THE DEMOCRATS WANT A BAILOUT NOT A FIX!

As predicted, the Democrats do not want to overhaul the financial regulatory system to check the reckless financial behavior by people and institutions; no they want a bailout, plain and simple.

The Democrats want to let judges erase some mortgage debt for homeowners in bankruptcy. To me, you bought it, you pay for it – it is that simple. I suggested compelling lenders to re-negotiate payment terms but not to forgive the debt; that is plain insane.

They want the federal government go into debt counseling – why? There is enough self help information out there for free but if you need personal assistance, there are companies that provide that to – why should our government take those jobs from companies providing that service – we need every job out there.

The Democrats also want to give home builders tax breaks and somehow reverse falling home prices – how?

This is the fear I have of Democrats controlling Congress; they are socialists and closet Communists, they feel they can solve all problems by throwing more money at them. They want to coddle the population instead of teaching it to survive.

Please remember that during the Great Depression of the 1930, FDR tried many different ways to help the people and stimulate the economy (he gets an A for effort) BUT none of his gimmicks worked and only WWII brought an end to the depression.

We have come a long way since the 1930s and have learned what we did wrong back then so lets not repeat them! Listen to the economists that know what should be done and many say update the financial regulatory system to address modern financial problems so we don’t get blindsided again – take control and regulate accordingly but let the market heal itself like it has in the past.

As to the people and institutions in trouble right now; well there is really not much that can be done short of the Democrat’s imbecilic notion to forget and forgive debts. The Fed took some unprecedented steps with Bear Stearns to stop a potential dominos effect on Wall Street but the jury is still out on whether that was a wise move.

Fiscal Conservatives believe that people and financial institutions should be responsible for their financial actions and suffer the consequences of those actions and maybe learn a thing or two along the way.

I am not convinced at this juncture that we should do otherwise.

OUR ECONOMY IS A CHANGING...

Let’s talk a little about our economy and economics in general.

There are today, frantic calls from the public and politicians for the federal government to do something – immediately – to help the worsening economic situation in this country. This to me is a scary situation because when politics start playing a role in economics; things can quickly get out of hand.

Because our financial industry has changed dramatically over the last few years; we have no precedents to go by so economists need to study what is going on and make some serious and sober suggestions and not just “bail out” every person and every company that is in financial peril.

I will blame our government for the “foreclosure / credit” disaster we are now experiencing. When purchasing my first home I was told that there are very strict financial requirements that I need to meet or I would not be allowed to obtain a home loan. I needed 20% down, have money in the bank, a good job, a secure future earning capacity and a spotless financial record.

Obviously, all those strict rules were thrown out the window when non-banks were allowed to enter the mortgage market. These non-bank companies did not care if you could afford your house; they sold your mortgage (sub-prime) to an investor as soon as they closed on it. They made their money, screw the rest!

Why didn’t our government move in to regulate this new industry? People that never had a chance at owning their own home now could; isn’t that great! Money was being made hand over fist and the government was collecting a lot in taxes. Wall Street was happy as shit cause young millionaires were devising more and more, totally bullshit “investment instruments” based on these bullshit mortgages and generating revenue like mad!

Why in the hell would our government want to mess-up a great party like that?

Was anyone paying attention to what could happen to our economy if the inevitable happened; unqualified home buyers could not pay their monthly mortgages?

Now we all realize that YES there should have been regulation and rules but the BUSH administration is having problems with that because they don’t want to “over regulate”, in fact, they don’t want to regulate at all but somehow logic dictates that something needs to be done.

Now I am pretty conservative when it comes to finance and I would always want the “market” to regulate and control itself but since Wall Street has started inventing new money making schemes that can be reckless and irresponsible; some form of regulation or at least a “watchful eye” on their doings, would be very prudent at this time, especially when, as in the Bear Sterns case, they could not police themselves.

The mortgage industry definitely needs some control. I am not advocating going back to the old days where it was VERY hard to get a loan but look what NO rules created, a bloody mess so I think some “intelligent” regulation is in order.

Should we bail-out the people that are in foreclosure on their homes? That is a difficult question where obviously greedy lenders and stupid buyers are at fault.

No one really wins in a foreclosure except for the companies that do the paperwork, so it is in the best interest of both parties if a new, realistic mortgage could be agreed on. The bank gets their money back with interest and the homeowners keep their homes; the government can order lending institutions to negotiate in good faith.

Some politicians are calling for a bail-out where the government would buy the bad loans from the lenders and this would be a BIG mistake because our government, or we taxpayers, would be stuck with the bill.

