For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12
"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville
It is important to be reminded that the racially-self-righteous Democrat party has a warehouse of skeletons crammed in their closet, and that today's Democrat party has only become more subtile in its racism toward blacks and other minorities. Not to sound redundant to the video, but you don't have to look hard to find liberal Democrats showering conservative blacks with old racial slurs like "Sambo," "house nigger,""welfare queen," and others. Just ask Allen West, Condoleezza Rice, Alan Keyes, and a whole host of other conservative blacks about the abuse to which they've been subjected, merely for having opinions that differ from Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and other race-hustling pimps that lace the Democrat party.
This video was removed from YouTube and then came back again via Breitbart and The Associated Press. The contents are kinda scary in a way, even though no blood was drawn. It's a video of Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC) getting rather truculent to say the least, with a couple of students, one of whom asked him about how he feels regarding the Obama agenda.
Naturally the entitled Congressman felt it was okay to manhandle the student (I surmise) because he is a Democrat, and therefore not accountable for violent reactions due to his thin skin. In fact, I believe Websters defines Democrat as being emotional, quick to violence, and armed with no reason or accountability. You could see it in the anti-war rallies a few years ago, as well as the more recent pro-amnesty (for illegal aliens) rallies. Whereas Tea Party marches and Pro-Life marches are peaceful, well-ordered, and rather cleverly done, the liberal rallies are rife with violence, obscenities, and an intellectual void whose echos can be clearly heard through the mist of liberal apologetic media spin.
While I will pray for the Congressman, I also hope the video is used at his trial.
You probably remember how Congressional Democrats and their amplification network in the MSM had a cow when President Bush proposed an exciting proposal to shift workers' Social Security contributions to private investment. The worker would benefit from growth on his investment by retirement, and the government would have a lessened obligation to support him. At that, the worker's private investment would have been only a portion of his Social Security taxes, and only if he opted to participate. Yet, the Dems went ballistic at the very idea of privatizing any Social Security monies whatsoever. The Bush proposal died a quiet death, and your FICA payments are under federal control.
With the Democrat takeover of Congress and the White House coming in January, hearings now taking place in the House already point to the sad fact that they can't wait to sink their meathooks into your private retirement savings, because now that the American electorate stripped themselves of effective Republican checks and balances, the FICA taxes you and your employer pay aren't enough to feed the Democrat beast.
Discussions are underway regarding the money you've earned, sacrificed to set aside for your future, made your own cost-benefit decisions as to where to invest it - and take it all away from you to put in an account run by the Social Security Administration.
What's your stock fund making you annually over a 10 year average? Probably in the ballpark of the average return on the stock market from 1926 to 2005, which was 10.4%. Your confiscated retirement funds would be removed from the private sector and deposited in government accounts, for which they would pay you a piddling 3% interest.
If you have loved ones who are depending on your retirement funds as their inheritance, don't drop dead. The government is raking off half of it.
In a tight race for Minnesota's contested seat in the US Senate beginning to slightly shift in favor of Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, it doesn't help Democratic candidate-comedian Al Franken to have his anti-Catholic bigotry erupt back in his face at this time. The Catholic League's press release details some choice morsels of Franken's hate speech, including mocking the Eucharist and the crucifixion of Jesus. To the devout and sensitive, that brand of "comedy" is less amusing than sitting on the Kaiser's spiked helmet by mistake. In a race where every single vote's going to count, Catholics should give Franken the spike in remembrance.
Just received this E-Blast from Laura a few minutes ago and thought enough of it to rush it to print (so to speak). In it she asks some very poignant questions we should all be asking our legislators before they spend nearly a trillion of our and our children's tax dollars for something they HOPE will repair the current financial catastrophe. Here they are:
1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive? 2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different? 3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation? 4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane. 5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion. 6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability? 7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes? 8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?
THIS is the video the MSM does NOT want you to see. It's from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hearings in 2004 in which several Democrats verbally attacked regulators who found huge problems in how both Fannie and Freddie were run. The obfuscation is almost too nauseating to watch, considering present day's events. Several Republicans defended the regulators and pointed out large discrepancies while naming names (like Jamie Gorelik, for instance). One can only wonder how Republican strength in numbers wasn't enough to win the day back then and avoid this trainwreck.
The urge to grab a noose and head to Washington is almost too overwhelming to ignore. And several of these people are helping to write the bill being voted on Monday or Tuesday. The MSM should go down with them for protecting them so close to election day.
