Keep the Change '08

Keep The Change

2008-11-02T16:06:00.004-05:00

This video by the RNC shows exactly where I got the name of my blog from. America doesn't need redistribution of wealth, socialism, communism, or any other pseudonym for eventual economic failure.

American Journalism (1789-2008)

2008-10-29T17:24:00.010-04:00

The year A.D. 2008 marks the end of an era. Journalism in the United States has, as general whole, left the scene. While, it is true there are a few sources where it may be found, they are rare. And even if one succeeds in finding it, the source is quickly discredited on the basis that it is the only one, and therefore must be a conspiracy.

In the news today, it has been found that the L.A. Times Newspaper has long had a video linking Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and former PLO member, founded the American Arab Action Network (AAAN) with his wife, a former press translator for Yasser Arafat. The video-tape apparently reveals that Obama was there in the company of known terrorists and anti-semitism activists.

Just another incident in a long line of associations that Barack Obama denies sequentially with grave vigor. This of course, only after the media has withheld the information for a while. One would think that eventually, people would stop saying that these are just smear tactics and ask the question, "how many coincidences can occur without some truth being present?"

Change - When Does It Stop?

2008-10-24T01:44:00.003-04:00

It still amazes me that the mass media is giving Barack Obama a free ride on all the waffling he does. Not even democratic candidate John Kerry got this kind of kid-glove treatment. Here is just another example of the endless change that Sen. Obama wants to bring America.

The Cost of National Sovereignty

2008-10-23T23:53:00.009-04:00

With all the talk of the U.S. economy and how we are spending (wasting) our taxpayers' money, surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be the war in Iraq that is costing us the most money. Just to give you an idea of where all those hard-earned tax-dollars are going, here are a few of our national expenses gone awry.

Every year, we spend between $11 billion and $22 billion providing welfare to immigrants. And, yes, immigrants can qualify for welfare--despite what most people think (Immigration and Welfare). The idea of immigration is not "give me money because I'm an oppressed minority so the government owes me". These immigrants are supposed to be trying to become a productive part of society.

Illegal aliens are getting $9.6B annually in various government programs. In an article from the Center for Immigration Studies they find that, "Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion)."

CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, aired these statistics in April of 2006 about the taxpayer cost of immigration:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform says taxpayers spend $12 billion/year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally. Another $17 billion for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. It is federal law to provide free emergency health care to those here illegally. Congress has set aside a billion taxpayer dollars each year to reimburse all hospitals. A total, administrators complain, is a fraction of their costs. Meanwhile, employers hire cheap labor with virtually no risk. The Government Accountability Office found only three employers fined in 2004 for illegal hiring, down from 417 in 1999. At the same time, America's criminal justice system is bulging with these citizens of other countries. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30% of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens. At a cost of $63/day, taxpayers spend more than $3M every day to house non-U.S. citizens in our federal prisons. Most are thought to be illegal aliens. Twelve to 20 million people are in this country illegally. An incredible boon for employers, looking to exploit workers who will work for minimum wage/less. But there is no denying, allowing limitless illegal immigration, as this country has, doesn't come for free.

I hope what is clear by now is that the total cost of our broken immigration policies, and borders left wide open, are exceeding $338 billion yearly. This is something that most forget to mention when stating accusatively that "Iraq is costing us our economy." Has Sen. Obama said anything concrete about securing our borders for the good of national sovereignty? If he has I haven't heard it.

The National Democratic Federalist Republicans Party

2008-10-16T18:25:00.009-04:00

Today, I was faced with a question... "what is a republican and what makes the difference between any party?" And, if you think about it, unless you know where they came from, political party today doesn't always say much about anythingWell, one must first look at where they originated.

It goes back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. If you look at the two men from upbringing to their rise to politics there is a sharp distinction to be made. Hamilton, who wasn't of British descent (unlike most Americans at the time), was in favor of a large, powerful government. Jefferson, on the other hand, had seen British tyranny and feared it greatly--thus in favor of a very free and much smaller government.

Now, where does this leave us? Well, Hamilton was a "Federalist" (not to be confused with the earlier Federalist Party). Jefferson was a Republican. Over the years, parties changed names but today's republican party is the descendent of Jefferson.

The republican party was based on strict interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that the government can only do what the Constitution explicitly authorizes. Today that is all but lost.

Today, we have Supreme Court justices legislating morality and immorality from the bench. When in reality they should be arguing over whether or not any of them can read. Since, they obviously no longer protect the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution.

