Monday, December 1, 2008

Would Bobby Jindal be so popular if he would be a Hindu?

First let me say: I really like Bobby Jindal.

And I respect that he switched from Hinduism to his Christian faith. And I don't really know when he made that switch, and why he did it, but I was thinking:

Would be Bobby Jindal where he is in politics today, if he would have remained a Hindu? Is America and especially the GOP open minded enough to support a candidate from another faith.

I would say "No". Being a Christian seems to be part of a politicians profile, just like wearing a suit and tie to Congress.

Why is that? Isn't America the greatest and most open-minded country in the world.

Yes I think to a large degree it is. So why are there no Hindus and Muslims in politics?

Are they not interested? Don't they think that politics are important? Would they be able to gain a seat in politics?

I think there are many Hindus and Muslims who are interested in politics, especially when it comes to social issues. Considering my daily Yoga practice for the last 10 years I could consider myself a Hindu (although I rarely think that way), and I obviously am very interested in politics. Those few people I know, who found their way into politics, switched to the Christian faith in the process of running for office.

Did they have to do it? Well they sure thought they did.

And maybe that's true, maybe it will still take some time before Hindus and Muslims can run for office in America, but I think it depends on your own faith in your faith, your charisma and how much you have in common with other Americans.

I have contact with many conservatives from different denominations and I have a lot of things in common with them. We all believe for examply in personal responsibility and small government.

It was funny when a friend of mine ran for office and some Christian fanatics from the opposing candidate found out about his Hindu past, they used it against him. I was astonished by the bigotry.

I'm glad that Bobby Jindal is where he is, but if he had to sacrifice his faith in order to get there, that would be really sad, no matter in which direction this switch would occur.

The Alien Patriot

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Rightosphere in Motion - Conservative Social Network

I'm sorry that I haven't been posting for a while.

2 reasons -

1. I had to recover from after the election. I had to catch up on some of my work.

2. I was wondering how I can help reviving the conservative basis with some internet grass root efforts, that go beyond my own blog. I am doing video marketing for quite a few years now and I noticed how hard it is to find conservative video bloggers and video commentary on the net, be it on YouTube or other hosts and so I thought I would like to create a platform to give these video bloggers a chance to promote their stuff and to connect with other like-minded people. And so I created Rightoshpere in Motion.

So if you have know conservatives who are into video blogging or are interested in becoming part of a bigger network of conservatives, pls check it out.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Is America Really ready for African American President?

Is America really ready for Barack Obama?

I have to admit that I watch this race a little bit from the sidelines – I'm not an American citizen, but long time resident.

When I first heard that Senator Obama is running for President, I immediately asked my wife (she is American):

"Do you think that America is really ready for an African American President?"

She replied: "I think so. Why?"

I said: "Well from where I come from, ethnic groups are always rooting for their fellow people. The Turks root for the Turks, the Serbs for the Serbs, the Albanians for Albanians etc... and that's even true for many of the second or third generation immigrants back home.

I don't think that in my home country you will see a President from any of these second or third generation immigrant families any time soon.

Not that they would not try to run, but they represent a minority and as long people in general would have a feeling that these candidates would be biased towards their own ethnic group, they of course would not vote for such a person.

From what I can see here in America, there is a greater openness towards minorities, but there is still a clear division between African Americans, Asian, Hispanic and Caucasians.

As African Americans and Hispanics always point out that the White government is rooting more for white people, what should make us believe that an African American candidate would not root more for the African American community. With 68% of white folks in America it's hard to make a case for a candidate who possibly is biased towards a smaller minority."

I know Barack Obama always highlights that he is lucky about his white and black heritage, but record shows that he rooted for African Americans and African Americans root for him. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Race is hard to transcend. It is natural that you root for those who you feel most connected with.

Barack Obama might still able to win the election, if he gets all the minority votes, liberal votes and many white folks stay home.

But even if he wins he will have a hard time to move in large steps. If he disenfranchises white folks, he has 2/3 of the population against him. (It's not comparable to when a white government is doing something that disenfranchises African Americans, after all African Americans are only 12% of the population.)

The Washington Post said in 1998 in the Myth of the Melting Pot:

"More often than not, the neighborhoods where Americans live, the politicians and propositions they vote for, the cultures they immerse themselves in, the friends and spouses they have, the churches and schools they attend, and the way they view themselves are defined by ethnicity. The question is whether, in the midst of such change, there is also enough glue to hold Americans together."


Even though America has become a great nation due to the influence of all different cultures and races, the great American melting pot has not turned this country into one unified, unbiased nation.

The Alien Patriot

Thursday, October 30, 2008

After the PUMA factor comes the NUMA factor

As crossposted on Conservative Badlands:

But what is NUMA?

Well, it’s Nation Unity My Ass.

Barack Obama has said numerous times throughout his campaign, how he will not just unify the party



but unify the country and in his speech in Berlin probably also how to unify the world.

But what about all the disenfranchised Hillary voters, the so-called PUMA's, who in a surprising move started to support the McCain/Palin ticket?
What about the introduction of class warfare with Barack Obama's economic/tax plan, that got unintended attention with the famous Joe the plumber (redistribute the wealth) comment?
What about the fact that it was made public, that BO together with Pelosi and Reid plans a ban on offshore drilling, even though 75% of Americans voted for offshore drilling.

There is many other examples that show that Obama's talent to unify is only in the charismatic and rhetorical realm.

But I do believe that BO will unify the country. But similar to George Bush, it will not be for him, but against him. I think if BO stays true to his liberal voting record, he will disenfranchise those who are situated on the right of him (politically speaking). And that's a lot of people. Not just conservatives, but moderate democrats too.

I think that Obama's approval rating will be right where George Bush's is. Around 20% -30%. And that's the agent of change. I think America has to rethink this strategy.

Conservatives and PUMA's and other disenfranchised democrats will unify and create a big burden on an Obama administration.

And the harder they going to try to control them (Fairness doctrine, dropping of secret union ballots, taxing the rich etc), the more the resistance will grow, the more people will become disenfranchised.

That's why I call it the NUMA factor.

The Alien Patriot

The Economist's: foolish Endorsement of Barack Obama

As crossposted on Conservative Badlands:

If you are looking for great entertainment you need the editorial of the Economist titled "It's Time"

The subtitle is already pretty good:

"America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world."

Hey risk it, it's only going to be 8 years. You didn't like the last eight years, well replace them with something unknown. What a wise outlook on life.

"For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

Sounds very encouraging.

" ...the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was."

Not as much I can tell. Europe has a history of not liking the US - even under Clinton. The terrorists don't seem to be any better of than 8 years ago - we haven't had a terror attack on US soil for 7 years (but I guess this is not an achievement)

Then the writer tells us about McCain's shortcomings:

"Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?)."

It's funny because I see many of these as a plus. Being instinctive is not wrong per se, quick to judge can help in decisions of national security and age can be equaled as experience (if I remember Reagan correctly).

And it goes from there to:

"Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies."

So first I said: What's the beef? Well the experience and the record are obviously not important to the Economist.

"If only the real John McCain had been running"

The Econimist believes that McCain subscribes to Conservatism on social issues, he was right on the Georgia issue, wrong on the Economy and wrong on the Palin pick.

I think without Palin McCain would not where he is right now.

And what about this one:

"Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them."


Another reason to not vote for JohnMcCain, right?

But not the true entertaining part starts: I call it the magic wand of Barack Obama

"Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein;"

Great line. SNL could have not put any better.

"So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left."

