loaned money to.  Sub-prime loans increase five-fold under Clinton from $200 billion to over $1 trillion and that "toxic paper" has finally come home to roost.

Priority One - call for Dodd & Frank to resign immediately.

America is against this bill because it does not stop the underlying problem, government-sponsored sub-prime loans, nor does it hold accountable Members of Congress that rejected reform of sub-prime loans, Democrat leaders in Congress.  In fact, it puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

Here’s a four-step bill America will vote for:

  1. Resignations of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – Democratic leaders of the Senate and House Banking Committees
  2. 5 year phase-out of government-sponsored sub-prime loans - all CRA, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac loans.
  3. Suspend the Mark-to-Market rule – this will repair bank balance sheets overnight.
  4. 5 year suspension of cap gains tax – this will flood US financial markets with new capital.

These four steps can be done quickly and will help restore confidence in our government and our markets.

In addition, they could suspend the corp income tax, to attract even more foreign investment and create millions of new jobs.  Also, you could submit a bill for term limits for Congress - Senators to two terms (12 years) and Representatives to four terms (8 years).  This will help address the long-term problem of corrupt leadership, but these ideas may be too controversial to pass quickly.

Bush's effort in 2005 to reform the GSE might have helped us avoid this mess - Obama, Dodd and Frank, in fact, all Democrats opposed reform, and all Republicans were for it.  In any event, it is completely unacceptable that the same Democratic leaders that injected toxic sub-prime loans (Dodd, Frank, Waters) into our financial markets can oversee any new scheme.   We need a bill that makes Democrats nervous, not Republicans.

Senator McCain - stand up and lead the effort for a good bill Americans will support - Congress will follow.

Thanks...Matt

Friday, September 26, 2008

Throw Lying Dems Out!

When they announced Harry Reid and Chris Dodd were going to hold a press conference, I turned to my wife and said, "I'm going to count the lies on my fingers while they speak".  I got to seven and turned the TV off.  I'm really angry.

I HATE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS!

They lie and lie and lie.  Now I found out they wanted 20% of any profits given to groups like ACORN!!  I hate that they have any say in this rescue plan.

Is there any way we can just flush Congress down the drain and start over with a special election?

Is there a lever on the side somewhere? 

In other words, term limits effective immediately.  It could be like college football where every year the seniors retire and a group of fresh faces and freshmen (women too!) come to Washington. 

Barring that, given that this is largely a Democrat mess, any Rescue Plan must eliminate the bad acts that caused the crisis and hold accountable those culpable:

  1. No money for ACORN
  2. Five year phase out of all the substandard lending that got us in this mess - all CRA, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac loans.
  3. Require Joint House & Senate hearings to document the role of those responsible for pushing substandard loans (Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Bob Rubin, etc..)
  4. Require Joint investigations into the vast amounts of money given to leading Democrats (Dodd, Obama are #1 and #2 recipients) and the probable quid pro quo for increased GSE substandard loans for their contributors. 
  5. Term limits, effective immediately - the President is limited to two terms - limit Senators to two terms (12 years) and Representatives to four terms (8 years). 

Unless you take concrete steps to stop these problems, why should voters believe the rescue plan will work?

I will not play the moral equivalence game by throwing up my hands and saying - they're all corrupt!  They're not.  Yes, I know McCain and other Republicans took some money from GSEs but they clearly did not push legislation on their behalf - All Republicans supported Bush's efforts to reform these institutions back in 2005 - all Democrats were opposed.

If you blame everybody, you really let the worst offenders off the hook. 

Without Clinton and the Democrats pushing these loans in the 1990s, substandard loans would have never increased five fold, from $200 billion to over $1 trillion, and brought our financial markets to their knees. 

Throw the bums out!

Time to Lead

In a crisis of this magnitude, this close to the transfer of power from one president to another, the two Presidential candidates should work with the current President TO SOLVE THE CRISIS!

Either the McCain or Obama Presidency will be more impacted by this rescue plan than the Bush Presidency.

Thus, McCain & Obama should be there, in person. to work hard to reach consensus and emerge united with a solution to show the country, and the world, Republicans and Democrats agree on the way forward.

It’s stunning, and expected, that Obama does not want to drop everything else and work this issue, in our nation’s capital.  Most of his time in office has been spent campaigning for higher office instead of governing (fact - look it up).  In other words…

Obama places a higher priority on winning elections than producing results.

If Obama’s kids had a crisis, would he multi-task, keep campaigning and call his daughters to let them know they can call him back if needed?  If a bus of kids had a terrible accident in front of him, would he back away and promise to keep in touch with the paramedics?

Of course, Presidents should be able to multi-task - both McCain and Obama can do that.  If the worst crisis since the Depression occurs, they should be able to delegate everything else and focus themselves, and the nation, on solving the crisis - McCain’s solid.

Obama…not so much.

They can debate foreign policy in a couple weeks, the nation needs a solution to the credit crisis now.

Obama is telling us a lot about what kind of leader he is and will be.