I always learn a lot while watching Special Report with Brit Hume. In fact, if I had access to only one news source with or without commentary, I would go with Brit. Here, Fox News explains most of what happened that led up to the current crisis. There are other reasons, of course, as I have previously mentioned. But in 2005 the start of the crisis was clearly in view, alarms were sounded, and warnings not only went unheeded but denied and thwarted by DEMOCRATS. It's no wonder the MSM (main stream media) aka TOD (tool of Democrats) is so eager to spread the blame around. Allow me to correct:
First, a word from former President Bill Clinton. Click HERE for the ABC News interview in which Clinton not only defends McCain's decision to fly to Washington to assist in bailout talks, but also seems willing to spread blame to Democrats, while incorrectly putting himself on the side of those who tried to fix things (once a liar...).
Secondly, here in its entirety is an editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader putting the blame for the mortgage meltdown on the proper people:
[One month from tomorrow, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be the keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. It is a coveted and high-profile role previously filled by such notables as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. The Democrats’ choice of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is, therefore, very revealing.
The party announced Frank as the keynote speaker on Sept. 11 — three days after the U.S. government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, costing taxpayers untold billions. That takeover probably could have been prevented had Frank not worked to thwart every attempt to limit the risks taken on by the two government-sponsored mortgage giants.
For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.
In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”
But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.
(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)
In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”
Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.]
Before the news came out as to whom Obama chose to be his VP, I had in mind my own opinions about a few of the likely choices. I felt that NM Governor Bill Richardson was the smart choice. He would balance the ticket with his executive experience in running a state; he would bring his own Washington experience from his years in the Clinton cabinet, he would satisfy the liberal addiction to identity politics merely by being Hispanic (and thereby increasing Hispanic voter turnout for Democrats); and he would enhance the fact that the West is now in play by perhaps tipping the balance to Obama even in McCain's home state of Arizona.
The fearful choice (choice made from apprehension of repercussion) would have been Hillary Clinton. Fear, mainly of her many female minions who no doubt would like to cause trouble at the convention both because she was not chosen, AND because the news came out at 3AM (an obvious dig against her highness for the "3am phone call" ad she ran). Fear, also because if he had chosen her he would feel nervous every time he started his car or took a bite of food. Somehow the Clintons have acquired the reputation for being overly ambitious.
The desperate choice would have been either Edwards: John-the-adulterating-former-Senator from NC or Chet the unknown-but-Washington-insider Congressman from TX for reasons stated herein.
But I would have thought the stupid choice to be Senator Joe Biden of DE. For Senator Biden not only doesn't compliment the ticket, but serves to directly contradict it handily. There are several examples of this. Here are a few: first, his many verbal gaffes which have brought much embarrassment to the Democrat party both for the stupidity of them and for the occasional racist nature of their meaning. Perhaps Obama was trying find someone to divert attention away from his own stupid comments. But the fact that Biden infuriates some minorities must have been lost upon the Illinois Senator. He would have been better served nominating Senator and former Klansman, Robert Byrd for VP.
Second, Biden is a Washington insider. So much so, in fact, that he has served six terms in the Senate. That's more than John McCain himself. Obama has stated publicly that America is no longer great---that our country isn't what it once was. Much of the blame for this would logically fall upon his own VP choice. Would it not? I suppose there is no HOPE in any CHANGE happening in an Obama administration now.
Third, Biden voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war. And even though he has flip-flopped on this issue, Biden still wants to make our military LARGER, not smaller. This is the complete opposite of what Obama has proposed to do.
In addition, Biden offers no economic gravitas to the ticket. And his double brain aneurysm that he survived could spell big health issues down the road.
All this just to get someone with foreign relations expertise. Go figure.
What a dangerously revealing age we live in where video cameras can pop up anywhere and catch people weaving a tangled web of deceit... And like little children, Democrat politicians cannot keep it secret for long.
Remember the interview with Congressman James Clyburn on Washington Post Online in which he admitted that a positive report from General Petraeus would be bad for Democrats? That is almost as good as this Kanjorski ambush (and a well deserved ambush at that). Three cheers for the interviewer! Small consolation for losing the majority in both Houses, though.
Click on picture above for information about the author.
Also, I want to add that not everyone I link to below marches lock-step with me on every issue. But I link to them nonetheless because I think they are righteous. They have taken sides in their respective battles, political and/or religious, and have chosen wisely. May you do the same.
.jpg)