So he doesn't have the qualities, but he is still better?

And the climax of the article:

"But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right."


like the old proverb: "He who campaigns the best, will be the best president."

Is this really from on of the leading economy magazines. I just can't believe it.

"He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."


To summarize the Economist's outlook on life in the US:

Hey America, risky speculation has cost you Billions of Dollars in the stock market, you just smashed your face a month ago, so let's go out and vote based on our speculation, because risk is what America is all about. Just close your eyes and hope the best!

Bravo Economist. a 5th grader couldn't have said it any better!

The Alien Patriot

Has Obama himself become a Liability for his own Campaign?

As crossposted on Conservative Badlands:

When I am listening to some of my democratic friends, I can't help but noticing a change in their enthusiasm for this election. They were pounding me for supporting McCain just a few months ago, telling me that Obama is the only way to vote. Obama is the only hope for change and that change is what we need.

My friends knew that I have issue with some of Bush's policies. Nonetheless I always told them, that change alone is worth nothing, unless it is a change in the right direction.

They were optimistic that Obama would be right and they were pissed if you didn't agree.

I have felt for a long time that Obama was running on motivational blurbs, but not on substance. He was able to get through the primaries without really touching any of the issues. The main reason for that was the support of the MSM.

But as the campaign dragged on, the blurbs got old and boring. We just heard the same things from Obama and then from Biden and then from every other democratic strategist on TV too many times.

And then my friends started to get restless.

"Okay yeah we heard about the hope, the change and all that, but what does it actually mean?"

And that was a turning point in the election campaign and it is a still ongoing phenomenon? You can hear it in the coffee houses, in the shopping mall and wherever else people gather.

But BO is not fresh anymore and neither are his blurbs.

I think if the economy wouldn't have tanked, he would have just ridden the blurb wave right into the White House. And even though the economy seemed to be an advantage for the Dems, BO had to give the public some preview of his economic plan.

And what the world heard and saw, was maybe not what they expected. People start to get really pissed off.

Unacceptable associations, TV station boycotts, announcements of getting rid of the secret ballot for union elections, ban for offshore drilling and the fierce persecution of Joe the plummer after the spreading the wealth comment, even left my democratic friends creeped out.

My friends are liberals, but they do believe in the first amendments, no government censorship for the press, no cracking down on people just because they disagree with you, they can't stand the thought of open voting and that despite 75% of Americans are for offshore drilling, Pelosi, Reid and Obama would push for a ban on offshore drilling.

They understand that this might be a preview of an Obama administration and many of them don't like it.

So it seems to me that Obama has become a liability for his own campaign.

And we always expected this to be Joe Biden's forte!

The Alien Patriot

Saturday, October 25, 2008

America's New Identity - The Spin doesn't Stop here

What is America's new identity?

FowNews' Bill O'Reilly likes to say in his own show: "Because the spin stops right here", but to be honest the spin doesn't stop for America.

In a world that is turning more towards progressive liberal politics and people's minds leaning more towards left of center philosophies, America has long been fighting to get sucked into this agenda. If the world could vote they would vote with over 80% for Obama (partially because many countries do not even report about McCain - so he is pretty much unknown in many parts of this world - I will talk about this in a later post)

More than in any country I have seen before, the general population in the US always had a non-controversial love for their own country and its constitution (of course not everywhere).

Even a country like Germany, where traditions and German achievements are usually proudly pointed out, the shame about facts in history seem to overshadow the glory more than for instance the shame of Americans regarding slavery or segregation.

But the left spin in the US has already begun at least 2 years ago. I think with the last 4 years of Bush, the democratic majority in Congress and the election between McCain and Obama we are witnessing a new paradigm of American Identity.

There is no doubt that America will take a sharp turn left, if Senator Obama will become president. But the left spin has been quietly introduced by Bush's spending policies, ground work of the democratic majority in Congress and would even be carried to some degree into the new White House under McCain.

No question that it would be much less than under Obama, but the left spin would be still noticeable.

Under an Obama presidency we would look towards a charismatic leader, that has the MSM under his wings, who might be able to sell things to the American citizen's they would usually not subscribe to, just because he has a way of making them rhetorically palatable.

Plus he will have the toolkit for a left spin in his pocket.

With 3 supreme judges announcing possible retirement he could create the most liberal supreme court the nation has ever seen.

Possible bigger majorities in the Senate and Congress, plus the support of the left leaning media (including internet) will seal the deal.

As we have seen many times in history (sometimes with a sad eye), under a very charismatic leader the public will usually adjust to the spin (no matter if it is sharp right or left). That means that the nation attitude will in general turn to the left and recalibrate its value according to the new Presidency as Center or possibly Center left. it will be sold as nothing more liberal than Bill Clinton.

But what does that mean?

Well good news for super left wingers which will graduate from loon to middle of the road thinker. And people on the left of Obama's views (now called super liberal) will then be called left leaning. This will give credit for example to the Socialist party of America

Bad news even for centrist Conservatives, which will, even if they don't change their current views, drift to the right fringe and will be called loons or right wing nut. McCain who is by not any means a full blown conservative would be in the very right field, Sarah Palin would be off the scale and maybe even Joe Lieberman will be called a Conservative.

How people will be able to connect their own traditions with these new liberal doctrines, will be mainly dependent on the work of MSM, the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court.

People are in general stupid, a sheep's community - not just in America.

There will be no pressure from the rest of the world as they seem to welcome the Obama nation.

So the main work of the Conservative under an Obama and McCain presidency to stick up to the values of Free Speech and other constitutional rights.

We don't just owe this to the Founding Fathers who dedicated their lives to create this great nation, but also to be a balance for the rest of the world.

One has to see that the American society, constitution and the free market in the US have made it possible for the world to prosper, because a left spinning world without a balance on the right (vv a completely right spinning world without a balance on the right) would create a global community of tyranny.

And no one should want that. Not just in America!

The Alien Patriot

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Fairness Doctrine Secret

Today I went to the drugstore, because I got really bad allergies.

So I take my usual stuff (Claritin Clear) and go to the cashier.

The cashier looks at my stuff and says: "There is a new regulation, that when you buy Claritin Clear, you also need to buy Benadryl."

I replied: "Hell no, I don't want to buy Benadril - it makes me drowsy!"

She didn't care about what I was saying and called the store owner.

So I told the guy that I'm not going to buy Benadryl if all I want is Claritin Clear.

The guy said: "Every time I sell Claritin Clear, I get tons of calls from the Benadryl company complaining that I didn't try to promote their product as much as their competitors' one. They even come to the store, compare the sizes of the displays, how many packages of each product are on the shelf etc..

That means the only way to not get hassled by those Benadryl guys is if people have to always buy the two products together. I get no calls and everybody is happy."

I told him: "What do you mean? I'm not happy if I have to buy something that I'm not going to use, so that you don't get hassled by some friggin' company. I just go and buy my Claritin Clear somewhere else."

The store owner laughed: "I don't think you will be lucky. The Benadryl guys are onto everybody."

I got really bummed and yelled at the guy: "Dude, last chance. Either sell me the Claritin on its own or forget about it." He shook his head and I left.

As I was walking out the store owner yelled: "Hey if nobody wants to buy the two products together, then I might as well not sell any of those allergy products anymore. I'm just going to stick to cosmetics like in the old days, because there is nobody hassling me there."

Does that make sense to you? If not why would the Fairness Doctrine make any sense for the media?

Senator Bingaman in an interviews with Jim Villanucci on KKOB:

I don't know. I certainly hope so. I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side.


