Will there be War between two Nuclear Armed nations?

Late Wednesday night, Nov 26, 2008, Mumbai, India found itself the target of a ferocious terrorist attack, and the situation remains unresolved even now, three days later. According to a report, about high 60 young men entered Mumbai in small inflatable boats on Wednesday night, carrying bags filled with weapons and ammunition, and spread out to nine locations to begin their attacks. Lobbing grenades and firing their weapons, they entered hotels, a railway station and several other buildings, killing scores and wounding even more. As of this moment, the identity of the attackers has yet to be definitively determined, though there are reports indicating some of the gunmen were Pakistani - at least nine of them have been killed, nine more arrested. As of this writing, there were a reported 195 people killed from 11 different countries - though nearly 100 was Indian. More than 300 injuries have also been reported - those numbers may yet rise as several hostage situations still exist in the city.

Someone told me, “there is no issue related to national security, while the election discussions were very hot, so don’t listen to Sen. McCain, GOP is using classic strategy of fear mongering. Terrorist attack soft targets... and they have attacked in pretty much every civilized country in the world... there is no way to stop them ... so get over Sept 11.”

After Bombay devastation, to those who have blamed President Bush Government and White house for Fear mongering, I want them to look these pictures.
http://boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html

And tell me after 9/11 we do not have any attack on US Soil. Do you think this man deserves little credit? Election is over for god’s sack, please thinks wisely and fairly.

Being Indian citizen, I have been asked by so many Americans for my opinion, is every one of your family and friends alright, (Yes… thanks for asking… we live about 230 miles north of Mumbai). What you think, will India will start War against Pakistan, My answer to them – look at the reply “Terrorist attack soft targets... and they have attacked in pretty much every civilized country in the world... there is no way to stop them ... so get over Sept 11.” And tell me – what is going to happen. Indian leadership is a big pussy cat, they will make all possible noises, but at the end nothing is going to happen, since this time for the first time, there are some foreign nationals including Americans are killed, so it is made big issue. Or look at the recent past of the country as India, and you will find that there are so many attack happened involving Pakistan, and nothing had happened, and there is no reason in my mind, it will be any different this time. For counter attack, India needs head strong leadership like President Bush, who fought back. and being pro-active, he had brought war to terrorist, in their door step, instead of fighting on US soil. One willargue, the war has caused US Economy to go down, but in my language there is a saying "Paiso to Haath no Mel che - roughly translates to - Money is like dirt on your hand - you can earn it back", but teaching lession to these barberian terrorist is more important. Another saying in my language "Julm karne se bura hai Julm sahan karana - dar kar jine se accha hai Saamne Lad kar marana - roughly translates to - its better to fight and die than live under constant fear, the thing that is worse than do tyranny is to bear it ".
While I am writing i have another breaking news - about another bomb blast in Train in India in state of Assam.
GUWAHATI, India: At least 10 people were wounded after a bomb ripped through a passenger coach of a train in India's troubled state of Assam, officials said on Tuesday. (India has already Tuesday started, I am writing on Monday about 11.15 PM PST)
"So far we have information of ten people wounded, two of them are in serious condition," Jayanta Sarma, spokesman for the railways in Assam, told Reuters.
Read this for the details about other terrorist attacks on India here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India

How Obama Won the Election

On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.

The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
I want you to go and see this video on you tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
and tell me how balanced they were...

Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, Zogby has done a telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.

Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

I want you to go and see this video on you tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
Source: http://howobamagotelected.com/

and tell me How Obama Won the Election?

Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake...

 

I just have seen this in Washington DC!!! The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday. I did some research and found out that, last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

 

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwards spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."

 

My Analysis: It's the ultimate Grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ. Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting. Have you noticed how big the font for "Why believe in a god?" Have you noticed, "A God". This is clear attack on Christianity / Islam / Jew - all the religion who believe in "A God", especially Christianity right on Christmas.

And I am not Christian myself, huh...

 

One thing Fred Edwards said that is correct, no not that agonistics, atheists are awful lot... what I am referring is They are feeing little alone... But my question is why to insult who believe in God? I do believe in God in my own way and I think, its personal matter who you believe, what you believe and how you practice your religion. and If you don't... don't...

 

Looks like these so called agnostics or atheists, have decided to be different than rest of the society, thinking they are better than others, and people who believe in god are weak people. But now they seems to feel lonely especially during these days of religious holidays. and how they reacts? like this??? pathetic...

 

 

Is it not Obama's Hypocrisy?

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
Isn't this the same Guy who was defending himself telling that its nothing but "Guilt By Association", when his relationship with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalidi ... are being questioned. When his association with Acorn was being questioned.
Looks like Mr. Obama himself will not pass his own questionnaire - he is using to evaluate to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. Is it not that Obama is using different scale for measuring himself and the others? Is it not called Hypocrisy?
here is the definition:
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.
For linguist and social analyst Noam Chomsky, hypocrisy, defined as the refusal to "...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others"[1][2] is one of the central evils of our society--promoting injustices such as war[3][4] and social inequalities in a framework of self-deception, which includes the notion that hypocrisy itself is a necessary or beneficial part of human behavior and society.[5] [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Something to think about...

President-Elect Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

Election is over... people has chosen the one they think will help them... but in the series of what is coming under Obama Administration, here is a post... all the best guys for that wishful Tax benefit you were hoping for...

