We're counting down the days until Bush is out of office (which GOP, DEM, Everyone is happy about) and "the new guy" takes office.
Oddly enough, many people are happy about "The O" taking office. For some reason, he is viewed as the great hope for our society. Obviously this is puzzling as he's not interested in saving our country as much as promoting values inconsistent with our constitution. We're a Democratic Republic. However, Obama is a Socialist. To think that he is actually going to be in power would make an American scared.
However, he will be sat down and given his marching orders soon enough. At that point, we'll have another president elected under false pretense succumb to running the play book handed down by those with the real power.
Other than the symbolic nature of his rise to power, he will be the same as other presidents. The difference is that his public viewpoints will allow those in power to pull off some power plays that would seem inconsistent under the last president.
The ebb and flow of perceived power allows for the full spectrum of behind the scenes power to be plausible.
Hello people, welcome to another chapter of same people pulling the strings . . .
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Early, but: Sarah for President
Yes, I understand that Sarah Palin is the VP nominee. As such, there is no guarantee she will become VP let alone President. However, there is the chance that her nomination has woken a REAL sense of HOPE and a legitimate opportunity for CHANGE.
However, lets assume that McCain and Palin win this November. There is little expectation that McCain will be a two term president. In some circles, there is little expectation that McCain will live long enough to server a full term.
Regardless of how that plays out, a McCain/Palin win in 08 would likely be the beginning of Palins election in 2012 (running against Hillary of course).
Of course she would probably have no competition if she were to have to fill in for McCain for health related issues during their first term. But, if she didn't, I'm pretty confident that she could play her cards right, get some action instead of talk, and have the entire country BEGGING her to run in 2012.
So, there you have it. My latest conspiracy theory. Of course the conspiracy this time is that not only is America ready for a woman president, but we're ready for the RIGHT woman president. Take that how you will, but we truly seem to be on the verge of a good thing here.
However, lets assume that McCain and Palin win this November. There is little expectation that McCain will be a two term president. In some circles, there is little expectation that McCain will live long enough to server a full term.
Regardless of how that plays out, a McCain/Palin win in 08 would likely be the beginning of Palins election in 2012 (running against Hillary of course).
Of course she would probably have no competition if she were to have to fill in for McCain for health related issues during their first term. But, if she didn't, I'm pretty confident that she could play her cards right, get some action instead of talk, and have the entire country BEGGING her to run in 2012.
So, there you have it. My latest conspiracy theory. Of course the conspiracy this time is that not only is America ready for a woman president, but we're ready for the RIGHT woman president. Take that how you will, but we truly seem to be on the verge of a good thing here.
The Survival of Sarah Palin
Of course the democrats (and everybody else that hates republicans) are scrambling to find a way to discredit Palin without going against all of their usual "talking points".
They can't discredit her for being a woman because until Obama was up in the mix, they were pretty keen on Hillary and the concept of having a woman in office.
They can't discredit her on experience because she has more political experience than Obama. The unimportance they attribute to experience because of Obama's lack of experience prevents them from making a credible argument against somebody with more experience.
They can't discredit her on track record, as Obamas track record consists of a lot of voting "present". If anything, his track record is protecting his image.
They can't discredit her on her speaking ability because she's spot on. Besides, they don't need a lot of attention on the fact that Obama looks as if he's done little more than memorize the mannerisms and speaking techniques of JKF and MLK.
Of course, the only thing left to discredit her is the fact that she's republican. That is where she deviates from what they like. Unfortunately for them, that is exactly what the country seems to like about her.
Further more, she is a hard to discredit candidate because the democrats have been preaching "change" and "hope". The democrats have a track record of "talk" when it comes to these words. I'm suprised that people still take them seriously given that they also have a track record of inaction on the subject. However, Sarah Palin has a track record of making change instead of just talking about it.
Her own ability to "do" as opposed to just "talk" is the key to her survive. The detractors will have to settle for pithy tabloid trash if they want to attack her. Where the rubber meets the road, she's already moving...