Rush Limbaugh says:

At which point the manager says, "I can't keep up with this. In order to maintain my license, I'm going to have to do all this and grant all these people all this access. I gotta put amateurs on the radio? I gotta put talentness, complaining whiners on the radio? I'm not going to mess with it." And that's how it works. It's not that the Fairness Doctrine is passed and all of us go away. It's that local stations will not put up with the grief they're going to get. And that's what Senator Bingaman and that's what the Democrats want. They don't want balanced programming on a radio station. They want no conservative programming on a radio station. (highlighted by TAP)


Is this a change you really need?

The Alien Patriot

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Powell's Blind Spot for Obama

Powell said about Obama in spring 2008:

"Earlier this spring, Powell went on record with the following statement, “I’ve seen other individuals come along who didn’t have that breadth of experience and what they do is surround themselves with people who do bring that experience. With Senator Obama, he didn’t have a lot of experience running a presidential campaign, did he?” Powell asked. “But he seems to know how to organize a task and he seems to know how to apply resources to a problem at hand. So that gives me some indication that (with) his inexperience in foreign affairs or domestic affairs, he may be someone who can learn quickly.”

With this statement, Powell appreciates the management style and effectiveness of Senator Obama during his campaign and gives his considerable weight as a student of foreign and military policy to deflect possible criticisms of Obama’s lack of experience. "

1. Pls correct me but I always thought that the candidates are not managing their own campaign. That's why they have a bunch of managers. I already mentioned this in in a comment on Conservative Badlands

2. If Powell is so certain that Obama knows who to surround himself with, why:

a. doesn't Powell see the possible lack of judgment in Obama choices of associations in the past.

b. why doesn't he give Palin the same benefit of the doubt.

Here is what he says about Palin:

She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired. But at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Sen. McCain made.


I see that everybody (including people like Juan Williams) tend to go to this aspect that 2 interviews show a person's character, but not their action? What about being a governor, a mayor. Hey according to that philosophy Martin Sheen would be probably a good President too (I mean he looked great on TV as the President). This is beyond me.

Is Colin Powell really telling me that I should vote for Obama, because he is a good campaigner?

And in his Meet the Press interview he says:

"And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say."

1. Powell seems to vote for a party and not for a President, which is odd.

2. He would rather have a liberal President, Senate and House, then a rep. President with a liberal House and Senate. What kind of Conservative is that? I don't even expect a moderate democrat to be all excited about an extremely liberal administration.

The Alien Patriot

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Great Quote - Alexander Hamilton

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchment or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by moral power.


— Alexander Hamilton

Monday, October 20, 2008

Obama's Google Connection

Why would Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt endorse Barack Obama.

Economically it doesn't sound like a great idea. Bigger government under BO could impose restrictions on pricing, usage and contents, so what's in it for Schmidt.

I know what's in it for Obama.

Superficially: Who is on the internet? Who looks up to Google? It's the youth vote, that the dems hope so much is coming out Nov 4th.

(Footnote: Although I heard today that the ballot in Colorado will take about 20 minutes to fill out, so I'm not sure how many youngsters will be up to it)

But what about this:

Google has a lot of information about its users. For many of us too much. Privacy on the internet is a very sensitive issue.

If you have a bigger government and want to control and oversee more sectors of life, the internet is very crucial. Access to this kind of information can be very valuable, especially if you want to control opposing opinions in public.

Maybe Google just follows along because Obama is the hip celebrity for most of its users.

Anyway, tell me I'm paranoid, but given the little incentive that Obama would bring to Google as a business, I can't help but thinking there is an ulterior motive.

The Alien Patriot

Friday, October 17, 2008

Please Spread it a lil' more

Income Redistribution is fascinating.

But the question is why stop there? Why do only rich people have to sacrifice?

I can understand that the government even under BO cannot come out and say:

Ok we put a limit on beer drinking. You are only allowed to drink 4 beers a day.

or

We put a limit on calorie intake. The average person is only allowed to eat 2500 calories a day.

That would mean that the average person would save 500 calories, that they can give to somebody else who would need the calories, or they could give the extra beer to their neighbor.

Can you imagine?

We would have a revolution. You can't tell people in America what to do - unless you are unfortunately rich, then the government will tell you to give some money that you have earned away. That's a populist thing - but if you tell the average Joe what to do, then you got trouble on your hands.

(Although if you are honest, BO's plan will bring the above too. If you increase taxes on the rich, they will increase prices and you will probably not be able to afford as much food and drinks)

In Europe rich people are not very popular - There is a common belief that rich people got rich because they ripped somebody off. And I feel we are gradually moving this direction in America too. How sad?

But anyway: Why stop with the rich?

What about all those lazy buggers who don't do anything - and would get money from the government - they are rich too. They are rich in time.

So why does the government not take some of their time and put it to use?

What's the difference? The only reason the rich have to pay more taxes would be that they have more money. Well if somebody has more time than somebody else, shouldn't they also sacrifice part of their time.

What about talent? There are a lot of people who waste their talents.

Shouldn't they be forced to utilize some of their talents for the country?

That means besides tax officers, we should have talent pickers, time overseers and a bunch of bureaucrats to really spread the wealth and not just the money of this country.

Is George Orwell on Barack Obama's political advisory board?

The Alien Patriot

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Letter to Bill Ayers about America

Dear Bill,

What really bugs me about American dissidents (and I have to include you and Bernadette in that category) is that you despise everything that is America, while at the same time you take advantage of all your American rights to put forward your agenda.

Freedom of Speech is the base for all of your action and that freedom of speech is what makes America unique.

I mean go to Germany - a terrorist could be held in prison indefinitely, even if there is no specific proof for a crime. Just the fact of a potential risk for the safety of its citizens a judge can order the person to sit behind bars.

See, Bill, that's what you have to understand. Even in a progressive social democratic country like Germany you would probably see the prison from the inside.

I'm not even talking about other countries like China etc., where you would be lucky to be in prison. They don't seem to like dissidents that much.

America let's you raise your point of views - grants you freedom, so how bad can it really be that you hate it so much?

Even you should recognize that America is this great country that allows you to be Bill Ayers, no matter how crazy you are.

Best wishes,
The Alien Patriot

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Is Gold the Answer?

I just read the BBC article about the rise in sales numbers of Austrian Gold Coins, which made me think about world wide panic about what happens to the financial markets.

First I'm quite surprised that the Europeans are so quick to move on this. People pull their money out of the financial markets, which will make it even harder for the market to recover.

If you loose money, you will either loose it in your stocks or in the higher prices if the economy collapsed due to the fact that people are pulling out their money out of the stock market.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to investing (right now especially because I don't have any extra money around). My Dad used to be an investor and he taught me, that you have to think about the long term security, never about the short term gains. He always highly diversified and invested in things that had a good ROI, but always over a pretty long period of time.

But it paid off for him. He didn't loose any money in the Asian stock crisis and he took all his money out of the stock market earlier this year with a profit. He said it doesn't look that good right now.

He went completely conservative with various savings accounts with various interest rates. He told me: "I'm too old to gamble. I don't want to worry about it anymore."

Good for him. He is now pretty calm, he didn't loose a single Euro.

Stocks have become so incorporated in daily life, that most of us don't see anymore, that there is no guarantee that they make money. We don't see the risk of us loosing money anymore. Especially when we are in a bull market, even if it was just a bubble.

People are now complaining about that they didn't know - well that's what investing is. My Dad always said: "You can watch the markets everyday, but there is still a lot of unknown things happening." He told me to see the market not in shares, but in economies of countries - who is investing, who is innovating, who is risky, who is playing it safe.