I’m not impressed.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Can't Trust 'Em

I watched the Senate Banking committee hearings Monday.  My first thought was why hasn't Chris Dodd resigned as chairman of the Senate Banking committee after he has failed so miserably to regulate the financial markets?

My second thought was how odd it was to hear Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, the lone remaining independent investment bank on Wall Street, tell the Senators that the financial instruments he's thinking of buying, from Wall Street, are so complex that he'll need lots of flexibility about exactly how he spends $700 billion (or more) of our money.  In other words...trust but no verify.  What??? 

I'm not falling for it.  I have a better plan. This is a credit crunch right?  Let's address our credit needs and leave the rest up to the people:

  1. Eliminate cap gains tax – brings in tons of fresh capital which is badly needed and overtime, increase government revenue
  2. Eliminate corporate tax rate – reduces inflationary pressures, improves corporate cash flows and jump starts the economy in a real/honest way, not a fake stimulus-checks-for-everyone way.
  3. Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Lessallow unlimited drilling to structurally lower energy costs & overall inflation, increase government revenue, increase employment and reduce the trade deficit that's killing our dollar.  A Win-Win-Win-Win.

Paulson and the current Congress cannot be trusted to do anything else. 

Everything else, including the Paulson plan and a buyback of the substandard loans the government forced banks to make for the last 15 years, should be debated during the current campaigns for President and Congress.   Let McCain and Obama debate their plans and let the winner go to Washington with a mandate.

In the meantime, the big picture is the direction of the country.  If capitalism/free markets/de-regulation is made the bad guy, McCain will lose and Obama will usher in a new era of American Socialism.  Right now, capitalism is on trial and it's losing badly.  Defenders of capitalism need to take the witness stand and say strongly and clearly:

This is not a failure of free markets.

It is a failure of Clinton and the Democrats's "Community Reinvestment" and what Ayn Rand's “mixed economy”.

One option I would like to hear debated is a government buyback of the substandard loans the Congress forced banks to make for the last 15 years.  Paulson's plan is to buy lots of strange financial instruments  - it's unclear to me if his plan will also buy substandard loans directly. 

Taxpayers should not buy Wall Street's strange creations - just the bad loans the government forced banks to make.

Buying back the substandard loans Clinton and the Democrats pushed on banks would improve the balance sheets of thousands of banks from Wall Street to Main Street by putting the risk for those loans exactly where it belongs – on the jerks in Congress. Like everyone else, Democrats in Congress should take responsibility for it's mistakes. 

Put responsibility for these loans where it belongs - Congress - not capitalism or free markets.

Once the government takes these loans out of the financial markets, the market can begin to heal.  The markets will know how to price it because the mortgages that remain will be ones that were done freely - not under threat from the government. 

I know, ultimately, we the people will have to pay for it – not Congress – but it seems to me it’s the right thing.  It is a baby step toward rebuilding trust in government. I wish we could attach the wages and put a lien on the assets of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton and the rest of the architects of the Community Reinvestment Act – but we can’t.

The only thing we can do let the candidates debate and throw the bums out that advocate more government and less freedom.

Democrat's $1 Trillion Mistake

So, who's to blame for the current mortgage mess?  If you believe the current media narrative, capitalism itself is to blame.  Not content to blame just the GOP or Bush, Democrats are going after the big prize - the conservative ideology that advocates free markets.  

Progressive socialists like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are absolutely giddy about this crisis.  This affords them the perfect opportunity to shove the word FAILURE in the face of any conservative that ever advocated for de-regulation, including John McCain. 

Here's Obama declaring the mortgage mess is the "Final Verdict" that free markets have failed:

Just a month ago, Democrats were worried that American voters might be souring on their Progressive/socialist agenda like the French and Germans did when they recently elected pro-U.S., pro-market leaders like Sarkozy and Merkel, respectively.  U.S. voters were beginning to blame Democrats for the struggling economy when they saw Democrats clinging to their extreme environmentalism and denying even a vote on lifting the ban on offshore drilling. 

This anti-democratic posture by Democrats provided the GOP a chance to blame Democrats for the bad economy.

What a difference a month makes. 

Now, capitalism itself is on trial and it's losing badly.  I, for one, will stand up and defend free markets and using the Audacity of Reason, remind voters of the facts:

  1. In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  This act forced banks to "provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations".
  2. In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.
  3. In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%.  Fannie's and Freddie's combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton's term in office - a five fold increase. 
  4. In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. 

I urge everyone to read all of Chairman Greenspan's Senate testimony on April 6, 2005, but I'll include his prescient conclusion below:

"Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Still, Bush was President.  Why didn't he do more?  Bush's #1 priority, after 9/11, was keeping U.S. safe.  Because Democrats chose to undermine the War on Terror and the Iraq War, Bush had to sacrifice other priorities to win support from Democrats to get national security legislation passed and keep us safe.  Had Democrats chose to support the President on national security matters, as was the custom in years past, we would have had real changes at Fannie and Freddie to limit the risk to our overall economy. 

