I don't understand why Obama is more equipped to handle the economy

The media keeps saying and that masses are starting to believe that Obama is more equiped to handle the economy. The question I have is why?

In 2006 McCain warned that something was hinky with Fannie Mae. Obama chose the shady people from Fannie Mae to help on his campaign.

People keep calling McCain the great deregulator and blaming him and deregulation for the current mess. However, how we got here has less to do with deregulation and everything to do with the Democrat push to get poor people into homes they couldn't afford.

The subprime mortgage crisis (the crisis that has led to the giant financial crisis) started with the idea that banks were being discriminatory in their lending practices because minorities were getting less mortgages (this actually had nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with sound financial principals). Now the sad reality is that in society, minorities represent a disproportionately high percentage of the poor and unemployed in America. When banks led money for mortgages traditionally they did not lend it to people who were risky investments (i.e., the poor and unemployed). Accordingly, sound business practices began to look like discrimination. A greater push began to develop to address this "discrimination." The result was a relaxing of the standards required to get a loan.

As a sidenote I am NOT somehow blaming minorities who received loans as the source of the problem. The problem developed with a relaxing of standards and the general society response to take out loans that they should not have - loans higher than they could technically afford, loans their credit history made obvious they should not have. this is the fault of everyday citizens who bought more house than they should have. This is the fault of banks who gave out these loans. This is the fault of Wallstreet traders who treated these mortgage backed securities as low risk when they weren't. There is a lot of fault to go around here, including Congress who killed the bill McCain sponsored targeting at reigning in Fannie Mae.

Coupled with this push for increased access to mortgages and a relaxing of the standards was also the misbelief that somehow the massive raise in housing prices was sustainable (which makes about as much sense as the decoupling theory that helped push up the value of the euro - but that is a whole other story). Accordingly, mortgages became viewed as less risky because even if the purchasers defaulted on their mortgage, the bank could simply sell the home and get a profit or at least break even.

So now there are two forces at work: (1) Democrat initiative to end "discriminatory" lending practices which led to a push in subprime mortgages (i.e., give people who shouldn't have homes, home) and (2) a mistaken belief that a bubble in the housing market was sustainable. Banks were then encouraged to hand out mortgages like free samples at the grocery store under the mistaken belief that nothing could go wrong.

So we have problems. And lets add a little accounting fraud into the mix and financial meltdown here we come.

Now again, in 2006 McCain warned that something needed to be done about Fannie and no one listened. If Congress (controlled by Dems, mind you) had listened this crisis could have been averted. But right now we have a do nothing dem run congress and so nothing happened and McCain's bill got killed in committee. The reality is McCain may push for deregulation sometimes but where it counts he is all about accountability and government oversight. That is really what a market needs to operate. It needs to be let run free so it grows, but needs to be reigned in when it starts to go haywire so as maintain stability. It does not need increases in capital gains tax so as to decrease investment (Hint to Obama increasing capital gains taxes historically has led to a decrease in government revenue, decreasing it has done just the opposite - Obama you do not understand the economy).

Tomorrow.... How Obama's tax policy is essentually communism and will cripple the economy even more and perhaps a little on trade (and how if you stopped shopping at Walmart jobs wouldn't be forced overseas).

To Review Where the Potential Pres Stand

I would just like to note that McCain has been right on the big issues and Obama hasn't.

Here's the scorecard.

Surge (even when unpopular): McCain

Warning about Fannie and Freddie and the need to regulate them in 2006: McCain

Georgia: McCain

I guess Obama had Iraq? When he wasn't at the federal level and couldn't vote for it? And we had UN approval to proceed? And it stemmed from a general anti-ware sentiment and not any actual knowledge?


OK so some general

Obama hammer McCain on lobbyists? By the way, they are ex-lobbyists. And I would rathr have a few ex-lobbyists than who Obama originally wanted on his side (Rezco, Wright).

McCain hammered Obama on sex-ed for kindergarteners. Oh, wait. That ended up being true. The bill Obama sponsored actually did not call for sex-ed for grade K and not just education on sexual predators (that was a separate part of the bill).

Obama hammers Palin on inexperience. Pot meet kettle.

Biden wants me to be "patriotic" and pay more taxes. Stick it Biden. I want my money to do with what I think is best for the country. I really don't trust you with my money.

Obama lowering 80% of the populations taxes? 40% don't pay taxes. I am not quite sure how that math works. Oh, wait. I forgot his tax scheme is actually a wealth redistribution plan (think communism). So he will heavily tax businesses and capital gains stiffling business development (you know those things that employ people) so poor people can afford HD cable tv with all the channels, new cars, blackberries, designer clothes 42 inch plasma screen tvs, McMansions, you get the picture (you know the things I can't afford yet and am working hard to own someday). Well, that is until all the businesses go under and we collapse in on ourselves and no one can afford to own anything.