I will have more on this because this week in Washington is when Congress will debate this whole issue and the Democrats, as always, want tax payer money to bail-out everybody.

Note: Now that our government bailed-out a Wall Street firm, the Democrats are saying, now bail-out the little guy.

THE CITY OF DETROIT IS DIVIDED IN HALF!

Some say that in polite society, one should not discuss sex, politics or religion; or for that matter, race.

Well, I beg to differ; it is time people did discuss race and I mean all people, white and black as a means of learning something about each other. Barack Obama, who is basically a white person in dark skin, knows both sides. He was abandoned by his Kenyan father at 2 and raised by his white mother and white grandparents - so is he white or black and why does he have to run as a “black” and not a “white” in dark skin? Is it how you look on the outside or on the inside that counts?

Anyway, the saga of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick raises a historic opportunity to see the changing face of race from the black side. Detroit is basically black with a smattering of Latinos and whites here and there but 80-90% black.

This morning’s papers reported that a recent poll found the city divided in half about the mayor’s case. One half supports the mayor and the other half want him gone. As I have suggested in my previous comments; this is a battle between the old school blacks and the new school blacks (I made up the designations for the purpose of identity).

The old school blacks met at the Shrine of the Black Madonna Church last night in support of the mayor. Speaker after speaker blamed the “suburbanites”, read “whites”, for trying to weaken if not destroy the mayor because he is a symbol of black power.

This theme has been echoed many times in the past when the “white” state of Michigan took over the Detroit Public School system because it was totally dysfunctional, run by corrupt and inept administrators who neglected the student’s (black) welfare to line their own pockets. You would think Detroiter’s would have thanked the State for stopping or trying to fix this abysmal situation. No, the cry went out that whites were trying to steal power from the black community to run their own affairs even if all evidence pointed to the fact that they could not run their own affairs.

The mayor’s supporters (including many prominent church pastors) along with city whites, ignored the fact that crimes have been committed by the mayor and painted him as the victim of a power grab by “others”. The mayor himself said that, and I paraphrase, others have done worse things and have remained free; in essence, minimizing what he did in relation to all the “good” that he has done and is capable of doing in the future.

A very diverse group of Detroit women also went on TV in support of the mayor saying he is a huge asset to the city and should not be compromised by these insignificant legal charges; just make them go away. The fact that this was an all-female group spoke to the infidelity charge; we forgive him, he is only a man like the rest of them and can’t help himself.

A special, very expensive public relations woman / firm was hired to orchestrate this whole charade and by the looks of things, she is doing a hell of a job which begs another question; who is paying for all this and what do they expect in return?


But enough about the old school blacks; what about the blacks on the other side, the ones I call new school? The way the media describes this group, they are a group that does not want to remain isolated by race, they want to be part of the greater society; a society that wants to eliminate race as a divider. In the case of this specific issue, they want to be known as just “responsible Detroiters” who will no longer put up with a politician and a political system in the city that mocks the law, mocks the citizens of Detroit and in a greater sense, insults the black community by intimating that blacks are somehow above or exempt from the rules that guide American society as a whole.

The above, I think, is a crucial point in this whole sad, sordid affair. I think the city of Detroit is at a juncture where things can remain the same which means sinking lower and lower or things can change, finally, for the better. Just getting rid of Kilpatrick will not solve all the problems right away but replacing him with someone that will not answer to or depend on the entrenched black city “mafia” would be a great start.

Does such a person exist? Well he or she probably does exist but is not visible at this point in time. This person will need to step up to the plate and announce themselves as a candidate to be the leader of a new Detroit. I have my fingers crossed.

Note: To the people that are squeamish about my views on race for whatever reasons they may have; I want to reiterate that I am a history nut, a religious history nut as well as an observer and commentator on our world as it passes by my window. I may not always see things as others do or even, for that matter, correctly but it is my view, based on my perceptions and my experiences and my erudition and as long as I am allowed to voice my opinions freely, I will do so but I will also welcome and embrace constructive criticism.

CANNOT WIN IRAQ WAR!

A quick note on our War in Iraq and why it cannot be won and why now after five (5) years and over 4,000 dead, we are no closer to a resolution there.

Today’s news carried stories of heavy fighting between the IRAQI SECURITY FORCES and the MAHDI ARMY of Moqtada al-Sadr.

Just so we are perfectly clear, both sides are IRAQI and both sides are mainly SHIITE.

We know that SUNNIS fight SHIITE but here we have two groups from the same religious camp BUT from different political groups.

In essence, the Iraq Security Forces are from the so-called Iraqi central government; the ruling body in Iraq. The other belongs to an anti-US cleric. They are fighting for control of territory; plain and simple.