I confess. Senator, and now President-elect, Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working legal allion, over the past 8 years I've earned from $45,000 to $100,000 per year. If he is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and saving for the colledge for my two kids and house and preparing to start my own business, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

Lapse Bush Tax Cuts

The first loophole was relatively easy to find: Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference????????????????????
Neither do I...
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or about half an year of groccery in my house hold. No matter what Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse. For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Obama has willfully deceiving you and me when he has said that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.

Remove Cap on Payroll Tax
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website. This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
Capital Gain Tax

Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes. Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Raise Taxes on Business

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 and i have worked with Business closely. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid. This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. And that's the truth.

Obama Won election what is next...

Some days back (before election) i had written an email to one of my long time idea contributor, who lean towards Obama.
Here is the content:
(Obama Says,) McCain is like Bush, look at his record, he voted 90% of time with Bush - we need change - Don’t trust what McCain says, look his records... But trust me - I will lower your tax - because I say so.. even though my records shows I have always voted for higher taxes all 94 times I got chance. Even though I have plans to spend another Trillion dollars + in new government spending on top of current deficit or equal amount.. I will produce this money by magic - I am Messiah, I can make rum out of water.. Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My plan will not increase any tax for people earning 250,000 Dollars, even though infomercial I endorsed say 200,000. that is just campaign gaffe. even though my running mate Biden say 150,000 - its another gaffe, it doesn’t matter... trust me... trust me... trust me...
I don’t believe in socialism, just spread the wealth around... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
some time it really makes me think, how one in right mind can agree that by increasing taxes to the corporations employing very high number or people can make them grow / make them. What principle of economy will make that happen? But again... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My question remained stranded, as the response i got from him was "Well 1 more week ... and we will have 4 years to see what happens."
Election night was over - about 11 ESt it was declared, OBAMA is president elect. I went to bad after hearing his speech.
Next day on, co-incidentlly, i was travelling and I have visited two states. Minnesota and Long island, both blue. Every evening i am meeting so many people who voted for OBAMA, feel emotional about OBAMA. Iask the same question to them, how will OBAMA produce those 3 Trillion dollar for the deficite and the new expense. and no one yet have given me answer - but puzzled blank stare back to me.
But one of the barman gave me straight answer yesterday, he will not be able to find that money, and thus he will not be able to fulfill his promises he has given.
In other words, through out his campaign, while promissing to the people which he know he will not be able to fulfil. I mean, if i can think this much, i am sure, Mr Economy Expert, Obama, should be able to know - isnt it? and if it is, is it not called Dishonesty? i will let you decide...

Ok.. let us go ahead... i was watching, CNN, ABC and others, so called balanced medias (See some old posts), Other than, obviously repeatadly the same sound bytes from OBAMA victory speech. and all crying and happy and emotional African american, keep reciting the past - how bad it was - and how this victory is historical, how it is fulfilment of Dr King's Dream and so and so on....
But hiding in these emotional mumbo jumbo... they have started following a hiddne agenda...

Here is the part of speech, where Obama has given a cue to America - he will not be able to fulfil his promises.. sorry guys... i have used you, by promissing so much.... too bad now i am president elect - i dont need you - and here is what is coming....

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
So All the best guys... for your trust in his promises....
we talked about the tone he is setting, and now about media... they have started their assigned work... by Obama to help resetting the mass expectation low... and all the news channels i am hearing, has one message to pass "President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations"
Here is what you should expect hearing now for few months to come:

• The deficit will be more than $1 trillion a year for several years
• The country needs a massive new fiscal stimulus
• The housing market will continue to decline through at least 2010
• Interest rates and taxes will eventually have to rise (after the economy stabilizes)
• Weak corporations have to be allowed to fail
• Millions of homeowners will lose their house
• Unemployment will probably rise to 10%
• The government simply cannot "bail the country out" -- not because it lacks the will, but because it lacks the power

So be ready for all the reversal of his promises... and as i am writting, this i have heard the news about New York mayor' Message "be ready for higher sales tax and income tax"

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- New York City, , must roll back a property tax cut and reduce its workforce by 3,000 to help shrink a $4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. The job cuts, including the firing of 500 workers, and a 7 percent property tax increase starting in January. He also seeks to rescind a $400 homeowner rebate, producing $256 million. "We cannot justify sending out the checks,'' Bloomberg said
The proposed increase in personal income tax would hit the middle class, costing those who earn $50,000 to $90,000 about $116 to $356 more next year, according to City Hall's estimates.
first indication - whats coming... All the best...

Fair and Balance Media in election 2008

According to a report, the media have spent twice as much money traveling with the Obama campaign as with John McCain. The Politico newspaper reports Federal Election Commission records from the time they announced their candidacy through the end of September, show the press spent $9.6 million on hitting the trail with the Obama camp versus $4.4 million on McCain's.
The gulf in spending is due in part to Obama's prolonged battle with Hillary Clinton and his costly trip to the Middle East and Europe, but the Politico says, "The gap shows more media interest in traveling on the Obama Express than the Straight Talk Express."
The most one-sided TV network was CBS. It spent $1.2 million traveling with Obama and just $222,000 on McCain. The most balanced was FOX News, which spent $496,000 on Obama and $313,000 on McCain.

You decide - who the main stream media in tank for - do you need any more proof?

Economic Bailout - Truth, Fiction and real question

Obama says bailout a step in the right direction

According to AP WASHINGTON — Ahead in the polls with less than a week before the election, Barack Obama is taking to the air waves to promise a rescue plan for the middle class in troubled times.

In a 30-minute TV ad he bought on three networks, the Democratic presidential nominee said Wednesday night that the $700 billion bailout was "a step in the right direction." But he promised tax cuts and business credits to help more.