We see Congress spending all their time voting themselves raises through the tax code that isn't even allotted for in the Constitution and unanimously renaming french fries.

Where is the backbone this country was founded on you ask? Talk to Sen. Obama--he'll tell you we will pull through "because this is the United States of America." Talk to Sen. McCain--he'll tell you that we will pull through by cutting government spending, by our foreign policy, by becoming energy independent--not by turning down our thermostats and inflating our tires but by work, conservation, and using our God-given natural resources.

Why Republican? Smaller government, self-sufficiency--just like Jefferson. Oppositely, Democrats support big, powerful government, at the expense of its taxpayers--just like Hamilton.

He's Hawaiian? . . . Really?

2008-10-13T14:24:00.011-04:00

What is Obama hiding? Please, watch this 10 minute video about a current legal case against Sen. Barack Hussein Obama II. It is worth the time no matter who you are, or what political stance you hold.

Now, I'm not saying I know for a fact that Obama is a fraud. Nor am I even sure of the status of this case. All I want people do is think about the facts that we do know. What do we really know about Obama/his plan for America? Again, before any comments about conspiracy theories or me being just another angry conservative, think about this... if Sen. Obama has nothing to hide, then WHY IS HE HIDING? John McCain has already long ago produced any birth/medical records that were requested. For more information, read the AP article Case Filed in Court Challenges Barack Obama's Citizenship.

Helping Create National Debt

2008-10-13T13:53:00.012-04:00

I was just listening to Barack Obama giving a speech at an Ohio rally and I was amazed at how casually he brushed off the economic failures our nation is facing. At one point he said, "We can steer ourselves out of this... because we are the United States of America." Although that may sound very dramatic Senator, that is inherently faulty logic not to mention an arrogant statement. While it is true that we can overcome this economic depression, it will not happen based on such immature ideas. It will happen if, and only if, the American people wake up and start voting into office politicians who actually understand the future ramifications of what they're voting for, and when Americans stop looking at the government to take care of everything.

Talking about helping middle-class America he said, "If people ask, 'How are we going to pay for that?' you can tell them that if we can afford [Iraq] we can afford to rebuild Ohio." Also, he kept mentioning the Treasury Department needing to exercise it's power. Basically, he wants the Treasury to put the nation deeper in debt to "help middle-class America." One question... if middle-class America is struggling financially right now because of our national debt, how is creating more national debt "helping"?

Key Votes

2008-10-12T15:11:00.006-04:00

Talk is cheap... and in today's inflated economy it's even worse. I took a brief look at Obama's Senate voting records recently and I wasn't surprised. Here's just a summary of a few interesting ones:

Obama wants to allow oil/gas from ANWR to be exported to other countries (HR 2863).

He voted to cut defense spending by $33.73 billion in the 2009 fiscal year (Amdt. to HR 2642), voted AGAINST $69.98B in tax cuts/credits through 2010--twice (HR 4291, 97). He also voted to reinstate the 39.6% tax rate on anyone earning over $1 million and reinstate pre-May 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rates (Amdt. to S. 2020); and against reforming bankruptcy laws (S 256).

He supports importing prescription drugs from foreign countries (S Amdt. 4299). Meanwhile, voting AGAINST allowing families of children with disabilities to purchase Medicaid for their child (S 1932).

So, basically, along with only voting about half of the time (the other half of his record is filled with "NV"), Obama wants to cut the military budget which will inevitably make casualties a higher risk. Plus, he wants to keep families from buying Medicaid for their disabled children, while raising taxes (or at least not cutting them). And, he wants to export our oil and gas while importing our prescription medications.

That doesn't exactly sound like a winning plan to me. Not to mention that (although many politicians are) Sen. Obama seems to be at best unsure, and at worst, spineless as he "repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, [and] Project Vote Smart."

The Debt-Standard

2008-10-12T14:43:00.005-04:00

Everyday our government creates more debt for itself--this is no surprise to anyone. However, how they do it, and the fact that our money--the almighty US Dollar--is no longer based on gold but rather on debt, will surprise you.

The government can't just print money, that would be to obvious and cause too much controversy and if they raise taxes... well, we know what happens. So, they came up with a much better solution. This is an explanation of the "Mandrake Mechanism."