They can't discredit her for being a woman because until Obama was up in the mix, they were pretty keen on Hillary and the concept of having a woman in office.
They can't discredit her on experience because she has more political experience than Obama. The unimportance they attribute to experience because of Obama's lack of experience prevents them from making a credible argument against somebody with more experience.
They can't discredit her on track record, as Obamas track record consists of a lot of voting "present". If anything, his track record is protecting his image.
They can't discredit her on her speaking ability because she's spot on. Besides, they don't need a lot of attention on the fact that Obama looks as if he's done little more than memorize the mannerisms and speaking techniques of JKF and MLK.
Of course, the only thing left to discredit her is the fact that she's republican. That is where she deviates from what they like. Unfortunately for them, that is exactly what the country seems to like about her.
Further more, she is a hard to discredit candidate because the democrats have been preaching "change" and "hope". The democrats have a track record of "talk" when it comes to these words. I'm suprised that people still take them seriously given that they also have a track record of inaction on the subject. However, Sarah Palin has a track record of making change instead of just talking about it.
Her own ability to "do" as opposed to just "talk" is the key to her survive. The detractors will have to settle for pithy tabloid trash if they want to attack her. Where the rubber meets the road, she's already moving...
Friday, August 29, 2008
Election 08 Lives Again
I'd given up on all things "Election 08" way back when the prospects seemed to be generic filler. However, this morning something that can only bee described as "exciting" happened.
The GOP candidate picked his VP. Sarah Palin was the name that sparked that interest. I've been reading up on her all day. Rather than listen to what the TV has to say, I went to the trenches. Similarly, rather than view "pro Palin" websites, I also read sites that hate Sarah Palin. I learned many things from both viewpoints.
First, I learned that she's probably the most substantial candidate for CHANGE in the race. Beyond that, she embodies HOPE. Most of that was learned by reading the DEM biased websites. They are obviously scared. She picks up where their "talk" leaves off. She has quantifiable history of attempting and also succeeding where the DEMs only talk.
Furthermore, she is a woman. What i didn't know was that she's not a "last minute gimmick". She's been in the running for some time. The first references I've seen are well over a year old. In short, the more i read (pro and con), the more interest I have.
On a more optimistic fantasy note, if she were to be elected, she would be a great candidate for 2012 assuming she survived the political gauntlet that special interest would likely have waiting.
I'm sure that Obama isn't happy that he's now faced with somebody that understands and achieves BOTH "change" and "hope" in more than a speech. I'm also sure that Hillary isn't happy that 2008 now holds the most viable female candidate an election has ever had, and it's not her. To take it one step further, she's on the road to being a more viable presidential candidate than Hillary ever was.
Go Palin!
The GOP candidate picked his VP. Sarah Palin was the name that sparked that interest. I've been reading up on her all day. Rather than listen to what the TV has to say, I went to the trenches. Similarly, rather than view "pro Palin" websites, I also read sites that hate Sarah Palin. I learned many things from both viewpoints.
First, I learned that she's probably the most substantial candidate for CHANGE in the race. Beyond that, she embodies HOPE. Most of that was learned by reading the DEM biased websites. They are obviously scared. She picks up where their "talk" leaves off. She has quantifiable history of attempting and also succeeding where the DEMs only talk.
Furthermore, she is a woman. What i didn't know was that she's not a "last minute gimmick". She's been in the running for some time. The first references I've seen are well over a year old. In short, the more i read (pro and con), the more interest I have.
On a more optimistic fantasy note, if she were to be elected, she would be a great candidate for 2012 assuming she survived the political gauntlet that special interest would likely have waiting.
I'm sure that Obama isn't happy that he's now faced with somebody that understands and achieves BOTH "change" and "hope" in more than a speech. I'm also sure that Hillary isn't happy that 2008 now holds the most viable female candidate an election has ever had, and it's not her. To take it one step further, she's on the road to being a more viable presidential candidate than Hillary ever was.