Why did Clinton, back in 1993, seek to force banks to lend to people that our banks would not have otherwise lent money to?  Here's how Clinton's Comptroller, Gene Ludwig, described the basis for how the Clinton team decided to "reform the CRA":

"Before we made a single decision on proposing reform, we turned to the people to ask what the people thought what the people needed. We walked through South Central Los Angeles, in a predominantly minority neighborhood in New York City to see with our own eyes and to listen with our own ears to what should be done. We talked with representatives of the Navajo Nation; to bankers, large and small banks, inclusive; to poor people in rural North Carolina and elsewhere. (What) we saw and what we heard shaped this reform package."

How did the Clinton seek to enforce compliance with the CRA?  In 1993, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen explains here:

"In a nutshell, what we're proposing to do is to make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act. ...the changes we're proposing are important because banks now have a very clear, quantitative standard by which their compliance can be judged. And that is very important to banks when it comes to ask regulators to approve mergers, new branches and the like."

Under Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress, the CRA was reborn and inserted into the very fabric of our financial markets.  Yes, some institutions were happy to make money doing CRA loans but they would not have made them if the Clinton Administration hadn't forced them to in order to get new branches and mergers approved.  How do I know that?  Because before Clinton, CRA loans were almost non-existent. 

This is a $1 trillion mistake by the Democrats that has finally come home to roost

Now, there is a $700 billion plan to bailout financial institutions that are having a hard time pricing all the bad CRA mortgage-related assets on their balance sheets.  It could cost a $1 trillion or more.  Whatever the cost, it's not a failure of free markets or capitalism - it is a failure of the "mixed economy" that Ayn Rand warned about 40 years ago.

It is the affirmative action / socialist ideology that Democrats want to shove down your throat with stealth and guilt all wrapped up in the purposely ambiguous euphemism "Change We Need".

Yes, substandard lending had some GOP support along the way but make no mistake - it would have never happened if Republicans were in charge.  Conservatives advocate smaller government and merit-based financial decisions.  Liberals advocate for more government and financial decisions based on "fairly spreading the wealth".  For 12 years, during Reagan and Bush 41, the CRA was meaningless. 

If the banks and Wall Street were so greedy, why didn't they pursue substandard lending before Clinton? 

Because it did not make business sense - they would have lost money.  Only after the Clinton Administration "made it easier" to prove compliance with the CRA and back up the loans with implicit guarantees from Fannie and Freddie, did private banks jump on board.  Banks were asked to demonstrate they were doing "their share" of substandard lending to minorities or else the feds would not approve mergers or new branches. 

Of course, it was a mistake to package these loans into financial instruments traded around the world but can you really blame a German or Japanese bank for buying a product that had the allure of "U.S. Mortgage Obligations"?  It probably never occurred to the German banker to ask if some of the mortgages were made without verification of income???

Congress did everything it could to grow Fannie, Freddie and CRA loans.  This was a whopper of a mistake.  A $1 trillion mistake by Clinton and the Democrats.  The question is will the public hold them accountable or believe Obama's propaganda that evil-unregulated-free-markets is to blame for this mess? 

We'll see November 4, 2008.

Friday, September 19, 2008

More Freedom Not Less

This seems like one of those times when one needs to reflect on core principles.  There's no playbook for how to handle the financial crisis we're in.  McCain's right that the fundamentals of the economy are strong (American innovation, productivity, knowledge, skills and resources), but I've never seen this much fear and panic in the financial markets. 

My first career was as a stock broker during the 80s and early 90s so I've been a "market-watcher" for thirty years and I would have never guessed Lehman Brothers would go bankrupt.  Lehman has survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, two World Wars but couldn't survive the recent credit crunch.  Even seasoned veterans are shaking their heads.

The first step in solving any problem is to face it squarely and honestly take stock of what went wrong.  So, what went wrong?  I believe the current problem has to do with what writer & Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand called the "mixed economy":

"The basic social principle of Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force...The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. 

Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free mutual consent to mutual benefit. 

Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of government is to protect individual rights, i.e. to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force."  Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. 

It also rejects the.."mixed economy" notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth." 

So, contrary to the populist calls for more regulation, more government involvement, is it possible there was too much?? 

Is it possible that Fannie and Freddie are textbook evidence of why a "mixed economy" is just as bad as collective forms of government?  Maybe pushing banks to loan to people that couldn't afford a home, or verify their income, was too much regulation.

Perhaps the way forward is more freedom not less. 

Let bankers decide who to loan to.  Let oil companies drill where the oil is.  Let schools set aside time for prayer or meditation.  Let doctors practice medicine without fear of a frivolous lawsuit.  Let minorities succeed or fail because of the content of their character not the color of their skin.  Let people have health insurance and retirement accounts independent of their jobs or the government.  Let a state put a child rapist to death if they want.  Let people defend their homes with a gun if they want.  Let parents choose the best school for their children.