At White House, McCain Plays Bailout Spoiler

According to Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/at-white-house-mccain-pla_n_129438.html:

Inside an intense White House meeting over the financial crisis on Thursday, where nearly every key player came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package, Sen. John McCain stuck out. The Republican candidate, according to sources with direct knowledge, sat quiet through most of the meeting, never offered specifics, and spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.

McCain's reluctance to jump on board the bailout agreement could throw the entire week-long negotiation into a tailspin. Sen. Chris Dodd, after leaving the White House, suggested on CNN that the tenuous process could be derailed by what he viewed as McCain's political motives... and so and so on......

Most of the Blogs, News papers, Discussions, TV channels talks and talks around this bailout.. no one seems to tell you truth.. neither John McCain's Campaign is providing the explanation why McCain was no supporting the bailout. Every one took it for granted like Sen. Chris Dodd... McCain's political motives... and republican policy to be against government takeover...

But I had recently got chance to read some article in some law Journal - and that had open my eyes. I am trying to give justice to put content from there:

The real question - that no one is asking - Is the Bailout Constitutional?

In the current crisis, bank runs and other forms of financial panic could lead to the collapse of the country's or even the world's economic edifice. Extraordinary measures might be in order. In extremis, it may seem quixotic to question the constitutionality of the federal bailout-but it's essential nonetheless. one might say, "Save your ivory-tower doubts for the law journals.", "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Douse the flames first; then repair the bad wiring. But a declaration of unconstitutionality, if justified, serves three vital purposes. It imposes a heavy burden on proponents of the bailout to explain why the Constitution can be violated with impunity. It reinforces the case for abandoning the program once any true emergency has passed. And it helps establish a presumption against adopting similar measures that might be proposed to resolve future "emergencies.". and as you can see, one after the other bailouts are keep coming - latest in series as on today's news is Detroit carmakers.

Some experts, believe that alternative proposals (perhaps even constitutional proposals) could achieve the desired ends without socializing the financial sector and without establishing statist precedents that could haunt us for decades or longer. Opponents of the bailout are unconvinced when media pundits and presidential candidates carp about the failure of deregulation, the need for immediate government intervention, and the final days of capitalism. According to bailout skeptics, government created this crisis-with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for "affordable" housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (See my previous articles) The predictable result of those perverse incentives: greater leverage and more risk. Heads, the private sector wins; tails, the taxpayer loses. Critics ask why a solution to the problem should now be entrusted to the bureaucrats who got us into this mess. On that question, I concede insufficient expertise. More important, events on the ground seem to have superseded the policy debate. The bailout moves ahead, never mind that many economists and public finance specialists insist it is more invasive than required and unlikely to address root causes. We embark on this adventure notwithstanding the controversy regarding its necessity and effectiveness. I turn, therefore, to the threshold question that should have, but has not been, adequately examined: Is the bailout constitutional?

No Authority

No Sir... The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers' money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.

Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

One possible rationale for the bailout is the all-encompassing commerce clause. As the country grew and some people came to believe that most of its problems required national regulatory solutions, Congress sought to find a specific constitutional power that would justify an ambitious federal agenda. The commerce clause became the vehicle of choice.

Yet that is not why the clause was written into the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce. Each state was free to advance local interests and to create barriers to trade without regard to possible prejudice to out-of-state interests. That process devolved into what Justice William Johnson, concurring in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), characterized as a "conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States."

The solution: a constitutional convention at which, "If there was any one object riding over every other in the adoption of the Constitution, it was to keep the commercial intercourse among the States free from all invidious and partial restraints.

Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs. That financial markets are interstate does not authorize the federal government to do anything and everything to manage those markets. The commerce power is to "regulate," but commerce is not regulated by eliminating private risk and substituting tax-funded handouts to favored economic actors. The Framers who crafted the commerce clause could not have intended to empower Congress to give an executive official virtual carte blanche over all financial institutions.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators' misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies, Car companies -and who knows where it stops. Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

Necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional.

To legitimately invoke the commerce power, Congress must show not only that a federal program is necessary, but also that it is proper-that is, the program does not violate other foundational principles, such as federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. Congress has not made that showing.

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the non-delegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paul son Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

True enough, the Supreme Court, in a series of cases beginning in 1928, condoned some forms of delegation. Legislators may delegate their authority, said the Court in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), so long as Congress "shall lay down ... an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized ... is directed to conform." What, then, is the intelligible principle to which Henry Paulson must conform? No one knows-least of all the taxpayers, who will bear the cost. "Make things better" is not an intelligible principle. These days delegation has become a formula for irresponsibility. Congress gets to claim credit for the supposed benefits of the bailout, yet dodge culpability for the associated costs.

But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that "the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands." The legislative power, wrote Locke, is "to make laws, and not to make legislators."

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.

Final Words...

Maybe the bailout is necessary. Maybe it will even work. But necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional. And constitutionality is not restored merely by the invocation of "emergency" by the administration and Congress.

Conservatives should have learned that lesson when the Great Depression drove the New Deal expansion of government. Liberals should have learned it more recently when civil liberties were compromised in pursuit of real and imagined terrorists. To preserve the rule of law, we must condemn all legislation that offends the Constitution-no matter how unlikely the prospect that courts will invalidate the offending acts; no matter how unwise, from a policy perspective, court intervention might be.