We all give the responsibilities to the guys on Wall Street, the hedge funds and the billionaires, but forget that it was our money and our decision to invest it in one or other ways.

Wall Street isn't more to blame than the common folks. Everybody let it happen.

And the fact that you don't know what happens to your own money, is just a sign that you don't value it until you loose it.

Gold is not the answer, but it is for sure less volatile than many stocks in this world. Long term wise you probably won't see much of a reduction in value, as you would also probably not see a lot of reduction in value with many stocks.

Whatever you choose, here is my fear. The common people are now buying gold in bulk and are pulling out their money out of the stock market, which will make the stock prices go way down. If governments have invested in the market, they will loose money and will maybe not be able to pay their daily activities. So they might also consider buying off part of their Gold reserve, which will make the Gold market plummet. So what good does this do then to you.

Everybody wants to get away from the problem as far as possible, but it looks like that the further people go away, the more disastrous the outcome of the economy will be.

"Don't play poker, if you freak out easily"

The Alien Patriot

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Why did so many rich people support the Bailout?

I heard on many TV programs that a lot of the Warren Buffets of this world (some of those who are much less left orientated than him) were really for this bailout.

You would think that they would like free markets to thrive in order to make money. So why didn't they?

Well, my guess it's all about the money.

I don't believe that many of these billionaires think about the common Joe and make decisions according to the fate of those who don't have a lot.

No. When I grew up I had some friends from very wealthy families and there was one thing I have learned.

Rich people always go where the money is. They have a basic money instinct. No matter what the political environment is, they always seem (with a few exceptions of course) float back to the top, even if they take a hit.

So the bailout must offer something for them, that they do not believe would happen without that. But I don't see it's the interest of the small person, no it's about their huge amounts of money,their connection to the big financial institutions, their insider knowledge.

They are still in the free market place, they are still trading, they are still buying, they are still increasing their fortune.

While you pull your money out of the market, they want the Feds to step in, so that they can use this window of opportunity to get even richer.

Honestly I do not say this in disgust, I just think that is how it works. So when Steve Forbes and many of these other high ranking economy billionaires vote for the bailout, I don't think it is because of the effect that it has on the little guy (although of course interlinked), but mainly because the impact on their own budget.

The Alien Patriot

Rich people should press Obama on Tax money oversight

Obama says very blatantly in his tax proposal that 95% of the people will see a tax cut. The rich will have to pay the tab.

But here is what I don't understand. Ok the rich pay the poor (classic wealth re-distribution). Even if that is ok by some, who will check what people will do with this money.

Are the poor going to buy necessities or are they going to spend it on booze etc.(I mean I guess that buying booze is also a way to inject money into the economy)

So where do the rich get their confirmation what is done with the money? At least if they donate to charity they usually know where the money goes.

If Obama wants to force rich people to pay the taxes, he should also control what the poor people can do with it, he should force then how many kids we can have, how many houses we have, what schools our kids should go in, and which jobs we can have.

Regulation means oversight. So somebody oversees the riches, somebody oversees the poor, somebody has to oversee the guys who oversee some other guys. The endless expansion of government has already begun.

Hey we need to put some cameras up, we need know what everybody does. George Orwell would like this strategy.

It's totalitarian, arbitrary and reminds me of countries that I don't like that much.

So why just stick it to the riches, why not sticking it to the intelligent or the people who work hard, those who are beautiful or of a certain race?

You know it will end with the riches, but they are just the most easiest target for the moment. Don't be kidding yourself. Your freedom is in jeopardy.

This doesn't sound like the America that I like. But I don't see the riches really protest here. Friday, October 4th 2008 was the day the free market society of America officially died.

The Alien Patriot

Is America more socialistic than Germany?

As the American government launches the biggest bailout of the financial market, Europe finds itself deep in financial trouble. Mortgage lenders and banks are just as bad there as they are in the US, but there are some fundamental differences.

Each country in Europe usually only has 3-4 major banks, so we can almost talk about a centralized bank system as well as a more or less centralized insurance system. The different countries in the EU do not have compatible bank laws, so team work is pretty hard.

Merkel, who is originally from East Germany (before the Reunion of west and east Germany), has actually shown a pro-american attitude on a multitude of issues - probably because she remembers what socialist life in East Germany was like.

Now Merkel is against funding of a bailout of financial institutions in the EU.


What? The chancellor of a social democratic country thinks it is too socialist to bailout the financial system.

What about America? We just passed a $750 B bailout, are talking to nationalize health care, buying up mortgages and the Germans won't do that.

First I thought it is because the tax burden on the average German is already so high, that they can't really afford to pay more taxes, but I believe now that there is other reasons in play:

1. The German's are much more pessimistic and therefore more hesitant to move quickly. "First let's see what happens." The German's (and I believe many other Europeans too) have learned to live with crisis, war and economic lows. - The Americans have a tendency to panic - which makes the markets much more volatile.

2. A bailout would be considered what we call "buddy economy" (Freunderlwirtschaft) in Austria, which means that the money pump into the economy is again mainly for special interests, friends and people, who those politicians owe something.

3. The EU is not really much of a union, in that none of it's members really want to clean up the mess of another country. That's why the heads at the summit could only agree on doing something about the financial crisis, but not specifically what.

"Where action has to be taken, we will continue to do whatever is necessary to preserve the stability of the financial system," he said. "We agreed that we must do more to coordinate our response in times of crisis and the interest of stability."


4. The bailout proposal that was presented at the EU summit was too vague....
Too vague?.... doesn't seem to be a problem for our Reps to sign a 450 page emergency bill with tons of pork in it that nobody read.

America politicians have shown to be cowards (try to save their own a$$es), impatient (fired up by the MSM panic mode - like the Time magazine cover showing pictures of the great depression) and lazy .... people are lazy who don't read their loan papers and the socialists in this country saw this as their chance.

Now that we have started the disease of bailing out even John McCain said in tonight's debate that he would start buying up bad mortgages.

Ok so now we own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, bad assets and even some mortgages. Hey this is already a centralized government - no wonder that Merkel who actually understands free market principles doesn't like a bailout similar to the US one.

Even Alan Keyes calls the bailout 'socialistic'

Because German's just want to know where their EURO goes! Good For Them!

The Alien Patriot

Saturday, October 4, 2008

The Big Debate Debate

I'm tired of hearing those guys from the MSM talking about Joe Biden had more depth at the VP debate last night.

Don't you get it. It's not about the facts. You got 90 minutes to push 2 people through generic questions like: "Which country do you think is more dangerous? Iran or Pakistan?" and the candidates have 90 seconds to answer.

Hey I could just have my 10 year old cousin study for 2 weeks to answer these questions. Anybody who is just a little bit interested in world politics would be able to do it.

It's more like a school test and also a test of who prepared his talking points better.

But why do we need a debate in the first place:

Because people need to see their candidate uncut, unedited and direct. No MSM involved.

It's about first impressions, it's about likability, it's about character.

GWB wasn't elected because he was the smartest in the bunch, but the most approachable. Kerry lost because it is hard to like him, even if you agree with him on the issues.

I said it many times before: Presidential elections are gut decisions.

And last night it was not very hard to see two very different characters. I have actually never seen any presidential candidate approach the situation like Sarah Palin.

I think many people would like to see her as President now. And we will see if John McCain can live up to her standard. She definitely started a new era of modern Conservatism in politics (probably with people like Bobby Jindall) that have always been present in the American public throughout history.