More freedom, not less.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Howard, Obama & Rev. Wright

Recently, an NBA player on the Dallas Mavericks insulted the Star Spangled Banner, got caught on video and is now taking team-sponsored "advanced communication classes". 

I think he probably needs advanced classes in patriotism - something I suspect he did not receive in our multi-cultural, increasingly anti-American public schools.

Here's the video of Josh Howard "dissin" our National Anthem:

Apparently, Josh Howard has some issues with our national anthem that are related to being black.  Remember his words:

"They're playing the Star Spangled Banner right now.  I don't even celebrate that shi*.  I'm black (expletive).  Obama 08.  Obama and all that shi*."

If this was just an isolated incident of another ignorant over-paid athlete making another ignorant comment, it's already old news.  But it's not and it's not. 

At the end, Josh Howard advises us to vote for Barack Obama.

Hmmm...that's interesting.   Isn't it true that, earlier this year, Obama refused to salute during our National Anthem?

Of course, Obama did not have to literally salute - he's supposed to put his hand over his heart - that's how civilians "salute".  How do I know we should salute?  Well, I'm a patriotic American citizen.

Because Americans do it for years and years, it’s second nature.  We do it because we’re taught to and we love our country.

Is Barack Obama patriotic?  He refused to place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, despite seeing others do so.  As a lawmaker, does Obama have some responsibility to follow the law?  Respect for our National Anthem is actually a matter of law. 

Here's an excerpt from 36 USC CHAPTER 3 - NATIONAL ANTHEM, dated 1-2-06:

(b) Conduct During Playing. - During a rendition of the national anthem -
   (1) when the flag is displayed -
      (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.
(those in uniform should give the military salute)

At odds with respecting the National Anthem, and related to Barack Obama and Josh Howard, is the black liberation sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Obama's pastor for 20 years.  Last year, we discovered Rev Wright views on whether we should sing "God Bless America". 

His answer, "No, no, no.  Not God Bless America, God Dam* America.  It's in the bible for killing innocent people."

Josh Howard got that message.  He understood not to sing "God Bless America" and not to "celebrate that shi*". 

I think after 20 years, Barack Obama got that message too, but he's hiding his true feelings so he can get elected President of that same "God Dam' America".

That's why some have called Obama, Senator Stealth.

Whether Obama wins or not, America must address the festering anti-American feeling that seems to bind Josh Howard, Obama and Rev. Wright.

 

p.s.  Let me include the standard I'm-not-a-racist clause that must accompany any criticism of black people these days.  Here's a statement that should kill any charge of racism (and sexism):  If it were up to me, Dr. Condi Rice would be our next President.

Josh Howard Supports Obama

Recently, one of the NBA players on the Dallas Mavericks insulted the Star Spangled Banner, got caught on video and is now taking team-sponsored "advanced communication classes".  I think he probably needs advanced classes in patriotism - something I suspect he did not receive in our increasingly multi-cultural, anti-American public schools.

Here's the video of Josh Howard "dissin" our National Anthem:

Apparently, Josh Howard has some issues with our national anthem that are related to being black.  Remember his words:

"They're playing the Star Spangled Banner right now.  I don't even celebrate that shi*.  I'm black (expletive).  Obama 08.  Obama and all that shi*."

If this was just an isolated incident of another ignorant over-paid athlete making another ignorant comment, it's already old news.  But it's not and it's not.  At the tail end of the comment, Josh Howard advises us to vote for Barack Obama.

Hmmm...that's interesting.   Isn't it true that, earlier this year, Obama refused to salute during our National Anthem?

Of course, Obama did not have to literally salute - he's supposed to put his hand over his heart - that's how civilians "salute".  How do I know that?  Well, I'm a patriotic American citizen.

Because Americans do it for years and years, it’s second nature.  We do it because we’re taught to and we love our country.

Is Barack Obama patriotic?  He refused to place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, despite seeing others do so.  As a lawmaker, does Obama have some responsibility to follow the law?  Respect for our National Anthem is actually a matter of law. 

Here's an excerpt from 36 USC CHAPTER 3 - NATIONAL ANTHEM, dated January 2, 2006:

(b) Conduct During Playing. - During a rendition of the national anthem -
   (1) when the flag is displayed -
      (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.(those in uniform should give the military salute)

At odds with that kind of respect, and related to Barack Obama and Josh Howard, is the black liberation sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Obama's pastor for 20 years.  Last year, we discovered Rev Wright views on whether we should sing "God Bless America". 

His answer, "No, no, no.  Not God Bless America, God Dam* America.  It's in the bible for killing innocent people."

Josh Howard got that message.  He understood Wright's plea not to sing "God Bless America".  I think after 20 years, Barack Obama got that message too, but he's hiding his true feelings so he can get elected President of that same "God Dam' America".

That's why some have called Obama, Senator Stealth.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Obama...Not So Much

Many agree that this election will come down to which candidate voters can trust to be our next President.

McCain’s solid.  Obama…not so much. 

Yes, Obama would like it to be about Palin’s experience, but the more they bring up Sarah’s experience, the more we see that Obama has even less experience. 