When policy is allowed to trump constitutionality, three choices are available to honest citizens. We can abandon the proposal and try to accomplish the desired ends using alternative but constitutional means. We can change the Constitution so that the proposal is no longer unlawful. Or, at a minimum, we can acknowledge the truth-that we are violating the Constitution in pursuit of demonstrably necessary ends, which could not be otherwise attained.

But we have chosen none of the above. Instead, we have proceeded with the bailout despite few, if any, cautionary words about its unconstitutionality. That's a recipe for lawlessness, not to mention a precedent that will rear its ugly head every time there's serious trouble that the federal government thinks it can fix.

Who Are the Villains of the Mortgage Mess?

I know by this time everyone has forgotten the Mortgage mess and the big bailout issue, to discuss other bailouts that came after that, but while browsing I came across this article from LA times on Oct 14, 2008, author: Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow specializing in tax issues and author of The Flat Tax: Freedom, Fairness, Jobs, and Growth. In his words...

 

In this current mess, one problem is identifying the heroes and villains in Congress. Many analysts conveniently dodge this question and instead make the rather novel claim that the turmoil in financial markets somehow is the result of deregulation. Yet the financial services industry is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the American economy, saddled with hundreds of laws, thousands of regulations and a plethora of government agencies. If red tape were the answer, this problem never would have happened.

Many lawmakers want more rules and regulation governing disclosure, ostensibly to protect consumers. But the existing policies already have created a jumble of legalese that even highly sophisticated borrowers have trouble grasping, so it is far from apparent how this would help. A far better approach would be sweeping deregulation, replacing all the current clutter with a simple, easy-to-understand disclosure form, such as the one proposed by Alex Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute (PDF).

Back to identifying the heroes and villains. To assign blame, it is first necessary to understand what caused the problem. At the risk of oversimplification, let's touch on three main causes of the financial turmoil and identify the culprits in the political world:

Problem No. 1-- easy-money policy from the Federal Reserve: In an ideal world, the Federal Reserve provides the liquidity needed to enable commerce but avoids excess liquidity to avoid either rising prices (which happens when excess money bids up consumer prices) or bubbles (which happens when excess money bids up asset prices). The Fed clearly failed in this regard, as evidenced by unsustainably low interest rates earlier this decade.

Culprits: Almost every single politician deserves a share of the blame. The political class likes easy money. In the early stages, inflation feels good. Voters feel like they have more money in their pockets and borrowers (who always outnumber lenders) like the artificially low interest rates. And that is why very few voices were raised against the Federal Reserve's policy.

Problem No. 2 -- corrupt subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: These government-sponsored enterprises were created explicitly to distort the flow of capital and encourage over-investment in residential real estate. Responding in part to campaign contributions (a clear conflict of interest), politicians dramatically expanded the power of Fannie and Freddie in recent years, thus creating widespread systemic risk because of the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee.

Culprits: Many politicians from both parties were recipients of campaign contributions from the Fannie and Freddie slush funds, though Democrats had their hands much deeper in the cookie jar. The Bush administration has a very dismal economic record, but the White House does deserve some credit for having tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie earlier this decade. Opponents, led by Democrats Barney Frank in the House and Chris Dodd in the Senate, blocked reforms that would have saved huge amounts of money for taxpayers.

Problem No. 3 -- the Community Reinvestment Act: Politicians imposed numerous regulatory burdens on financial institutions, but "affordable lending" requirements such as those imposed as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act were among the most perverse. In effect, banks were extorted into making loans to people who were not credit worthy. This added to the bubble and expanded systemic risk. It's also worth noting that poor people were victimized by this government policy, because many of them were lured into houses they could not afford.

Culprits: President Carter presumably deserves some of the blame because many of these policies were first imposed during his dismal reign, primarily with support from Democrats. But the so-called affordable-lending requirements were expanded during the Clinton and the current Bush administrations, so the GOP is not without blame.

And Obama is complaining falsely on Debate about people shout kill him

This is the second article in the same chain... of the article I had written on "Kill him"

 

While looking LA times today I found this article.. I request everyone to read and look complete video also. It shows not only the truth on left but also double standard existed for this anointed one and as usual decide yourself...

 

here is the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,541630.story

 

In the video - the person being interviewed told clearly - what she is seeing is ok to have - but if it would have been Barack Obama - she would light the house for doing it - and accepted that its her double standard.

 

and here is some content:

 

A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.

But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.

The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.

 

 

Obama connections are getting thicker

It seems like I keep reading article after article about Obama having some connection with some foul minded terrorist.  Well, if the media hasn't been on his side since the beginning… what more proof do you need than this?

 The L.A. Times is now refusing to release a video of Obama praising a man who is the mouthpiece for the PLO.

 I will cut and paste the article here to ensure that it does not disappear.

 The original article can be found here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

Click here to read the original LA Times story: 'Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama.'

In the article — based on the videotape obtained by the Times — Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Khalidi is currently the Edward Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia. A pro-Palestinian activist, he has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in the New York Times and Washington Times.

The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.

The newspaper reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

In recent months Obama has distanced himself from the man the Times says he once called a friend. "He is not one of my advisers. He's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said at a campaign event in May. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

But on the tape, according to the Times, Obama said in his toast that he hoped his relationship with Khalidi would continue even after the professor left Chicago. "It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table … [but around] this entire world."

A number of Web sites have accused the Times of purposely suppressing the tape of the event — which former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended.  

Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.

"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd — we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.

The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama for president on October 19.