So can somebody pls tell the MSM that it is not about how many supreme court decisions you can recite, if you can remember the US constitution by heart or are able to mention 3 Presidents in the Middle East.

Hey they don't even care that our foreign policy expert said a bunch of baloney about the middle East. So be it. He looked grumpy and I had to fast forward a few times when he was on (thanks to my DVR).

Anyway we live in a world where game shows are popular and so I guess the MSM sees the debates as the big Trivial Pursuit for Presidential Candidates.

The folks know it is about electing their Representative: like Lincoln said - "by the people, for the people"

The Alien Patriot

Friday, October 3, 2008

If the Bailout is such a good deal, why isn't the private sector doing it?

Rep. Senator Trent Franks said this morning on Cavuto (I'm paraphrasing here):

Everybody is telling us that the bailout is actually a rescue bill and that probably no taxpayer's money will be spend. If everything works as planned the taxpayer will even be able to make some money. So why if that is true isn't the private sector investing in it.

That's a great comment. Hasn't the private sector made a lot of money on wall street. And isn't Wall street in the business of investing.

Here is the investment of a lifetime for you guys. Put $750 B in the economy and maybe you get something back later!

We know why businesses are not interested in doing that. Because it just doesn't make any sense.

If your deal is so great, all the biggest investors in the world would just jump on it.

I never really paid much attention to Franks, but there is another news bit that I wanted to share with you:

Prominent leaders in the black community joined Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) on September 23, 2008, as the Congressman announced the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PreNDA). PreNDA, if passed, will make it illegal for an abortion to be performed for reasons of sex or race. (so much for all white guys are racist!!!!)





Kudos Senator Franks

The Alien Patriot

Do our Representatives really represent us?

The bailout bill (or rescue bill) has shown very clearly that the people in Congress don't really give a $$$$ about what we think.

Those who are voting in line with their constituents are seen as villains or traitors.

But didn't Lincoln say: "....by the people, for the people." At least that is what I remember. Why do we vote for Representatives, if they don't represent us. We could just pick somebody out of the mass and send them to Washington.

Two things are clear. They would probably have a better approval rating than the current Congress, and because they are mainstreamers, they might even have more respect and understanding of mainstream people and will maybe really represent us.

What scares me most about this Congress is that they play politics not just with our future but also with our money.

I was never for this bailout bill and even though I'm not an economic insider, I believe that it is wrong to give money to those who lost it.

I know I'm very cynical towards our Reps, but I have my reasons. After Monday's rejection in the House, it only took them 2 days to make amendments to turn this bill from a roughly 150 pager into a 450 pager.

Do you really think that all the Senators read the 450 pages, before they voted. I don't think so. What are they doing anyway? It seems like they are always on recess.

Okay so they don't vote in our favor, they don't read the bill - so what should I conclude from that.

Well, there are only two options,

1. They think that they know better than me - that even though I and 85% of the American people are against it, it is better for us that they vote for it.

2. The bill helps those who they are in bed with. The lobbyists, the big corporations - Didn't Barack Obama get big dollars from Fannie Mae?


Both things are not very flattering for our Reps.

But the main thing that we can learn here

We always say that people got into bad loans, because they didn't read the fine print. They were just assuming that it is okay. But the very people that we voted for are doing just the same: They sign a bill without even knowing what it says.

I hope it gets voted down.

The Alien Patriot

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Fannie Mae Downfall was predicted

Steven A Holmes wrote in the NY times in 1999:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


If you read the article, you will understand that in 1999 (under Bill Clinton) they already knew that this wasn't a sound instrument and they were just speculating on the economic future, which in history always developed in cycles.

Clinton knew that his surplus was partly an inheritance of the Reagan administration and partly because of the High Tech boom, but that's how he created a legacy that many people still misunderstand.

You can check out Bill Clinton's appearance on the Daily Show, where Bill shows again very eloquently, how to dodge hard questions. And he also shows where the Fannie Mae problem came for. Unfortunately I couldn't find the clip on YouTube, so you have ads in the clip, but just skip to the second part, that's where Clinton comes on.

The Alien Patriot

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Urgent - 3 Steps to Change Nation's Future

Dave Ramsey, maybe one of the last solid free market advocates (at least that's how it seems) has a great common sense proposal that could be used instead of the bailout. And it would be under $50 B and would create liquidity within 24 hours.

Read the letter and send it to your senators and reps - take your future in your hand and do something about this mess. Dave Ramsey has a clear 3 step guide with everything you need on his website


The Alien Patriot

Biden got shot? Really?

Foxnews reports:


Unlike Clinton, Biden Gets Pass for Saying He Was 'Shot At' in Iraq

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by Barack Obama's campaign -- but the campaign has been silent about Joe Biden telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.


Everybody wants to be a war hero.

The Alien Patriot

Free Trade Agreement between Europe and Canada could be good news for America

The National Post states in an article:

Former French prime minister Edouard Balladur, an old political mentor to current President Nicolas Sarkozy, has been a major voice promoting Canada as a good place to construct an initial model for bilateral progress. Indeed, he has spoken of a Canada-EU agreement as a potential foundation for the eventual rebuilding of the now-fractured U.S.-EU relationship. Direct free-trade negotiations between America and Europe are currently impossible to contemplate, given the mood of the European public, but the idea is that Canada could serve as a sort of rope line around which a bridge can later be built.

Probably no one in Canada needs to be talked into seeing the advantages of a solid labour-mobility deal with the Continent. With the U.S. dollar and the Euro now established as the world’s two overwhelmingly significant stores of value, increasing the share of our international trade destined for Europe, which has dwindled in the NAFTA era, would provide a useful hedge against relative fluctuations in the two currencies.


I'm not sure if that would really give us the benefits if Barack Obama gets to be President, because protectionism is one of his big policies. Read Obama and protectionism

In this, an Obama presidency would reverse the policy of expanding free trade of every administration since Herbert Hoover's. Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff was instrumental in causing the Great Depression. One hopes that Obama will remember this should he make it to the Oval Office in January.


The Alien Patriot

New BBC poll about "War on Terror"

A new BBC poll on the question of "War on Terror" was done in 23 countries.

Some 29% of people said the "war on terror" launched by President George W Bush in 2001 had had no effect on the Islamist militant network.

According to 30% of those surveyed, US policies have strengthened al-Qaeda.


I think this is where Bush enemies get their numbers from.

They would say, "Yeah, Elk Heider got stronger blah blah blah ..." -

Sorry guys but all the numbers actually indicate is that people think Al-Qaeda got stronger.

Plus who are we asking here? What do these people know in the first place.

It is one of those useless polls in my view that are just put together to give liberals ammo to bash Bush. Boring.

The Alien Patriot

Do we fix a bad government with more government

Great article on CNN from Jeffrey A. Miron (Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer), a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. Miron was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.


I feel very similar about this topic, of course with much less knowledge of the economy and also no real assets in the market.

I have lived in a country with a lot of government and if you believe that there is less corruption and less bad decision making you are dead wrong. Free market is still the way to go, let those die who make bad decisions, because otherwise you will just reward bad behavior.

The Alien Patriot

Did Ahmadinejad soften his vision of Israel?

Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez from Democracy Now have interviewed President Aqua-dinejad and the most striking is his answer on Israel:

AMY GOODMAN: So, do you think Israel should be eliminated?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] We believe that people have to decide and choose their own fate, the right to self-determination. If they would like to keep the Zionists, they can stay; if not, they have to leave. What do you think the people there want?