Obama would like it to be about the struggling economy, paint McCain as a third Bush term and claim the economy under Obama will be like Bill Clinton’s.

However, the “Booming Clinton Economy” is a myth. 

The fact is, the economy under Obama will be more like Carter than Clinton, and I’ll take Bush’s economy (low inflation, taxes, interest rates, unemployment) over Carter’s economy (high inflation, taxes, interest rates and unemployment), any day. 

Obama wants talk on climate change but Americans want to drill, baby, drill. 

So, it’s really coming down to whether voters trust Obama. Not GOP voters, of course, but millions of Independents and Democrats who are ready to vote for a Democrat this election cycle but are uneasy about Obama.  Despite a long Democratic primary, we still don’t know much about him. What exactly did he accomplishment as an unelected community organizer? Given his flip-flopping on positions he held in the primary, do voters know where he really stands? Many of his supporters struggle to name specific accomplishments of Obama.

Remember this gem of a Hardball from Chris Matthews where a supporter can't name a single Obama accomplishment.

I’ve never seen a supporter of a candidate come up with nothing, nada, zero. As remarkable as that was back in February…

What we’ve learned since then raises more questions:

  1. Obama sat in a church where the Pastor can say God Dam* America (to thunderous applause), and return the next Sunday.
  2. Obama won his first election by challenging the petitions of his Democratic primary opponents and removing all four of them from the ballot - including his mentor, fellow progressive and more popular rival, longtime incumbent Alice Palmer.
  3. Obama, shamelessly, argues he was right to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) - a bill that would protect a baby still alive after a botched abortion.
  4. Obama helped convicted felon Tony Rezco obtain $100 million in grants, loans and tax credits for 11 buildings in Obama’s district that are now boarded up.
  5. Obama held an organizing meeting at the home of former terrorist Bill Ayers for Obama’s Illinois state senate bid. As alarming as that is, even more alarming is Ayer's influence on our kids education - 26 education books published…so far!.
  6. Obama said publicly, during his 2004 US Senate run, that his opponent’s divorce records were “off limits”. Behind the scenes, his supporters worked aggressively to make the divorce records public for both his Democratic and GOP opponents. The result? Another easy, ill-gotten win for Obama by 70% to 29%.
  7. Obama, in 2004, agrees with us he's not ready to be President.
  8. Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Star Spangled Banner - that’s creepy.
  9. Obama didn’t wear a flag pin until a vet gives him one.
  10. Lastly, while campaigning in Germany, Obama declines to visit wounded troops.

Yes, I know. You’ve already heard a lot of this. However, when it comes out little by little - Obama is able to explain much of this away. Put it all together - the proper perspective - and many of us agree:

Obama doesn’t belong in the U.S. Senate, let alone the White House.

Obama can’t be trusted to be our President, it’s that simple.

Friday, September 12, 2008

When Obama Looks Ugly

Most people think of Barack Obama as an attractive young man.  I think he's looking more and more unattractive with every illegitimate attack on Sarah Palin.

Nevertheless, my opinion dropped even further yesterday.  I was in a patriotic mood listening to the speeches about 9/11 I had found on YouTube.  I came across some fantastic renditions of the Star Spangled Banner I was going to share with my two teenagers. 

Then I found a pretty bad rendition that included all the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates:

What’s wrong with this man?

American citizens learn from Kindergarten to hold their hand over their heart during the Star Spangled Banner. We sing it before major sporting events and civic ceremonies.  Some even sing along - I do. 

Because Americans do it for years and years, it’s second nature. We do it because we’re taught to and we love our country. 

Maybe Obama forgot. That’s OK.  Sometimes when we forget, we see others with their hand over their heart and we put our hand over our heart as an act of solidarity with all Americans. 

Barack must have seen others with their hands over their hearts but kept his hand down - that’s creepy.

As the great Marvin Gaye once asked, "What's going on?"

Monday, September 8, 2008

I Yelled At Glenn Beck Friday

Last Friday, as usual, I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio.   Most of you know I'm a big fan of Glenn Beck, but on Friday, I was getting more and more angry with every minute.

Glenn Beck had yet to make up his mind about supporting McCain.  I understood completely why some may have hesitated to support McCain - he's poked conservatives in the eye so many times, we winced at the mention of his name.

However, at some point, after the primaries are over, and the contrasts are drawn between the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee, angst about our nominee should give way to support.   U.S. Presidential elections are rarely, if ever, between your ideal candidate and the Democrats.

Most elections are a choice between two flawed candidates that will steer the country left (Democrat / liberal / more socialism) or right (GOP / conservative / more capitalism).   Given the failures of the socialist model, it's surprising Democrats win anything.

One of the reasons is that most Americans get their election information from folks that spin it to make Democrats look good (or not as bad) and Republicans look bad (or really bad).  That's why it's so important to have objective news sources and, maybe, some conservative voices, if at all possible.

Glenn is one of those few objective sources of information.  I know he's conservative but, if you spend ten minutes listening to him - he's extremely fair.  He has no problem slamming Republicans if they're screwing up.  In fact, he does it all the time!