"Kill him" - False allegation from Obama - Clear lying in Debate

I was seeing Third and final Debate and i heard this. here is link of Transcript of debate and part i am refering: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Obama: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line." Here is what Secret Service found:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded. The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama's name a man in the audience shouted "kill him." News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story. Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment. "I was baffled," he said after reading the report in Wednesday's Times-Tribune. He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton. Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell "kill him." "We have yet to find someone to back up the story," Slavoski said. "We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it." Hackett said he did not hear the remark. Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn't give a description of the man because he didn't see him he only heard him. When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, "We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that's really all there is." Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence "as far as we're concerned it's closed unless someone comes forward." He urged anyone with knowledge of the alleged incident to call him at 346-5781. "We'll run at all leads," he said.

Where to Cut Government Expenses

Same document mentioned in my previous post has this great detail on Page 11:
Nowhere To Cut?
• The federal government made at least $55 billion in overpayments in 2007.
• The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.
• Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare versus $50 billion on homeland security.
• Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards—subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want.
• Over half of all farm subsidies go to corporate farms with average household incomes of $200,000.
• Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion per year—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
• Congress appropriated $20 million for “commemoration of success” celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.
• Federal auditors estimate that $4 billion in Iraq-related spending is lost to corruption each year.
• Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.
• The CBO published a “Budget Options” book identifying $140 billion in potential spending cuts.
• Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act will add $2 billion to its total cost.
• The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration billed taxpayers for its 30th anniversary celebration in 2000 and then for its 200th anniversary celebration in 2007.
• Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines.
• The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
• Medicaid fraud and abuse are estimated to cost $15–$25 billion annually.
• Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling, $69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.
• Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
• Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers—the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.
• Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and at least one sex change operation.
• Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.
• Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.
• The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many containing Americans’ personal data.
• Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
• Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia. • Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737. • Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.
• The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
• The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.
Source: Dozens of public studies and reports compiled by the Heritage Foundation.

Now here is my Question: Do we run our household budget like this? If no, than why the country?

Over all Budget Trends

Hey Guys, look at this document :

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/federalspendingbythenumbers2008.pdf

Page 2:

I was shocked - hearing Last 8 years of failed economic policy argument - i was wondering it must be really bad, well it's feelign bad - no doubt about it..

Being a statistician - when i have looked this, few facts jumped at me:

Look at Revenue line...

1. Frm yr 1992 to yr 2000 (President Clinton's era) government icome started rising - How? i need to check, if its due to higher tax, which i will not be surprised if that comes out true.

2. It kept going up until 2001 (First year of President Bush)

3. Sharp decline little after 2001 until 2003 (9/11 incident and war)

4. Revenue stabilized and again started going up until 2006 (President Bush)
5. Revenue going down sharply just after 2006 until 2008 (Both Houses with Democrats)

Look at the Spending line...

1. Stedy but increasing pattern until 2001

2. bigger increase after 2001 until 2005 (War)

3. Stedy line for a yr and half until late 2006 (War)

4. Sharp increase 2007-2008 (War and Democrats in House)

My Impression...

- Bush policies were not that bad... (I cant believe i am saying this.. )

- 9/11 has caused temporary revenue to go down

- War has caused spending go up

- Democrats control houses has caused situation worse...

And Obama is telling everyone its Bush policy has caused this Economic Crisis - I am not buying this.

And Did I mention, even with the declined Revenue - it was over all time high... the problem is expenditure went higher... so i guess, the best solution i think is control spending going out of control...

Joe the Plumber

Last Presidential debate for Election 2008 is over. And only thing most of the people will remember probably will be "Joe the Plumber"
The Guy worked long hrs every day for past several years and now dreaming about buying the small business he work for, now figure under Sen. Obama's plan is going to have to pay more Taxes. And only thing Sen. Obama could reply to him in Ohio was - "we need to spread the wealth". Democrat mantra... Isn't it sounds like, what Joe the Biden said "It's time to be patriotic"
Now Let us analyse the situation: Per Obama and I quote "We have last 8 years of failed economical policy" and still Joe the Plumber could put together enough money to buy business, which he think he will make enough money that if Sen. Obama become President, he has to pay more taxes than if he is not.
So What it tells you - or should i say the Mccain way - I get it:
- Last 8 year's bad policy and people were still be able to put together money for American dream of owning business.
- Sen. Obama's Tax plan will kill Small Business as they have to pay more tax, the dream they work so hard for

I quote, 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.'

Obama said. "His campaign actually said, and I quote, 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.' "

I have heard so many times this exact sentence over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
I went on internet and try to figure it out myself, who could be the idiot enough to say that in public even if its true.. Found none, zilch, nada...
all I found is:
1. On October 4, the Washington Post wrote an article in which several Republicans signaled a change in McCain's strategy. The article quotes an unnamed "senior Republican operative"
2. An October 6 article in the New York Daily News quotes "a top McCain strategist" another unnamed quote

Can someone please help please who exactly quoted this quote coming out of Sen. Obama's mouth again and again... or it is just his strategy to tell lie again and again and full the people.

Looks like even CNN is not able to find proof for Obama and put this as disputed..

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/15/fact-check-did-mccains-campaign-say-it-needed-to-shift-focus-from-the-economy/

Heartless Mccain in Last Debat

Soem one sent me this email:
"How can you ever vote for a candidate - who thinks that allowing abortion for mother's health - is a stretch and "just eloquence" - shame."

I am sorry Mr. Democrat - I bag to defer here - Have you really watch the Debate or heard the talking point or just read on millions of blogs telling lies today.

here is real quote as I remember:

Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything.