Go Palin!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Bank Slaves For Sale
We the people are most effected by the political puppet show starring the Democrats and Republicans which does little more than keep us from paying attention to the people that actually run this country.
100 years ago, politicians had a job to do that was directly related to running the country. the last century has seen politics become a televised distraction to prevent people from noticing that private banks make the rules and the people only have the power to complain. Thanks to the politicians doing their part, we're not even complaining to the right people.
I know it's business, but it's unfortunate when that business is built on the blood of our forefathers.
100 years ago, politicians had a job to do that was directly related to running the country. the last century has seen politics become a televised distraction to prevent people from noticing that private banks make the rules and the people only have the power to complain. Thanks to the politicians doing their part, we're not even complaining to the right people.
I know it's business, but it's unfortunate when that business is built on the blood of our forefathers.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Countrywide get's called out for setting homeowners up
By CARYN ROUSSEAU, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - The nation's biggest mortgage lender engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means, according to a civil lawsuit Illinois' attorney general planned to file Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. — planned for the same day shareholders were scheduled to vote on the company's takeover by Bank of America Corp. — stems from information from documents subpoenaed by the state beginning last fall, as the number of foreclosures nationwide began to skyrocket.
"Countrywide's conduct has contributed to the high number of foreclosures in Illinois and caused significant harm to the public, the market, and scores of Illinois borrowers and homeowners," according to a draft of the lawsuit provided by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office Tuesday evening.
A spokeswoman for the Calabasas, Calif.-based company declined to comment on the litigation.
Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said the lawsuit would be filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court. In the complaint, Madigan says that Countrywide offered unfair loans with risky features, used misleading sales techniques and encouraged employees and brokers through incentives to sell more high-risk loans.
"Unfair and deceptive advertising, marketing and sales practices were utilized to push mortgages, while hiding the real costs and risks to borrowers, including enticing borrowers with low teaser rates, low monthly payments and 'no closing cost' loans that failed to make clear and conspicuous," according to the lawsuit, which also names Countrywide Chairman and Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo as a defendant.
Among other things, Madigan wants Countrywide to pay restitution to all affected consumers who lost their homes or loans. She also asks for 90 days to review any loans that are in or near foreclosure to see if borrowers can pursue affordable options.
Countrywide, like many in the mortgage industry, has suffered under the weight of the subprime fallout as thousands of customers default on home loans.
Defaults and subsequent foreclosures have been most pronounced on adjustable-rate mortgages made to borrowers with past credit problems. The subprime loans typically require a lower monthly payment in the first two or three years before resetting to higher interest rates and much larger payments.
As the nation's largest mortgage lender and servicer, Countrywide has been under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. It also faces numerous other lawsuits related to its lending practices.
Countrywide agreed in January to sell itself to Bank of America Corp. for around $4 billion in stock. The deal is now valued at around $2.8 billion, reflecting a decline in Bank of America's stock price over the last six months.
The acquisition received clearance from the Federal Reserve earlier this month, and Countrywide shareholders are scheduled to vote on it Wednesday morning during a meeting at the lender's headquarters.
Assuming shareholders give their approval, Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America has said it could close the deal as early as July 1.
___
AP Business Writer Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
___
CHICAGO - The nation's biggest mortgage lender engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means, according to a civil lawsuit Illinois' attorney general planned to file Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. — planned for the same day shareholders were scheduled to vote on the company's takeover by Bank of America Corp. — stems from information from documents subpoenaed by the state beginning last fall, as the number of foreclosures nationwide began to skyrocket.
"Countrywide's conduct has contributed to the high number of foreclosures in Illinois and caused significant harm to the public, the market, and scores of Illinois borrowers and homeowners," according to a draft of the lawsuit provided by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office Tuesday evening.
A spokeswoman for the Calabasas, Calif.-based company declined to comment on the litigation.
Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said the lawsuit would be filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court. In the complaint, Madigan says that Countrywide offered unfair loans with risky features, used misleading sales techniques and encouraged employees and brokers through incentives to sell more high-risk loans.