In the 2008 election, the liberal news media, if they were honest with us, would admit Obama is a candidate whose background scares most Americans (terrorist Bill Ayers and twenty years in a church with "God Dam* America!") and holds positions that will hurt most Americans.

For example, raising taxes in a weak economy will make the economy worse.  It's not a judgement call - it's economic science.  Raising taxes will hurt most Americans.  When faced with the crisis of a huge rise in oil prices, the Obama-led Democrats took a 5 week paid vacation.  High prices are hurting most Americans.

Except Members of Congress, which make $14,000 per month. 

Obama will not admit the surge has worked - it's obvious it has worked and for a future commander-in-chief to not admit he's wrong reminds many of Bush's reluctance to admit his initial Iraq strategy was not working.  Obama still thinks premature withdrawal would have been better.  Americans don't want a President, of either party, who can't admit when their wrong.

On Friday, Glenn spent a good part of the morning agonizing about how much John McCain ruined the "orgasmic high" Sarah Palin had provided with the "conservative porn" in her Thursday RNC speech.  Knowing how bad an Obama presidency would be, and what a breath of fresh air Sarah Palin is, I was stunned that Glenn Beck was still on the fence.

Angry and determined, I called in to vent:

GLENN:  Let me go to Matt in Vermont...hello Matt!

MATT:  Hey Glenn, how ya doing?

GLENN:  Good, man, how are you?

MATT:  I'm stunned.  I'm a big fan but...

After hearing how different McCain and Obama handled the Russian invasion of Georgia...

And what Obama supporters said about Sarah Palin...

After all we know about Obama's Marxist past...

After all you know about Sarah Palin...

I can't believe you're still undecided about whether to support McCain-Palin!

McCain brought Sarah Palin to national politics...to his credit...

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Just call it McCain.

MATT:  What?

GLENN:  Why do you have to call it McCain-Palin?

Cause then it makes me...

MATT:  That's the ticket!  He brought her there!

He put the Sarah card on the table and you're not going to pick it up!!!???

I just don't get that....that's uh...

GLENN:  I understand..

MATT:  I just don't understand that's like uh..

GLENN:  No.  Go ahead. I thought you were going to say that's stupid

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  What did you say?

MATT:  You know the saying "Perfect is the enemy of the good"?

GLENN:  I'm not looking for perrrfecttt.  I'm not looking for perfect.

I'm just looking for someone who, in their speech last night, doesn't say things like, "Hey, if you lose your job and your get a lower paying job, we're going to make up the difference for a while."

That's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for somebody who doesn't say that.

MATT:  (unaired) You don't have the option of choosing...

(aired) the perfect candidate.  It's who's the best candidate between the two teams?

GLENN:  Grrrrrrr!

MATT:  Are you really going to choose Barr and say no thanks to Sarah Palin?

GLENN:  No!  No.  No.

MATT:  (Not aired) Because voting for Barr has the same effect as...

(Aired) voting for Obama.

GLENN:  I just can't bring myself to say it right now...I just can't bring myself to say it yet...

(frustrated) I'm sure I'm going to vote for McCain-PALIN!  I'm sure I'm going to do it.

(end of call)

That is the first time I've heard Glenn Beck say who he'd vote for.

SUCCESS!!  Finally! 

I was thrilled.

As Mac said the other night..."Change is coming!"

Sunday, September 7, 2008

5,000 Visitors & Counting...


Recently my blog
Look2theWest, the Audacity of Reason, passed the 5,000 visitor mark. 

Not much compared to Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter or Christopher Hitchens but I'm grateful so many have visited my site and read my writing.

I'm an IT project manager who leads software development teams.  I had to take some time off from work recently and took up the habit of putting my thoughts down in writing and sharing them over the Web.  It would be fantastic to make a living in the public policy area - writing or legislating or campaigning - it's all good.

I chose the name Look2theWest because:

"There's a feeling I get
When I look to the west
and my spirit is crying for leaving"

It's a lyric from Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven that captures the way the west has inspired millions to migrate here and billions to demand freedom and justice in their own lands. 

The Audacity of Reason is a nod to the excellent philosophy of Ayn Rand and an easy counter to the Obama's purposely ambiguous euphemism "Audacity of Hope".  

Many say the country's on the wrong track but I find that many things about modern America are truly remarkable. 

One of them is the dramatic rise in home-grown blogging. Could our fathers and mothers, let alone our forefathers and mothers, have predicted that someday the average person can sit down, at their desk, write down their thoughts and then share them with thousands of others in an instant?

I've never had to convince some liberal publisher that my conservative viewpoint would be popular.  I just put my writing out there and people decided for themselves if it was good or not. 

You did not have to rely on some elitist screener to determine - for you- what's worth reading or not.

Likewise, I can go online, read what other Americans are thinking and even give them feedback.  Sometimes the feedback sparks a discussion between two strangers about important issues.  That's remarkable to me.