This was in response to Obama saying - that he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother

The point if some one has little of mind - was eloquence of Obama - telling pro-abortionist stretch the meaning of the word 'Health of Mother' to almost anything. If Pro-Obama media wants to misinterpret and make issue out of it.. which I see they already have 1000's of blogs today are telling McCain heartless...

because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them


Come out of the talking point and use your mind...

Racism in Election affecting Obama

That day i was reading article in USA today. discussion racism may affect Sen. Obama this election. Bull****

They had whole nice table and graph for Obama Vs McCain supporters with respect to Race. I wish i could get that poll some how - i tried and so i actually am late putting it here.

as I remember 44% white supports Sen. Obama while 48% supports Sen. McCain. While 98% Blacks supports Sen. Obama vs. 2% supports Sen. McCain.

It was clear like day light to me - But no where in whole article, they were telling - Where is Racism here?

Is it in Whites? or In Blacks?

You decide...

My numbers may not be exactly right (bad memory) - but i can gurantee it has not been scewed just to present the fact, and they should be almost right

You are entitled to call me Racist, which i am not - am just presenting fact here

How Democrats Destroyed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Ace explains: How They Built the Bomb
The Men Who Built the Bomb: ... are all working as advisers to Obama now.
Penny Pritzker, "the Michael Milken of subprime mortgages," is Obama's Finance Chair.
Jim Johnson, disgraced former CEO of Fannie, was Obama's vice presidential search chairman, at least until he resigned under fire due to his role in providing subsidized sweetheart loans to Democratic Senators during his stint at CountryWide.
Franklin Raines, who participated in the accounting scandals to fix Fannie's books and deliver unwarranted bonuses to its top executives, is a top Obama adviser. Corrupt "Community Organizer" organization ACORN, an institutional ally of Barack Obama, lobbied Freddie and Fannie to extend even more risky loans to credit-poor borrowers in the interest of ending "racial redlining." But they didn't end "racial redlining." What they ended was any credit-checking at all, as subprime mortgage providers simply stopped verifying self-reported claims of income and in fact ended even the most basic prudential element of a mortgage -- the down payment.
"Fannie Mae is proud to work with ACORN Housing, " said Thomas Collins, Director, Single Family Business, and Fannie Mae. By working with ACORN and lenders like Citibank, we can support their efforts to expand homeownership opportunities for underserved communities at affordable price points achieve sustainable homeownership."
In this same speech, Collins referred to, Obama, and other members of the Black Congressional Caucus which had worked so diligently to craft the time bomb that would ultimately destroy two key segments of the American economy (both housing/home construction and the financial sectors), members of "the family."
Obama Economics Adviser Austan Goolsbee continued defending and lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry's no-money-down-no-credit-check policies at least until September of 2007.
McCain on Offense: The election turns on getting this message out. The pubic, wrongly in this instance, assumes that any Wall Street scandal is the fault of Republicans. If that assumption is permitted to stand, we lose the election.
. . . .
In the upcoming debate, McCain must read aloud from a sheet of paper his plan for fixing and averting the mortgage crisis by regulating Fannie and Freddie and other subprime lenders.
Then he should set the paper down. And announce those remarks are from a speech from 2005.
And that Democrats blocked his proposal.
Your risk, their reward. You put the money into their corrupt pockets which they then in turn donated to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama, who in turn dutifully kept the gravy train chugging along.
Congress Adjourning! Harry Reid admits he has no idea what to do. So he's packing it up, leaving yet another crisis on the table for more responsible people to figure out.
Actually, Harry Reid and the Democrats always knew what to do. They knew the problem was this trillion dollar giveaway to credit-poor homebuyers. They further knew that by making money for homes so cheap and so artificially plentiful, they were driving up the cost of homes to astronomical levels. That's the way it works -- the more cheap, devalued dollars chasing after goods, the more the good rise in price.
Ultimately people who were simply not credit-worthy enough to buy houses at all were not merely buying houses -- they were buying houses that were well beyond their means to purchase even in a normal market, but furthermore, were inflated in price to double their fair value. So ultimately these legions of bad-credit-risks found themselves paying mortgages valued at 150% or 200% or even more of what their actual homes were worth.
So what did they do? They did what anyone would do: They walked away from the mortgages.
They both hyperinflated the housing market and created the bubble, and put the American taxpayer on the hook for all the excesses they created. And would not check -- because they were too busy appeasing ACORN and taking money from Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Raines, Johnson, and Pritzker.
They created the housing bubble. They created the financial meltdown -- which occurred, inevitably, when the bubble burst.
And now they want to go home.
And they should. We don't need any more of this sort of wisdom.
I don't believe the federal government should be in the home mortgage business at all. The private sector is almost always better at these things.
Banks and insurance companies have been so heavily regulated for so long (for reasons that seemed benign at the outset) that much of the industry is a government-created mess, with normal market incentives distorted beyond recognition. One government-created problem begets the next one.
But most Democrats do believe the federal government should be in the mortgage business with programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is those Democrats in Congress who are responsible for shooting down John McCain's bill that could have headed off this very crisis.
Democrats, including Barack Obama, need to be held accountable for their bad judgment on this issue and others. If not, the latest crisis will be but one of many.

Free Disney park on your Birthday

Having a cute daughter of 7 and littel boy who is jsut 28 week, i thought this is a great offer when i have seen it...