If Shiites are fighting Shiites, how can we expect Sunnis and Shiites to co-exist in a single country with a single central government – they can’t and that is what I have been saying from the beginning.

DIVIDE THE COUNTRY INTO THREE (3) PARTS AND SHARE THE OIL REVENUE.

So simple, even a dumb-ass like Bush should be able to understand.

The Old Black School of Politics!

Everybody should have heard of our illustrious mayor’s (Kwame Kilpatrick) indictment for perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc. – it’s on all the channels locally and nationally and maybe even on some international stations. The coverage is non-stop.

The mayor has hired a top gun lawyer and is vowing he will be exonerated, vindicated and all the usual drivel coming from the accused. He is also refusing to resign despite a huge cry for resignation from the media and the citizens of Detroit. The mayor’s lawyer says he should not resign because he has not been tried in a court of law and therefore has not been found guilty of anything – presumed innocent?

It is here that I have a problem.

Text message transcripts prove that the mayor is guilty of all charges; he cannot be found innocent. His lawyer claims that the text messages were obtained illegally and will be inadmissible as evidence – without them, they have nothing!

The fact remains that text messages exist which is proof positive that he did commit the crimes he is charged with; how can he claim that he will be cleared of all charges?

I guess you can be guilty but if the prosecutor cannot prove your guilt to the jury then you are judged not guilty?

O.J. Simpson was guilty as hell of double murder but he was found not guilty; does that make him not guilty? Well in the eyes of the law I guess he is not guilty and the jury of his peers found him not guilty – that is how our legal system works - right?

So even if his smart lawyer can work magic and the jury does not somehow find overwhelming evidence of guilt and has to acquit him; everyone will know that he is still guilty but he beat the system. How does that make our system of jurisprudence look to the rest of the world?

Let me ask a hard question – is it a Black thing? I am talking about a cultural difference. The governor of New York just resigned after being discovered using a prostitution ring for personal service. He did not challenge the obvious facts; he knew he could no longer remain in his job or perform his job after his secret life was discovered – same for the governor of New Jersey.

How is the black mayor of Detroit different? How can he remain in office when the facts absolutely point to his guilt? Is “beating the system” ala’ OJ somehow the “cool” thing to do and if you can do it, you are OK to continue your life as if nothing has happened?

I think this may have been a truism in the past; a past many in the black community are trying to leave behind. Detroit is a black city and is mainly run by blacks. The prosecutor bringing the charges against the mayor is female and black. Citizens calling for the mayor’s resignation are black. The “man” is no longer the hated white man; if you beat the system, you are sticking it to a black “man” or in this case to a whole “black” city – who are you really hurting here?

Our mayor was raised in the old school of black politics; he is not used to the new, black school of politics, ala’ Obama, et. al.

Mayor Kilpatrick surrounded himself with black friends and associates from grade school, high school and family members from Detroit; insulating himself from the outside with a bunch of loyal to the core chums that would never go against him. He rewarded those chums with anything and everything they could get out of the city; provided so naively by the impoverished citizens of Detroit. After all, Coleman Young, the “famous” mayor of Detroit did it just that way; why not talented Mr. Kilpatrick.

Let us see if anything has changed in the city and in the black community at large; should be interesting.

SECOND AMENDMENT QUESTIONS!

The Supreme Court is hearing a “gun” case for the first time since the 30s. I find this very interesting since I have been studying the Supreme Court and especially how it deals with our Bill of Rights which was added to our Constitution to protect “our rights”.

The case involves the ban on handguns Washington, DC has imposed for the last 30 years. Some lady filed suit claiming it is her right under the Second Amendment to own a handgun to protect herself in her own home. OK?

We have a number of issues here but an important one, I think, is that Washington, DC does NOT ban rifles, shotguns or any guns other than handguns so all these non-handguns could ostensibly be used to protect your home if you so desired. I will admit that handguns are smaller and easier to keep around the house and I suppose, for a woman, much easier to handle when aiming at an intruder although a shotgun would be the weapon of choice for a shaky female.

My point in this blog is NOT whether a person has a right to own a gun(s); it is about whether the Second Amendment gives him that right which has been claimed by the NRA, etc. for many years.

The Supreme Court has judges that believe the Constitution should be interpreted and read just like the writers intended (strict constructionists) and judges that believe the Constitution is a “living” document and should be “liberally” interpreted with current conditions in mind and not how things were when the document was written.

Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” – that’s it folks!

Historians agree that the original intent was to give each state a means to protect themselves since the central / federal government may not have been, at that time, able to provide adequate security. Some historians say that this amendment could have been added to the Constitution as a means of Free States to protect themselves from an overzealous federal government?