The best way for the government to raise money is through trading securities assets on the open market. Here is how they do it:

A Government Bond/Treasury Note is printed... and given to the Federal Reserve. The government has just acquired debt. At the Federal Reserve this note is considered an asset because they are counting on the govt. keeping its promise. Based on this new "asset" the Fed writes a federal reserve check to the government. The government takes the check (that still doesn't have any money to back it) and deposits into a Government Account from which it writes Government checks. The checks are then taken and deposited as commercial bank deposits.

Now, the bank deposits are both asses and liabilities. They are liabilities to the bank because they are owed to the depositors, and they are assets because they are considered money on-hand.

Banks are only required to keep 10% of their deposits on-hand in "reserve". This means that now they can loan out 90% of those new "assets". This is because of the expectancy that the new loan recipients will repay the loan to cover the original deposit. This is fractional-reserve banking--what caused the bank runs of the Great Depression.

The process then repeats with the new loan recipients that take their loaned money and make another commercial bank deposit.

This effectively creates fiat money in the amount of up to 9 times what the original government loan... remember the Bond/Note? Add this to the fact that since the government simply printed the bond/note without any money to back that up... the result is that the total amount of fiat money is equal to 10 times our national debt--a serious inflation of the dollar. So, basically we've moved from a gold-standard to a "debt-standard" with our money now without backing, it is merely based the debt created in its making.

For those interested, I learned most of this from "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.

So, if the idea of socialism didn't scare you enough, think about it when you vote. Because this is the work of a banking cartel trying to socialize our country. The Federal Reserve has never been part of the Federal Government (despite what the name implies) and there was never any reserve to start with. Yet, every day, the Federal Reserve inflates our currency at astronomical rates.

Racism in America

2008-10-09T14:26:00.015-04:00

It is not a surprise to anyone that the issues of race and political office are very intertwined in this election. However, there is one idea that seriously troubles me on a daily basis. It is the groundless assumption that anyone of caucasian descent voting against Sen. Obama would be doing so out of racism (malicious or not).

This is simply ridiculous. Perhaps it has not occurred to some, but it actually possible for conservatives to vote based on conscience, issues, and party lines. And it wasn't FoxNews who proved my point which such excellent brevity. Here is a quote from CNN's Glen Beck:

The truth is, voting against Barack Obama doesn't make you a racist, just like voting against Sarah Palin doesn't make you a sexist. The vast majority of regular Americans understand that. If politicians could catch up and restrain themselves from trying to exploit our differences for their own gain--we'd all be better off.

Thank you, Mr. Beck. I only wish that more Americans would stop thinking emotionally, and base more decisions on issues and logic rather than letting campaign slander cloud our judgment.

One of the Purposes of My Blog

2008-09-30T12:07:00.000-04:00

Ok, so normally, I wouldn't just cut 'n paste articles from other sources since that is kind of cheap (considering it's actually plagiarism/stealing). However, I felt this was important enough to me to use an outside source... and a good one at that.

THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY
by Ann Coulter
September 24, 2008

On MSNBC this week, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter tried to connect John McCain to the current financial disaster, saying: "If you remember the Keating Five scandal that [McCain] was a part of.... He's really getting a free ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial scandal in our country."

McCain was "in the middle of" the Keating Five case in the sense that he was "exonerated." The lawyer for the Senate Ethics Committee wanted McCain removed from the investigation altogether, but, as The New York Times reported: "Sen. McCain was the only Republican embroiled in the affair, and Democrats on the panel would not release him."

So John McCain has been held hostage by both the Viet Cong and the Democrats.

Alter couldn't be expected to know that: As usual, he was lifting material directly from Kausfiles. What is unusual was that he was stealing a random thought sent in by Kausfiles' mother, who, the day before, had e-mailed: "It's time to bring up the Keating Five. Let McCain explain that scandal away."

The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain already had explained that scandal away--repeatedly. It was celebrated lawyer Robert Bennett, most famous for defending a certain horny hick president a few years ago.

In February this year, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," Bennett said, for the eight billionth time:

"First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so I'm not on [McCain's] side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John McCain for a year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee in the Keating Five.... And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him."

It's bad enough for Alter to be constantly ripping off Kausfiles. Now he's so devoid of his own ideas, he's ripping off the idle musings of Kausfiles' mother.

Even if McCain had been implicated in the Keating Five scandal--and he wasn't--that would still have absolutely nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis currently roiling the financial markets. This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era.

Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke--it's a fact.

When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.

In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."

Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.

A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.

In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system.

Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.

Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.

Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER

Now, please don't anyone say that I ripped this off. I fully acknowledge this is not my own work. Thanks for reading!