Why You Should Blame the Democrats and Vote Republican

So I am getting a little sick of people blaming the republicans for everything and saying we must vote for Obama to solve our problems. But here are some hard truths to think about.

President Bush and most of the Republicans have been advocating drilling for years, but the Democrats have been dead set against. Oil prices were on the rise and will likely be on the the rise again soon, but still the Democrats (who control both houses) are a no go on drilling. So gas prices are high, which is the Dems fault. If they had allowed drilling before, we would not be facing this crisis. If they had allowed us to build refineries and drill away from the golf coast, we wouldn't be in constant fear of a hurricane shooting up gas prices.

Because of the high gas prices, everything else is going up in price, food, products, anything that is shipped, and families are struggling. Obama talks about the struggling family, but his policies of no drill and more "green" production will only increase their hurt as it will increase prices.

Of course, his excessive pro-union stance and high tax rates will also drive companies and jobs abroad to China, but, hey, according to Obama, jobs going to China is NAFTA's fault. Though, last time I checked China was not part of North America so not part of NAFTA, but hey, there's Dems. geography for you.

So Obama's policies = higher prices and less jobs. Now he can say from now until forever that the opposite is true, but just saying something doesn't make it true, it just means you've said it a lot.

Terrorism is always a fear for us here in America. Guess how terrorism is partly funded? Oil proceeds. That's right, when you fill your tank, you may be sending money straight to terrorists who will try to use your own money to blow you up. But hey, why worry about it now? They haven't attacked us since 2001, which obviously had nothing to do with Republican policies.

Obama's followers keep harping on Palin's lack of experience, but last time I checked she was running in the VP spot and Obama's experience is not much greater than hers. Now many Obama supporters say he can just get good advisors, which would also work for Palin, yes? And Palin doesn't have a history of associating with racists, domestic terrorists, and real estate misdeeders, so she is ahead on this avenue. Now, Obama was against the Iraq war, true, but he was in Illinois state senate when the position cost him nothing and then he was opposed to the surge, which worked, and which McCain said would work. And we have Georgia, which McCain almost predicted years ago with his stated distrust of Putin anf Obama that wanted to sit back and just wait to see what happened (In other words, good by Georgia). Yeah, Obama is somehow so much better on foreign policy than McCain, because after all he toured Europe with reporters.

Of course, there is the issue of corruption in politics and breaking up the current system. Now on one side is Obama who was part and parcel of the Mayor Daley corruption world of Chicago and Biden who is true old school politician and all that entails. Then we have McCain, who has fought against corruption for years and Palin who made a name for herself in Alaska taking on big oil and the corrupt politicians in her own party. Which side do you think is more likely to take on the Washington elite and win? My vote is with Sarah Baracuda.

Palin is also the only one with executive experiences. True, it is only 2 years, but it is more than anyone else out there. Now Obama tries to claim his campaign has prepared him (well, since there is nothing else to his credit, I supposed that is what he must fall back on). This is the same campaign who threatened media outlets with massive loss of advertising if they ran the add linking Obama to Ayers (the unrepetent domestic terrorist that Obama launched his campagin from), the same campaign that tried to link China with NAFTA, the same campaign that called mid-westerners bitter signal issue voters. So what we have is the lowest of the low in political tricks, of misleading the American people, and preventing freedom of speech. Great attributes for the main of "change." Now, true, Obama's campaign has been successful. He did, after all, win with no experience to his name and just a pretty little speech to show he is ready to run the country. You know, Hitler was popular, too, but I sure wouldn't want him running any country I live it.

Now, I could write an entire book on the downfalls of the socialist agenda he is pushing and a universal, government run, health care system, but I will just ask this - How good did the government do at say Katrina or managing social security and any of the other of its myriad of overbroad government programs it tries to run? Also, just do a quick search for available doctors in Canada or dialysis in Great Britain if you are over 55, or cancer treatmentsm or expensive drug therapy in Europe and see the results you get. See what is not said about the rest of the worlds attempts at universal healthcare. Oh, and check out their tax rates and unemployment rates and think if that is the country you want to live in. And before you say we are already there the unemployment rate for July was 5.7% and last quarter saw growth and the dolloar is on the rise, no matter what the media and Obama is trying to scare you into thinking.

Oh, and one more thing. The top ten poorest cities are all democratic strong holds and many were thay way long before they became the poorest cities. Do we really want them controlling th entire country? (See below for an articles re: the top ten poorest cities)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html?iref=newssearch

Just put down the Obama kool-aid and think. Do you really know what is in that glass? Is it something sweet? Or poison?

I am glad I am not a democratic feminist right now.