Disney offering free admission on birthday in 2009
By BETH J. HARPAZ
AP Travel Editor
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

NEW YORK — Walt Disney Parks and Resorts announced a new promotion to admit visitors free on their birthdays next year.
“Every guest gets in free to one of our parks on their birthday in 2009,” Jay Rasulo, chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, said at a news conference in Manhattan.

Visitors will have to show valid identification and proof of birthdate to qualify. Details are available at www.disneyparks.com, where birthday visits can be registered in advance.
Mike Lynn, a professor of consumer behavior at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration, said admitting guests free to the parks on their birthdays could very well make money.
“The only thing they lose is the revenue from those people whose birthdays it is who might have come anyway,” he said. “Having an extra customer in the park doesn’t cost them anything. Those people are still a benefit because they have to buy food and drinks, and their friends and family are accompanying them.”
The birthday offer is part of a larger Disney promotion announced Thursday called “What will you celebrate?” It includes a 30-city tour with public events featuring Disney costumed characters, beginning in Minneapolis on Sept. 25 and ending in Phoenix in February. Disney will also start running “What will you celebrate?” TV ads featuring kids blowing out candles and brides in limousines.
In addition, the parks will offer buttons to wear that identify guests with phrases such as “Just Married,” “Just Graduated,” and “First Visit.”
“Our goal is to mark the special moments in your life in a way that your family will remember forever,” Rasulo said.
Peter Yesawich, a consultant on lifestyle trends, said at the Disney news conference that Americans often arrange vacations around personal milestones such as anniversaries and birthdays. He called the phenomenon “celebration vacations.”

What is Obama thinking?

I was reading CNN today, and i read this article....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/19/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCText
Has any one noted what i had noted?
After meeting with his economic advisors, Obama said his team would not present a detailed economic plan at this time, "given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke."

Obama said he would not present his plan until the Treasury and Federal Reserve have presented theirs.
Iam starting to believe McCains statement that "Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election". What type of game is this. Do he really have any plan? and if he has, why dont he present it. The only time i hide something from my co-worker is when either i dont have nothing to show or i want to play credit game, where i want to get the credit of being the best idea...

That's shallow.. Anybody... Are you finding any other logical reason behind, why he need to hide.. If i were him, i will do what ever I can help country. What is more important? Nation or Election? You decide...

Swdeshi Movement and Hurricane Ike - Keep the Dollar within country

As the people in Texas and surrounding areas rebuild their lives after Hurricane Ike, I wonder how many of them realize they have a unique opportunity to help rebuild America at the same time.

They have the opportunity to help themselves, their children, their sisters and brothers, their friends, their neighbors and virtually every American worker.

They can help as they buy new clothing, home furnishings, household appliances, home repair items, toys for their children, bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks or whatever their purchases might be.

The unique opportunity is: Make the right choice and buy American-made products from American companies and help keep Americans working.

So not only, Oil the one place where we want to break our dependancy on Foreign nations, but also for other items that we are not looking as significant.

Benefit 1: The Economy
The Economy - by spending money to buy American made products from American company, keeps the money in the country instead of draining it out to China. The way i think, its going on since few years is - you spend your $ on china made items, keeping some profit aside, that $ is going to China... and than China is giving US the same $ as loan... So why we cant keep our $ in our country.

Since last few years, there is continous increse in gap between goods/ services we export vs. we import... we are importing more and more and that is the problem.
This reminds very old strategy used while fighting for independance against british by Ghandhiji...

Swadeshi movement / Self-sufficiency: (Hindi: स्वदेशी) This movement, part of the Indian independence movement, was a successful economic strategy to remove the British Empire from power and improve economic conditions in India through following principles of swadeshi (self-sufficiency). Strategies of the swadeshi movement involved boycotting British products and the revival of domestic-made products and production techniques. Swadeshi, as a strategy, was a key focus of Mahatma Gandhi who described it as the soul of Swaraj (self rule).

If back then India can think and use this strategy, I guess, technically sound nation like US can do this very easily...

Benefit 2 - The Budget Deficit
Working Americans pay local, state and federal taxes.
Our tax dollars are used for many things, but they also go to work in times such as this, to provide a multitude of services way too broad to list, in areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.

The United States government is much like a household. It needs money coming in to provide not only the services we often take for granted, but also to provide aid during times of natural disasters.

And both of these are the power that runs the Engine of local economy which is slowing down.

Barack Obama interviewed by Bill O'Reilly - All here

Since i have learned how to embed you tube videos - i thought it makes sense to give single place for the interview chain for any one who wants to see it as whole. so here it is:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Putting lipstick on a pig

Barack Obama is quoted to say, “You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
Republican Claims
The problem according to the McCain people, is that it was too close to Sarah Palin’s stump speech phrase, “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
As a result, the McCain campaign is saying that Obama called Palin a pig. And they went hog-wild in responding to the alleged smear. “Ultimately, I think the American people will realize that calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see when we supposedly are going to have this great debate that is the politics of hope,” they say. And they have put together campaign add immediately :

Barack's people responded
"Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run."