Thanks again for your interest in Look2theWest, the Audacity of Reason.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Blame Dems for Bad Economy

Everyone knows the price of gas has skyrocketed over the last year, raising the price of everything that depends on gas which is, well, everything.

The pain is already widespread and will only get worse.

Higher transportation costs mean all products cost more, not just fuel. Higher prices cause demand to fall, meaning fewer sales and fewer jobs for Americans. The U.S. is already facing high deficits - lower sales mean even lower tax revenues and even higher deficits.

Worst of all, many Americans will be slammed this winter by higher fuel costs like never before. So, we now know that high gas prices mean higher food prices, higher prices overall, less tax revenue, more job layoffs, less income and much higher bills for most Americans.

So, what are Members of Congress doing to lower gas prices?

Peter Welch (D-VT) sponsored H.R. 6022 to stop adding to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Per Welch, “taking 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day”, “could reduce gas prices 5 to 24 cents per gallon”.

Lifting the ban on drilling may yield 2 million barrels per day. Using Welch’s math, 2 million more barrels per day will lower gas prices at least $1.40 per gallon, maybe much more.  Imagine, if Welch’s math is right, lifting the ban may cut gas prices in half!

In an early test of Obama’s leadership in a crisis, Democrats took a 5-week paid vacation!

Huh?? They say a “comprehensive” bill is needed – it’s not! Just lift the ban and work on a long-term energy bill after the election, with the new President.

In the meantime, LIFT THE BAN!

Two million barrels a day means $106 billion a year that doesn’t go overseas, creates millions of new jobs, reduces the trade deficit and increases tax revenues – a win-win-win.

This single act, lifting the ban, may save the great American economy from recession!

Perhaps Democrats are preventing a vote to help Obama get elected? Like Clinton in ‘92, more people will vote for “Change” in a struggling economy, but we can’t wait.  The U.S. economy is too important.

Last year, we produced $13 trillion of goods and services - more than Japan, Germany, China & the U.K. combined! We create most of the world’s food, medicines, software, aircraft, etc. In fact, cheap energy has enabled us to manufacture almost twice as much as China - 70% more goods now than 1992.

Our economy creates lots of wealth, a chunk of which is donated to feed and clothe the world’s poor.

In addition, we’re extremely energy efficient. We can now manufacture goods using 74% less energy than it took in 1972.  In other words, Mr. Obama, we already conserve, have been for years, we just call it being "efficient" and we do it to save our companies and our families money.

Of course, if Democrats never allow a vote on drilling, the great American economy will grind to a halt, threatening everything we contribute to the world.

Imagine that – people all over the world will be hurt because Democrats in the Congress chose to “cling” to their extreme environmentalism rather than help real live people in need.

Where I live, in Vermont, 30 days a year are sub-zero (no global warming here :-).   Fuel to heat our homes will be twice what it was last winter.

It’s going to be very bad for Americans in northern states this winter – except for Members of Congress, who we pay $169,300 per year, or $14,000 per month – they should be just fine.

However, a Congressional salary of $14,000 a month, adjusted for any inflation caused by higher gas prices, will make this winter, and future winters, painless.

Too bad; maybe if they “felt some of our pain”, they’d lift the ban.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

N.O.W., Defend Sarah

I wandered over to the N.O.W. (National Organization of Women) web site to see how an organization, that says they fight for women, is responding to some of the most sexist news coverage since the 1950s.

The Obama-supporting-media launched these attacks on GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin:

  1. Wondering aloud what kind of mom would accept the VP job knowing her pregnant daughter would suffer scrutiny.
  2. Outrage that Palin took the job when she has a special needs child.  "Who's going to raise the child?" - they ask.
  3. Smug I-told-you-so comments arguing Bristol Palin's condition confirms that teaching abstinence doesn't work.
  4. Asking if Sarah Palin took care of herself during her pregnancy.
  5. Repeated questions about who is writing Sarah Palin's speeches.
  6. Her speech included "shrill" criticism of Obama.
  7. Worst of all - openly asking whether Trig, the special needs child, is in fact the son of Sarah's daughter Bristol and whether Sarah says Trig is her own to mute criticism her 17yr old daughter has had two children.

These are "sexist" attacks because they would never be said of a man.  No one asks who writes Barack Obama's speeches?  No one was outraged about Biden taking a job in the U.S. Senate after his wife was killed in an auto accident - Biden was even sworn in at his sons' hospital bedside.  No one asks why Obama spent 18 months running for President even though he has two young daughters and a wife with a demanding $300,000/yr hospital job.

So, what is N.O.W. doing to respond to these attacks on a prominent successful woman?

I would think defending Sarah Palin would be priority one for the National Organization of Women.  But there was not much there there - no featured story chronicling the attacks I listed above, no video of the N.O.W.'s leader rushing to Palin's defense.

In fact, their leader, Kim Gandy, said this:

"Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest."

OK - so much for a call to arms to protect a strong independent woman!  Sarah Palin is a shining example of a loving mom and wife who is also a competent executive - the most popular Governor in America, man or woman.