A state militia, in those days, consisted of residents of the state that were usually required to have a weapon (gun) at home and to bring said weapon when an alarm went out from the state to muster and defend the state.

Now this is what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote it; every state has a right to defend itself through a “well regulated militia” not a bunch of yahoos with guns – kapish?

As time went on, state militias evolved into national guards like the Michigan National Guard, which were usually used when the governor of a state deemed necessary to protect the citizens of the state. The National Guard is well regulated by the state and uses weapons just like the federal military does – in essence, the citizen militia envisioned by the Second Amendment no longer exists; it is now a national guard made up of state citizens.

People who see the Second Amendment as a guarantee for Americans to own guns only read the part of the Second Amendment that they want “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. You may say that is “taking words out of context” which people have done with the Bible as well as other books throughout history and obviously, to this very day – BUT is that right?

Usually, if the Constitution does not address a specific issue, that issue is given over to the individual states to decide how to handle that specific issue. Since the Second Amendment obviously does NOT give individuals a right to bear arms but only “well regulated militias” – our National Guard – then the Supreme Court should say that they, as the interpreters of the Constitution, do not have a right to judge / decide whether individuals have a right to bear arms and send the issue to the states to decide.

The individual states may amend their constitutions to allow individuals to bear arms based on whatever rationale they want to use – protect the home is a good one.

I think the current Supreme Court members are too full of themselves to do the right and Constitutional thing to do – no – they want to be in the history books. The ironic thing about all this is that the conservative judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia, who usually are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, now will liberally interpret the Constitution just to suite their personal preferences – what a bunch of horseshit if you ask me.

Do I think people should be allowed to own guns, even handguns? Well, I think the citizens of each state should decide that. I know other countries have a strict ban on handguns (because they can be easily concealed) and, they say, they have less armed crime than the U.S. does, well OK but Americans are different and that may not work here.

I do believe that guns that are not suitable for home protection or hunting but more suited for the commission of crimes, should be banned.

I hope you understand my Constitutional point – many in this country, obviously don’t.

IRAQ WAR IS NOW FIVE YEARS OLD!

The Iraq War is now five (5) years old. John McCain and VP Chaney are there visiting while we speak. Both are claiming that the war is a success and progress is being made and I say bullshit to all of that.

Chaney is there to urge the government to go a little faster in taking over operations in the country but we all know that this is an impossibility since there are three (3) factions in Iraq that will not agree to a united government or even sharing power in one government.

McCain keeps harping on the fact that al-Qaeda will follow us home if we leave Iraq. That is so stupid it isn’t funny anymore. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we invaded Iraq; they were not in Iraq when Hussein was in charge; Bush allowed al-Qaeda to become a force in Iraq and this point must be hammered over and over again to emphasize over and over again that Bush & Chaney fucked up big time and need to pay for their mistake!

Leave Iraq and let the chips fall where they fall. We have already wasted 4,000 American lives there; how many more are we willing to sacrifice for a never ending war; at least if we allow one side to win, we will have an end to this debacle.

Bush does not want to divide Iraq like many have urged as the only realistic solution so someone else will need to step in and do what is right. This will not be McCain and so I am waiting to hear what Obama and Hillary will propose.

The Iraq War needs to become an issue again and American voters need to listen to each candidate’s plan for Iraq and vote accordingly. We need the money being spent on Iraq here at home.

If you haven’t noticed, our economy is taking a direct hit and will worsen a lot before it starts getting better. Billions going over to Iraq on a regular basis with nothing to show for those billions must stop as soon as possible – we cannot buy peace!

RACISM FROM THE BLACK SIDE!

The issue of “RACE” has been raising its ugly head and not in a way you would imagine.

Barack Obama’s Christian pastor was shown on a tape giving one of his sermons. The sermon was as racist as they come. He decried Hillary Clinton as a privileged white person that has never been called a “nigger” and therefore is somehow less suited to be president. The pastor went on to harangue the “white people” that run this country and how it’s time for “black people” to step in.

Barack had to quickly disavow the pastor’s words, thoughts and feelings but the damage has already been done, in my opinion.

I have been pleasantly surprised up to now that Obama has been able to get such a broad base of support in this country; it makes one think that race and racism may no longer be a factor in our politics. So you imagine my chagrin when the only blatantly racist remarks came from the black side and specifically from the Christian black side.

I was suspicious early on in the election process when 99.9% of blacks were voting for Obama. To me, that means they were not voting for the best candidate but specifically they were voting skin color with the hope that once in office, the black candidate would somehow help fellow blacks.