So I went down to Dayton to see McCain announce his VP. When he announced Palin, I realized this could be a good pick. I didn't know much about her yet, just that she had a lot of kids, her husband was pretty darn attractive for an older guy, and she was the governor of Alaska. However, this blog isn't about whether Sarah Palin is a good pick. I think she is (it is VP after all, not President, so the experience requirement isn't quite as high, and she runs a state successfully, all Obama has done is run a campaign (after he won his senatorship because of a scandal)). What this is about is what I learned about democrats.

From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?

And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?

I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.

Christianity Never Allowed Polygamy

So I have a passion for religions. I like to investigate their secular history and their actual teachings and the history behind the words in their religious books.
I also am a feminist and so I am interested in how women are treated and their response to their religion.
I have noticed a common theme amongst Muslim feminists that I simply must critique and correct. I continually read amongst Muslin feminists that Christianity somehow is pro-polygamy, that is somehow fine by scripture. This is simply not true. Christianity has never allowed polygamy and from the very first church leaders said polygamy was against the bible. I just think somewhere there should be a website that corrects this misconception. Listen, if you want to argue that your religion is for women's equality, fine go ahead, but don't do it by lying about mine.
For instance,
Mark 10:11 - 12: "He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.""
This is pretty clear to me - marrying another woman is adultery. Now this is addressing adultery and when it does and does not occur, but by implication if a guy cannot marry a new woman without committing adultery against his first wife, then surely cannot marry a second wife while still married to the first one. (I am not commenting on appropriate grounds of divorce, because I am not 100% sure whether this condemns all divorce or if there are still grounds since we are "hard of heart")
Jesus in Mark also discusses the whole two become one thing. You know, when man and woman married Not 3 become 1 or 4 become 1, but 2 become 1. Pretty implicit in this is the fact that marriage is only between two people.

The earliest Christian leaders also condemned polygamy:
"Chapter II.-Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy. We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world, and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib. (ANF: Tertullian, To His Wife c. 207)

At no time in all of Christian history was the Christian faith ever in favor of polygamy (there may have been crazy sects out there that did as there are crazy sects that do it today, but never in any accepted Christian form and never permitted under the teachings of Christ).

The honest fact is that Christ treated women equally. Any inequality in the Christian church does not stem from the words of Christ, but instead later followers of his, such as Paul. This is why I say that inneracy in terms of the new testament makes no sense. It seems quite obvious to me that the biases of Paul should not suppress the teachings of Christ which is what happens under the inneracy concept.

Manufacuring Industry is Important (Stop killing it Unions!!)

So I have always said that it is bad for the American economy to shift away from manufacturing towards a full service industry. The idea that that was a good thing just seemed completely silly to me. The service industry is just too responsive to economic downturns and also creates huge trade deficits with foreign countries which weakens the dollar. Wow, that idea is being proven true in the current weakened economy and surprise, surprise, someone of apparent importance finally agrees with me:
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/environment?type=environmentNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq&src=blogBurst_environmentNews&bbPostId=Cz854tWRKKaRnCzAVm294vh37CBA9RUIa32XuWB1BVBGtpBYWp&bbParentWidgetId=B8fgRsdourbPDamNeJo0MHq

So anyway, be a good American and buy American. You can only help yourself.

Also, unions, you need to learn to work within the confines of the modern economy. You have to allow companies to use modern advances that minimize the required work force or you will force what little manufacturing we have right out of the country (hint, look at the collapse of the steel industry or the current move of Ford to build their new plant in Mexico because they couldn't get the Union to agree to the use of robotic arms). You have to recognize you can't retire after 30 years to full benefits unless you want to put your fellow workers out of work. You have to be realistic or you will just hurt yourselves.

Coach Purses Are All Made in China

So I sent an email to Coach asking if any of their purses were not made in China. Personally, I will not buy an expensive name brand product made in China. What's the sense in that? Since the factory is already there, if you buy a Made in China knock-off, it is likely the real thing. And just think of the mark up and the huge profit Coach is walking away with? Anyway, I wanted a Coach purse not made in china (call me picky).
Here is the response e-mail from Coach:

"Thank you for contacting COACH.
COACH's philosophy behind worldwide manufacturing speaks to the very foundation of our success as a committed American brand. COACH has grown to become one of the world's most respected brands and is committed to providing our consumers with a fine quality product. We have chosen to partner with overseas manufacturing, including China. This diversified manufacturing skill base has enabled us to maintain the exceptional value for which COACH is known.
We hope you will continue to purchase COACH in the future.
Sincerely,
Naomi
COACH Online Consumer Service"

I like the claim that making it in china is somehow adding value to the Coach purse line.
Lesson for everyone: Don't be stupid and Don't buy Coach.