Obviously, N.O.W. is all about supporting abortion rights not women.

I thought that NARAL Pro-Choice America was the lead group supporting abortion rights?  (I think NARAL stands for National Abortion Rights Action League but I can't say for sure because I can't find it explained anywhere on their web site)

To N.O.W.'s credit, they have included one example of media attacks on Palin, in their "NOW's Media Hall of Shame - 2008 Election Edition".  The one Palin attack is this video of John Roberts wondering whether Palin can be a good mom as VP.

Of course, it is only one of 30 entries in their Hall of Shame - most of the other 29 are video of Obama-loving media folk attacking Hillary.  Now, the Obama-loving media folk are attacking Palin.  Setting aside the fact that maybe the Obama-loving media folk are the problem, where is the aggressive counter-punch by N.O.W.?

N.O.W. also has a handy tool where you can draft a letter, with a couple clicks, and send it to the best contact at the offending organization.  In the case of CNN that's Rick Davis, Executive V.P. of News Standards & Practices (obviously this guy does not have a lot to do at CNN :-).  N.O.W. also provides a sample letter to get you started and then you can customize it.

Here's my creation:

I am writing to you today as a media consumer, a potential customer of your sponsors, and, most importantly, a supporter of women's rights.

The media's coverage of the GOP VP candidate Gov. Sara Palin has been blatantly sexist and shockingly irresponsible. Gov. Palin -- who broke new ground for women as the first female GOP candidate in history -- was both insulted and criticized using a gender-based grading system that focused on her children, her hair, her clothes and other factors that rarely come up when men candidates are discussed.

Taken together, these sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults created an environment of disrespect and outright hostility toward all women. Any question of whether or not we still need a feminist movement was answered this election season, and the answer is a resounding “Yes!” – at least for Democrats and their supporters in the media.

John Roberts was a key offender in this melee of misogyny.

Here’s his quote from September 4, 2008:

"There's also this issue that, on April 18, she gave birth to a baby with Down syndrome... The baby is just slightly more than 4 months old now. Children with Down syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

CNN should be ashamed to feature someone who would promote such divisive and bigoted rhetoric.

I would like to know whether you are willing to make a commitment to stop producing, financing and benefiting from what amounts to hate speech. Sexism -- as well as racism, homophobia and other biases -- have no place in the dissemination of news, particularly when an important presidential election is at stake.

I look forward to receiving a response from you addressing this issue.

Sincerely,

Matt

You can send your own thoughts about John Roberts' arrogance to:

Rick Davis -- CNN News Group
Title: Executive Vice President - CNN News Standards, Practices
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: rick.davis@turner.com
Phone: (404) 827-1500
Fax: (404) 878-0891
Address: One CNN Center, PO Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30348

You can send your own thoughts about N.O.W.'s hypocrisy to:

National Organization for Women
1100 H Street NW, 3rd floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 628-8669 (628-8NOW)
Fax: (202) 785-8576
Electronic mail
National Officers


Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Don't Buy Obama's Outrage

Obama: "I don't think it's an appropriate topic for debate"

No, Obama’s not talking about the family of McCain's VP Sarah Palin.  He's talking about the divorce of Jack Ryan, his GOP opponent during the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate race.

Here's Obama's similarly reassuring comments about attacks on Palin's 17yr old daughter:

Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all praised Obama for "saying the right thing".  O'Reilly even said Obama "came to her (Sarah Palin's) defense".  Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Obama's supporters at the Daily Kos, CNN, MSNBC, MoveOn.org, etc… were smearing Sarah Palin in the most despicable ways.

Maybe our guys should do their homework before praising "The One".

From what I've read, this is a classic Obama tactic:

Encourage the media, behind the scenes, to attack his opponent, or their children, while publicly stating Obama is against attacks.

Obama did this in his first, and only, U.S. Senate campaign.  According to an April 3, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times article, Obama's supporters at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee emailed reporters behind the scenes to dig up dirt on Ryan's divorce while publicly stating Ryan's divorce was "off limits".

"I feel for him actually," Obama said on WLS-AM. "What he's gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn't wish on anybody. Unfortunately, I think our politics has gotten so personalized and cut-throat that it's very difficult for people to want to get in the business."

An amazing statement given that Obama's supporters were working behind the scenes to do the thing Obama "wouldn't wish on anybody". 

Surprisingly, a judge did release the records, there was a scandal and Jack Ryan quit the race shortly thereafter.  Obama ran, essentially unopposed, and won 70% to 27% over the GOP’s late replacement, Alan Keyes.   Jack Ryan later begged that his divorce be the last - that we should leave private the divorce records for John Kerry and others who run for office.

Obama did not win his only U.S. Senate campaign as an agent for "Change", or a uniter, or by taking bold stands on issues, but by having his supporters make public the personal and private lives of his opponent.

Sound familiar?

This is Chicago-style politics that Democrats have brought to the 2008 Presidential race.

Too bad for U.S. :-(