This voting pattern among blacks is dangerous to the Obama campaign when whites get it into their heads that Obama is a black candidate and not an American candidate.

Another big racial incident happened right here in Detroit. Everyone knows by now that our lying, cheating and generally despicable mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, is being investigated for possible illegal activities. In his speech to the Detroit people he loudly proclaimed that he is tired of being called a “nigger” and putting up with all these attacks on him and his family, ostensibly by white people.

Kilpatrick joined many prominent blacks in the area some time ago in sponsoring and attending a “funeral” for the “N-word”. I guess when your back is against the wall you play the “race” card; it has always worked in the past so why not now.

Yet another racial issue here in Detroit, concerned the City Council who passed a law mandating that 51% of the people serving on boards of charitable organizations engaged in helping Detroiters, must be from Detroit, in other words, blacks and not suburban whites.

The absurdity of this situation is just now slowly entering into people’s consciousness. The unpaid board seats at charitable organizations usually are generously filled with people that donate their time, expertise and money to better run these charities which benefit mainly Detroiters. So why in the hell would this council of blacks want to kick these generous suburban whites (not all are white) off the boards?



One black council member defended the council’s vote by saying they will not put up with this “master – slave” arrangement – huh? The unpaid boards members are masters and the people they are helping are slaves? What kind of fucked-up logic is that?

Just when I am thinking that red-necked racism may be dead or near dead, it raises its ugly head again but this time in the guise of red-necked blacks!

More later…

Back from Barbados!

Back from a week in Barbados. That is a former British colony handling the slave trade at that time and growing and harvesting sugar cane. The island is known for producing “Gay” rum (brand name). The island is still frequented by people mostly from the UK with a few Americans thrown in.

We pick a warm place every year about this time (February – March) to get away from the cold here in Michigan. This year has been especially brutal with constant freezing temperatures and constant snow – enough!

The resort in Barbados had all the requisite items that we demand at this time: hot temperatures, beach, ocean, and swimming pools, plenty of food and plenty of drink and entertainment.

The one thing that stood out at this specific resort was the lack if not the absence of “service”. We have seen this before in the Caribbean as opposed to Mexico: the people working at the resorts in the Caribbean resented working for the “white” people (slave masters). In Mexico, the people were grateful fore their jobs and provided service with a smile, hoping you will return to their resort and continue supporting their employment.

I will admit that the “all inclusive” resorts which basically supply everything for one price and therefore eliminating “tips” contributes to their service behavior even though “we” give tips when we feel the service was exceptional. But this does not happen in Mexico – cultural difference?

I think will shoot for Mexico in 2009.

ELIOT SPITZER was really screwed...

I am back from Barbados and will have blog and pictures about that a little later. But now there are a few things going on deserving of some mention.

Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York and former prosecutor of Wall Street types has resigned his position because he was implicated as having availed himself of the services of a high priced call girl (prostitute). It appears he has been doing this for quite some time and spending large (+$80,000) – what did he have done?

Obviously, many politicos, etc. have been doing this for ever – its expected of them, so why the resignation. Well ole’ Eliot was a real pistol as a prosecutor. He was a holier than thou type and some say, went after anybody and everybody he liked without too much thought as to guilt or innocence. He also went after prostitution rings with gusto and quite frankly, if you paint yourself as a saint, you better behave like one or get the hell out of office- which he did.

I am a big proponent of legalizing prostitution and have been from the beginning. It is the world’s oldest profession and it will never go away because there is a need/demand for it. My suggestion has always been to regulate the profession, tax it and enforce strict health standards. Regulation would eliminate the abuse by pimps and “johns” would also be protected.

My suggestions are not new and some countries have had them in place for quite some time. In the U.S. it would be impossible to implement regulated prostitution because we are such religious prudes that we would never legalize something that we feel is a sin. This has not stopped the profession from thriving in this country and utilized by many of the same people that preach against it.

I am not sad to see Eliot get his comeuppance; he was a hypocrite big time and I have a problem with hypocrites – religious, moral or you name it!

I do have a problem with how this whole affair unfolded. I think he was set up big time. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Alan M. Dershowitz quotes Lavrenti Beria, Joseph Stalin’s head of the KGB, as saying “Show me the man and I will find the crime”.

Eliot Spitzer really did nothing wrong except use the services of a prostitute while aware that the act of prostitution is against the law; he paid for sex, if he received it for free it would be OK.

I think that someone that had his reputation ruined by Spitzer paid for retribution and got it. Some smart reporter will undoubtedly discover this fact sooner or later.

The fact that our government is involved in this whole affair makes me wonder who is really behind all this…