AMY GOODMAN: You would support a two-state solution, if they do?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Wherever people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. We’ve been saying this for several years as a proposal. But those who use democracy as a pretext everywhere else are not—don’t think the Palestinians need democracy.


Is it just propaganda or is there more to it? Or does he know that the Palestinians will boot the Israelis out if they can't choose to do so?

And as Peter Tatchell asks in the Guardian: "Why doesn't the MSM pick up on this story?"

Interesting though that the Palestinians weren't that much liked in the Middle East either throughout history. Similarly to the Jewish people they are good in business and dominate trade wherever they went. They got booted out of many countries down there.

I don't believe that Iran really likes the Palestinian's, but supporting them helps Aqua-dinejad in his war against the Jews.

The Alien Patriot

Monday, September 29, 2008

The New Judds - Ashley and Ahmadine Judd

After a successful speech at the UN conference, Pres. Ahmadinejad was using most of the last week as a promo tour. What we didn't know was that he was secretly holding meetings to put forward a plan to engage somehow the Hollywood community to rally behind his message.

He was looking for somebody who would give similar bold speeches and would have no problem to put forward radical views that make them look stupid. (Hey you would think that would not be that hard)

And it seems like he found this person in Ashley Judd, when she is talking about women privacy and reproductive rights - the new term for abortion rights.

Hey they might not agree on abortion or on homosexuality, but I guess he likes her extreme view. He thinks that all Jews are murderers and she thinks that women who would vote for Palin are damned.





So the negotiations seem to be finished and it looks to me like there is a deal. An international breakthrough.

Let me introduce the New Judds:

Ashley Judd and Ahmadine Judd

The Alien Patriot

Let Wall Street correct the market

If I would be on Wall Street (and I am not) I would probably do anything right now to keep the business going. That's what I'm doing with my own business. Even though it is small I go regularly through tough times.

I don't have anybody to go to. The market kicks me in the face and says: "Well figure it out?"

So why aren't we telling Wall Street to figure it out. They go the right now the path of least resistance. Of course if you offer them a deal, they will take it. They will take any money they can get their hands on. That is their job.

So they let us panic, so that we bail them out. But if it is their job to make money in the market, then have them clean it up, so that it works.

If you check history, the money makers always figured it out. Don't let it spill over on Main Street, just because you are too lazy to be creative.

It's not our fault that you guys ended up in this situation, but you created the mess, now go and clean it up.

I don't like to come to the rescue of those, who are repeatedly and knowingly didn't care about the economy and their work environment.

If you give a toy to a kid - you will tell the kid to take care of it and not just replace it with another one, when the kid is purposely breaking it.

But this is what we are doing right now. And they will probably be successful with it, because they are playing on the fear of the public. And that's a very weak spot in the American soul.

The Alien Patriot

Wall Street is coming back to Earth

Will Hutton writes in the Guardian:

"What I do know is that unless there is a radical and government-led change in ownership, structure, regulation and incentives so that the principles of fairness are put at the heart of the Anglo American financial system - proportionality of reward and fair distribution of risk - there is no chance of the return of trust and integrity upon which long-term recovery depends."

Even though I agree that things need to change, I don't see that capitalism has to change in its principles. It's not about structure and it's not about incentives. Private companies should be able to decide what they want to do - as long as it is legal. If they make a wrong decision they should be laid to rest, like any other small business. (Hey I didn't get a big check for my company!)

There needs to be more transparency, but there needs to be more education, that government is a strong regulator, is nothing more than a huge corporation with plenty of scandals, corruption, with the difference that it just can't die.

Government can't keep you from making bad decisions unless we are talking about centralized economy.

Businesses should be part of the free market, because government can never be.

The Alien Patriot

Has America Become a Third World Country?

The LA Times, one of the most grotesque left winger outlets, has published some words of truth in a recent article. I want to quote it here, just because it shows that you can have the right insight, but still get blinded by your partisan views. The gotcha game of the LA Times is really boring.

"We thus want to acknowledge the progress you have made in your evolution from economic superpower to economic basket case. Normally, such a process might take 100 years or more. With your oscillation between free-market extremism and nationalization of private companies, however, you have successfully achieved, in a few short years, many of the key hallmarks of Third World economies."


I believe what is said here is true. But the rest of the article is just the usual liberal partisan gibberish.

Two things for our liberal thinkers:

  • Of course everybody blames US for the downfall of the financial markets, but remember that a lot of those really nice social democratic countries with a lot of government regulations are in the shits too. They bought bad paper too. So what's your explanation for that. Government just can't take away greed in people.


  • Big government intervention and regulation is fine, but has nothing to do with America. The founding fathers didn't even think that putting the 13 states together in a union would be possible to defend, because they feared that it would need a big size government. They didn't like big government, because they just cut loose from a big government (the British Empire).


If you want to change America into Eurica, at least be honest about it.

The Alien Patriot

The new American Socialism - The Bush Obama Connection

Who would have thought that under a Republican President big spending would be one of the biggest issues? And who would have thought that this same President will try to rescue our economy not by just raising the tax for this generation, but for many generations to come? And by giving money to those who put us in this financial dilemma in the first place.

I for sure didn't. And I'm glad that there are at least some conservative minds in the house to make sure the bill didn't get passed as it was originally proposed.

I mean I know that Bill Clinton (even though I don't think he was the worst President the US has ever seen) misunderstood the principles of the American Dream by saying that he would like to see 70% of Americans own their house (Community Reinvestment Act), rather than saying he would like 100% of Americans have the possibility to own a house, if it is within the realm of their means. Everybody in America has the possibility if you have the means. If you don't have the money, too bad. There is a lot of things I can't afford either.

Why would the government help me to strike a deal that I am not able to afford?

My parents back in Europe are renting an apartment for the last 40 years and they are happy. They understand that buying a house is not in their budget and never was.

It's hard to believe that we have a Republican President now, who gradually subscribes to the same American Socialism that Bill Clinton promoted (and now Barack Obama).

It seems that American Socialism has become the new American Dream.

It's not about opportunity anymore, it has turned into a commitment. And commitment is not compatible with freedom, the foundation of America.

You hear people talking about wanting to have more government regulation, government health care, government everything. It is sad, because that means that America has become just another country, nothing special.

You screw up in life and you go to the government to fix it. You don't want to take responsibility and you go to the government to tell you what to do.

Are American really ready for this?

I sometimes wish that Bush is only doing all this, so that Obama would be seen as Bushes 3rd term and McCain the person with the traditional American values and principles. If that is Bushes plot, I draw my hat. If not he for sure cannot be called an American conservative anymore.

He really seems much closer to Obama than to McCain.

In hard times like this (and the hard times haven't even really started yet other than in the news media), all Americans should think back of how Abraham Lincoln ended The Gettysburg Address on June 1, 1865:

"- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."


Government should not be seen as an institution, but rather as an instrument of the people of America. Only this will keep this a great country.

Otherwise the US could just join the European Union, because it will not differ anymore from countries in Europe.

The Alien Patriot

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Oil - how to stop Iran's crazy politics

Well you think that we are in a quandary about the future of oil and it's pricing, but the middle east has just as much problems if not even more.

While America is forced to find new ways of energy supply - locally with Off shore drilling, Drilling in ANWAR, nuclear, coal, gas, wind and solar and of course with alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles, conservation and less usage, Saudi's and OPEC don't seem to be able to find peace on pricing.

As much as we depend on foreign oil and these countries, they depend on us as much. While Venezuela and Iran don't want to lower prices, the Saudi's feel that if the world demand drops, that they will not be able to make as much money as in the past.