My Take
I agree with Barack's camp on one thing. Any one who has seen complete speech and not only campaign add put together by McCain camp will also agree with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg
This is common analogy. Here is somethign i have found in book of knowledge:
A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people. Car salesmen are generally good at "putting lipstick on a pig" because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of shit and try and hide their shitfulness by tarting them up. Example: The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of shit. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig

Where I Disagree
Where I disagree with Barack's camp is, the argument that Sen. McCain has used the same for Hillary's healthcare plan and Hillary had not used lipstick in her speech. And if I put myself in shoes (Or Sandles) of Democrate faminist groups it definitely has sexism touch, though that is not how i think myself.
What i believe is that Barack is not fool, unless I am wrong about him, to use this cheap shot and loose his credibility as different candidate. Which I think day by day more and more people thinks he is not.
Second traditionally, VP candidates are for attacking opponent President and VP candidates and not President hopeful normally does attacking. Where Barack proved surprisingly he is different candidate, he has used his acceptance speech more to attack Sen. McCain and President Bush in absence of VP candidate, more than Biden did in his speech.
Keeping this issue aside, in my mind he is making bigger mistake of attacking Gov. Sarah Palin himself, because by doing so he is actually raising her at his level. And that is helping McCain - Palin camp more than anything else.

McCain's VP Pick

Not sure why everyone was so surprised. Sherlock homes might say, its elementary my dear Watson... I am surprised, why others had not seen it coming. I was sure either the choice would be African American or Woman all along.

Same reason why Obama has chosen Biden. he has chosen someone who had quality he was criticized for. He must had to find some one with experience, just to show experience on ticket. And today, McCain has chosen a women who is not Washington celebrity, what Obama campaign is criticizing about McCain and he is long time in Washington, who not only could show breath of fresh air in Washington on ticket but also can help pull Hillary support women's Votes. If you think it’s the kind of master stroke from McCain. which proves he is better ready for the Job.

Today I have overheard Democrats criticizing McCain's choice, as she has no experience - ROFL Don't you find it funny. Actually she got more experience than your Presidential candidate, the community organizer, absentee Senator, Obama. In US there is no roll for VP post until President dies or something. so Biden's experience is only useful in event of death of Obama. And Governor Palin's inexperience is only harmful in even of death of McCain. and that is as likely as unlikely Obama's. and in worst case we are still better off with Governor Palin than Sen. Obama experience wise.

Palin, was elected governor in 2006 after defeating incumbent governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election. She was the youngest person, and the first woman, to be elected governor of Alaska. Before becoming governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council from 1992 to 1996, and was elected and re-elected mayor of Wasilla for two three-year terms in 1996 and 1999. She also ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002. So in my mind she got Executive experience for at least 12 years, 2 years as Governor and 10 as city Mayor. What is Obama's Experience?
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

My take on Obama's Acceptance Speech

I had seen it last night on TV the whole speech and here is my take:

He is great showman. He had handled it well. That was one extra-ordinary and expensive show he had put together in Mile-High stadium with money he had collected from poor fellows who trusts him. He could have used the money for better cause. A trivial point. The temple stage set at Invesco Field was obviously a knockoff of the Pergamum Altar in the quite wonderful Pergamon Museum in Berlin, put together by Middle East history academicians in the early 20th century. Did Barack Obama have time in his visit to Berlin (when he didn't have time to fly to see the wounded American soldiers in Ramstein) to visit the Pergamon Museum? Just asking. It's something every cultured person should see.

Now about his speech, he was sounded more like broken record, repeating what he was talking on campaign speech. he seems lost and thought he forgot that he was doing acceptance speech and not campaign speech. he did more bush bashing than anything else. Just a reminder, Bush is not running for president. Second most thing he had done is tried to make McCain look bad instead of making him look better. The notion that John McCain is the (90 percent) same as George W. Bush. But that's pretty easy to refute. Temperamentally, on a variety of high-profile issues, McCain has been over many years at odds with Bush. Now that’s how I have perceived his 75% of speech.

Now let us talk his 25% of speech: He had said many things as "I will see X Y Z ..." that reminds me more like "Rajiv Gandhi" X prime minister of India... His favorit words "Hame Dekhana hai"... Just words... Just speeches.
Though the speech was powerful, that I must say. I always say, he is great orator no doubt about that - but he is nothing but empty suit, empty words. he is nothing but opportunistic guy changes his stands as poll dictates.

Now let us see the stands he had changed right in the meeting, right in front of millions of people, he had said McCain's Energy plan of "All of the above" like its his plan. he told he will go for Wind, Cole, Nuclear, Domestic drilling, Bio-fuel. You and I had long talk what was his energy policy and why he thinks, we should not drill here, or why he is not for Nuclear or Coal.... do you remember or forgot all about it... now since he said that its his plan all along.

Another thing he has repeated "Because, in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill." from his speech in 2002.
The senator from Illinois has his own tales to live down as well. For example, during a speech in 2002 Obama gave us a heart-rending story of his grandfather's service in uniform during World War II. "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army," stated Obama. "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain."
All this would be great if it weren't pure fiction. For starters, the Nazis destroyed the Treblinka death camp in 1943 after shooting the last prisoners, a group of Jewish girls. Then there is the problem of the locations of Treblinka and Auschwitz. Both Nazi death camps were located inside Poland. Thus, no American troops ever entered the camps until years after the war was over. Auschwitz was taken by the Soviet Union after the Nazis evacuated most of the prisoners. The retreating Nazis left those too weak or sick to walk behind. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them on Jan. 27 1945. So unless Obama's Grandfather was working for Joe Stalin, liberating Europe in a Soviet Army uniform, he was not likely to hear stories about Auschwitz or Treblinka from his fellow soldiers.

Another thing, his change of style. he was pretending more of angree-young man than old thoughtful himself which brings him where he is. so not sure at this point what is real OBAMA.
This seems to be more of an indictment of feckless and vacuous media sloth than a reflection of the character and qualities of the candidates.