"Unfair and deceptive advertising, marketing and sales practices were utilized to push mortgages, while hiding the real costs and risks to borrowers, including enticing borrowers with low teaser rates, low monthly payments and 'no closing cost' loans that failed to make clear and conspicuous," according to the lawsuit, which also names Countrywide Chairman and Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo as a defendant.
Among other things, Madigan wants Countrywide to pay restitution to all affected consumers who lost their homes or loans. She also asks for 90 days to review any loans that are in or near foreclosure to see if borrowers can pursue affordable options.
Countrywide, like many in the mortgage industry, has suffered under the weight of the subprime fallout as thousands of customers default on home loans.
Defaults and subsequent foreclosures have been most pronounced on adjustable-rate mortgages made to borrowers with past credit problems. The subprime loans typically require a lower monthly payment in the first two or three years before resetting to higher interest rates and much larger payments.
As the nation's largest mortgage lender and servicer, Countrywide has been under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. It also faces numerous other lawsuits related to its lending practices.
Countrywide agreed in January to sell itself to Bank of America Corp. for around $4 billion in stock. The deal is now valued at around $2.8 billion, reflecting a decline in Bank of America's stock price over the last six months.
The acquisition received clearance from the Federal Reserve earlier this month, and Countrywide shareholders are scheduled to vote on it Wednesday morning during a meeting at the lender's headquarters.
Assuming shareholders give their approval, Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America has said it could close the deal as early as July 1.
___
AP Business Writer Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
___
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Woman Who Thought She Could
Of course Hillary had a better chance against McCain than Obama. However, the Democratic party seems to have given up on the presidency. Obama's only selling point is that he's an underdog. American hasn't officially had a "black" president, so that is what he has to offer.
As a politician, his record is one of intense mediocrity. His only marketable quality is the color of his skin. This is unfortunate for the democrats. In a presidential election you hope to have candidates that are appealing to both parties. There is no sense in finding the candidate that your party likes if he's not going to get elected.
It's one thing to win a party nomination, but quite another to win a general election. In this case, Hillary was the candidate with the highest potential to win general, but was overshadowed by the parties internal enamor with Obama.
Do the Democrats simply not want the presidency during these troubles times? Are they attempting to show at the general election by placing a solid second place runner in a two man race? What would be the advantage other than avoiding responsibility during troubled times? Could it be another chip in the game to say we've been ignored by racists when the truth is they put up a candidate with nothing more than race to offer?
Of course many Democrats will say that racism or corruption prevented them from winning this election. The truth however, is that the Democrats purposely created the scenario for failure. Sadly, the country and the Republicans will receive the blame.
When people complain about racism or corruption, just remind them that they had a good chance before they decided to lose with Obama. It's not likely that they didn't understand that a majority of Democrats chasing eye candy is not the target audience for a general election.
As a politician, his record is one of intense mediocrity. His only marketable quality is the color of his skin. This is unfortunate for the democrats. In a presidential election you hope to have candidates that are appealing to both parties. There is no sense in finding the candidate that your party likes if he's not going to get elected.
It's one thing to win a party nomination, but quite another to win a general election. In this case, Hillary was the candidate with the highest potential to win general, but was overshadowed by the parties internal enamor with Obama.
Do the Democrats simply not want the presidency during these troubles times? Are they attempting to show at the general election by placing a solid second place runner in a two man race? What would be the advantage other than avoiding responsibility during troubled times? Could it be another chip in the game to say we've been ignored by racists when the truth is they put up a candidate with nothing more than race to offer?
Of course many Democrats will say that racism or corruption prevented them from winning this election. The truth however, is that the Democrats purposely created the scenario for failure. Sadly, the country and the Republicans will receive the blame.
When people complain about racism or corruption, just remind them that they had a good chance before they decided to lose with Obama. It's not likely that they didn't understand that a majority of Democrats chasing eye candy is not the target audience for a general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