I think that the Middle east needs to find new ways of making money, because the world is tired of their tyrannic behavior. Unfortunately our government didn't want to start new energy supplies earlier and it will cost us a lot of money.

But we need to get off those guys leash - let the Iranians figure out what they are going to do, if we don't buy their oil. They have such a lousy government, that they might have to figure out to develop other sources for income.

Let's not give those guys money anymore. The less money they have, the less damage they can do.

Is wasteful spending the American Way?

The financial crisis reminds us right now, how bad wasteful spending is and how much there needs to be regulation to control the spending.

When I first came to the US, I felt that wasteful spending is not just a government issue, but a personal responsibility issue, that is even more important.

You can't expect the government better than the average man, because ultimately the guys in government are just average men and women too.

Wasteful spending shows up as immense amounts of unnecessary packaging, gas guzzler's and electric usage that is much higher than anywhere else in the world.

And how did America get there? Well higher, faster, further is not just the Olympic motto, but it is maybe with the addition of "bigger" also the motto of the American way.

While Europe was always a little bit more hesitant to jump into every new innovation, and is also more passive in the money markets, America's dominance in the world is probably based on the fact that Americans don't have a problem spending.

But unfortunately we are at a point, where Americans do not just spend their own money like crazy, but even money that they don't even have. Life is spent on loan papers. (And even more unfortunate is that this practices of living on credit have also become more accepted in Europe and other parts of the world)

America has the advantage of massive natural resources and an open mind when it comes to innovation, and this will always keep America on top. This is just a part of the culture.

But we have to learn to not live way over our means, because this is counterproductive.

Europe is more passive, because space is limited. If you damage your environment, you will be living in it for the rest of your life. (In America you would just move away from it)

On a personal level Americans need to learn to save and not so much to speculate, not to live from month to month with all your assets in high return risky investments.

Industries have to be held accountable, farmers have to be held accountable - ecological innovations have to be pushed. In Europe everybody is recycling - even small villages participating in it. It is part of everyday life. And it has to become part of everyday life in America too.

Government has to promote clean industries that are accountable for the mess they make, and has to make sure that people are taking responsibility for their personal lives, not trying to guarantee them home ownership or general health care.

There has to be general education about the crux of wasteful spending on a personal level, business level and ultimately on government level.

I know that ultimately America will be again a role model, not just in its economic endeavors and it's promotion of freedom and democracy, but also as a role model for responsibility of a society.

The founding fathers knew very well about it, but a thriving economy and a seemless endless natural resources did let us slowly forget about that.

The Alien Patriot

Friday, September 26, 2008

The Truth about Polling

Many of us know that polling is not really reflecting what's happening in the elections and if anything they are maybe able to point out some major tendencies.

But they are big business and if the media would not have them, what would journalists have to write about. In other countries polling is not such a big machinery, mainly because the only place with a 24 hour news culture is the US.

I remember back in Europe, you would watch the news usually at 7pm or 7.30pm, in the morning you would maybe tune into some local TV show. That's how people treat the news in Europe.

But what is actually the value of polling. David Moore who worked for the Gallup Poll for 13 years wrote a book about the polling sham. You can get a taste of what the book is like in the article
"Former Gallup Pollster and Founder of Survey Center Unveils Secrets and Shams of Political Polls in New Book" (on newswise.com)

My favorite line of the article is:

“Media pollsters will do everything they can to beat such an undecided voter into oblivion, so they can begin horserace coverage long before the race track has even opened.”

Huckabee: McCain Mistake Not to Debate

While I stated yesterday that Democrats like Clinton and Kucinich thought it was a great idea of McCain to postpone the first debate with Senator Obama, Huckabee said yesterday, that it was a mistake.

I don't know why he did it and what the purpose of his statement would be, but let's face it McCain is always doing things that are unexpected. He has his own way of seeing things and dealing with things.

Many people shake their heads about that and maybe even get a little bit uncomfortable about it, but at least he has a set of principles that he follows, no matter what other people think.

I like that. Even though he does unconventional things, he seems to me more predictable than Obama.

The Alien Patriot

How money is created Video - Money as Debt

I found this video this morning and I think it gives great insight on the Banking System today. It is a straight forward clip about the present unsustainable monetary system in the world.

After what happened to Washington Mutual we better know how it all works.

Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of "Money as Debt" tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its "Duncan Initiative" received high praise from those who previewed it.

I know it's a little bit long, but I really enjoyed watching it. Maybe most of you already know everything about how banks really work, but I did learn quite a few new things.

Enjoy the video!





The Alien Patriot

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Backyard Games - Russia, Venezuela and America, Georgia

Did Bush really expect that putting up an anti-defense missile system in Poland is really going down well in Russia. Playing in Putin's frontyard is not really very respectful. And now we have them play in our frontyard (Russiatoday reports "Russia to loan Chavez $1BLN to buy arms")

I personally was never much a fan of trying to increase power of the NATO, which is a relict of WWII and has no place in the world of today. I come from Austria, which has neutral status and does not belong to any military block.

A key objective of post-1945 Austrian governments was ending the Four Power occupation and preventing the permanent division of Austria. The Allies' greater preoccupation with Germany delayed formal treaty negotiations with Austria until January 1947. By then, however, the larger strategic issues of the Cold War overshadowed the negotiations. The Soviet Union dropped its support for Yugoslav territorial claims against Austria in 1948 when Yugoslavia broke with the Soviet Union, but new issues arose to block progress toward ending the occupation: the Berlin blockade of 1948; the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the division of Germany into two rival states in 1949; and the start of the Korean War in 1950.
for more info see The 1955 State Treaty and Austrian Neutrality

What I don't understand is why can't those countries around the Russia can't be turned into neutral countries. They want help from the US, they want to be freed from Russia, but they can't pose a threat for Russia. Putin is not going to accept that. Neutral countries don't pose a direct threat. It's a compromise that will not need American troops, no military expenses, no problem with a new Cold War and economic independence of countries like Georgia.

Austria has worked for more than 50 years. So I don't understand. I believe Bush's desire to free the people in this world, but this kind of American Imperialism sucks.

The Alien Patriot

Is there going to be a Civil War in the US?

What does the military expect to happen? It looks like that there are troops deployed in the US right now for "civil unrest and crowd control"

Well some people predicted that if BO is not getting elected that there will be a revolution, a race based war.

The tension seems to be under control with Obama being very careful with any kind of racial comments (even though sometimes it didn't work). McCain stays completely away from the topic, while some Republicans have stated pretty ugly things over time (Hey and Dems did too)

Racial tension is in all directions black, white, asian, hispanic. So do we really think our security is in danger.

Well there is not just possibility of civil unrest, but also danger of terrorism.

If you look at how much security to have now at any given political event, I'm not surprised that the military is on high alert.

The Alien Patriot

Ireland's economy tanks - Low Corporate Tax didn't help

How many times have we heard how good the corporate tax is in Ireland and how we would have to be scared that businesses would rather go to Ireland than to stay in the US?

I just heard Rupert Murdoch say that last week on TV.

And what's the problem there: well guess what the housing market tanked.

Euronews states:

"Ireland became the first country in the Euro-zone to slide into recession this year. The second successive quarterly fall in Gross Domestic Product is Ireland’s poorest performance in 25 years, after the country’s property-bubble burst."


So it shows that if the housing market is bad, no business measures will help the market.

Remember that when we put out this bailout bill!

The Alien Patriot

Democrats support McCains campaign suspension

I just listened in on Cavuto's interview with Dennis Kucinich who said in response to the question if it was good for McCain to suspend his campaign: "The way we handle this crisis needs all hands on deck." He also said that the debates should be rescheduled quickly and the delay is not the issue, the presidency should be decided on issues.

True. True.

And then there was Bill Clinton defending John McCains decision to delay the debates. Hear it yourself:





Why is Bill doing this? Well again one part of me tells me it's because of the election 2012, the other (and this is also what de Rothschild said today) that Bill Clinton always puts his country first and says so, even if it's not very popular in his own party. Good for you, Bill!

This does not look very good for Barack Obama though, who said yesterday that issuing a joint statement is the most important thing and that he would be available if he is needed. Yeah that was his attitude in the senate too. Ok, I'm present, but that's all. Over 130 times.

Is he not interested in what's happening right now?

McCain had to indirectly force Obama to come to Washington, by asking the President to invite Obama to a meeting at the White House.

Would it always take that much to get him to do something for his country. He thinks running for President is already the greatest gift for America.

Thanks, dude!

The Alien Patriot

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Obama: "A president should be able to do more than one thing at a time"

This is what Obama said today in a press conference. He said that in response to McCain suspending his campaign to go to Washington to deal with the $700 B bail out of Wall street.

Anyway when I heard about McCain suspending his campaign to address a national issue, I didn't think he is not a multi-tasker, but that he is more concerned about what's happening with this bill.

After all if he gets elected he has to deal with this mess.

McCain shoots from the hip much more than Obama, who always seems to have some kind of delay in his actions. Sometimes people might think that McCain is too quick, but a man with convictions, passion and experience (just life experience) has no problem making his mind up quickly and move forward on it.

The US needs a fast acting leader more than ever and not someone who is a reactive leader, who first has to see the whole train, and wants to get on, when it is already past.

We are living in a fast moving world and even though John McCain is supposedly slow and old, he still seems to be more on top of things than Obama, who is good in the realm of controlled environments.

McCain has a history to put his country first: Possible suspension of the Rep. National Convention because of Gustav was just the last one.

And if it's all just for political theater (as the Dems for sure will make it out to), he nailed it.

The Alien Patriot

Europe is rubbing its hand - US economy Makes Euros smile

If you read European newspapers the last few days, you can see that Europe is not too unhappy that the US economy tanked. It gives them a chance to talk about the evil America and about the fact that if the US would have listened to Europe it would probably not have happened.

Yes, the European economy is stable, but there is no growth. And that's not just my opinion. Just last week Rupert Murdoch said that on Cavuto's show.

But Europeans arrogantly say better safe than rich. Climb Up Real High, Fall Down Real Far.

In the mind of many Europeans, America should have listened to their proposal of international regulations, something like a world government. Regulations, regulations and regulations.

I've seen it back in Europe - but no matter how much regulation you have, there is still corruption and scandals on a daily basis. You can't really regulate crooks. Period.

And they think that with Obama they might get closer to that goal of a world community. Of course there is still Russia, China, India to deal with, but they believe the US is to blame for every little thing that happens in the world. And of course Bush. (But don't worry Bush, it was Clinton, Bush and Reagan before you, who had that same image in Europe)

The insistence of Americans on free market is just too much for them to understand. Regulation is what they are used to and they think that there is no justice in a free market.

The downfall of Wall Street is for them a sign that free market can never work and that is good that evil Bush is leaving office.

They cannot grasp that Warren Buffet steps in with $5 Billions to save Goldman Sachs. Those numbers are just to big for them.

Europeans even make fun of the fact that Bush said the word "terror" 32 times in his 22 minute speech at the UN. They just don't get it. They still don't think it is important, until they will look in into the barrel of a loaded gun. (The big newspaper didn't even say anything about Ahmadinejad) Wake up Europe!

The Alien Patriot

Dems Conspiracy against Obama to get Hillary in the White House in 2012

Ok, the first things that seemed to indicate that Hillary Clinton has started her 2012 election campaign for President of the United States, was when Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter, said she will endorse John McCain for president.

Then I noticed that neither Bill nor Hillary really ever enthusiastically talk about Barack Obama becoming the next president. Many of us saw it just as a sign of disappointment, that she didn't win or had at least the VP spot offered.

Then Bill Clinton appeared at the View and said that the strong suit of a governor are economic issues, which he said gave him the Presidency in 92 when the economy was the dominant issue of the campaign. That was his response when he was asked if Sarah Palin was qualified.

Then Bill Clinton also praises McCain and Sarah Palin at the interview with CNBC. So does that mean he wants McCain to win, without making it look that way?





And Bill also appeared on Letterman and Greta's On the Record and showed only mild support for Barack Obama. So much so that even. Chris Rock made fun of it on Letterman (hilarious because Dave is so uncomfortable).



And what about Joe Biden. This is the guy who said in the primary election that he would rather run as McCain's VP than as Obama's VP. When I first heard he would run as Obama's VP - I thought he was an just an opportunist. He did get a pass from the media and so he didn't talk about his attitude towards Obama (that we don't need a President who gets training on the job). But I had a weird feeling.

Then Biden said in a rally in Nashua in the beginning of this month: "Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me"

Then Biden starts to undermining talking points of Barack Obama, getting a little bit ahead of himself (or maybe not) - and he said to Katie Couric, the computer ad about McCain was "terrible" and that he didn't knew about it. (Ouch)





Then he said on a rally today no coal for America, even though it's part of Obama's energy plan





Of course Biden's own credibility is not that great when he said that when the stock market crashed in 1929 President FDR went on "television", when FDR was neither president at that time nor was there TV.





Put all that together and you will see that there are a lot of indications that Hillary is planning on running in 2012. She didn't even say anything about the treatment of Sarah Palin in the press. She just stays out of everything.

Bill and Hillary are in loyalty mode, but working for the campaign with as much vigor as communist bureaucrats.

So the question is:
Does this just have something to do with Clinton's desire to be on the top spot or does it also maybe reflect that there is also a racial component involved that makes her feel that there is a big chance that she can run in 2012. After all the AP-Yahoo News poll from the beginning of this month found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks , many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

Anyway just a few thoughts.

The Alien Patriot

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Bill Ayers talks about public education





Quote from the video:
"We face a full scale attack on the idea of public education."

Even though I'm probably very opposite in my opinions to Ayers on most issues I agree with him on that. But probably for different reasons.

Ayers believes that money rules education, that the rich people determine what gets taught in school.

Hey, Bill, you couldn't be further from the truth. You say that public education is not bound to a site per se, but can happen in the home, in churches, in museums etc.

I will extend that to TV, Movies, press, internet.

And even though the riches maybe own many of these outlets, they are usually not promoting the lifestyle of the riches, but rather left wing agendas.

Check out NBC news and CNN, check out NY Times and LA Times, check out the Daily Kos and check the Emmy's, Hollywood Movies etc.

It is heavily left wing biased.

And for schools. You couldn't be more wrong. Did you hear about school kids having to write down the three negative things about Sarah Palin (showed on O'Reilly last week), Columbia University allowing the Iranian Pres to speak, but not allowing military personnel to advertise on campus. Where is the influence of the riches?

Public schools are not in trouble because of the agenda of the riches, but because they do not offer objective education anymore.

The Alien Patriot

Did Bill Clinton endorse Sarah Palin?

I don't know if anyone saw the View with Bill Clinton. I saw it on O'Reilly and one thing really caught my attention.



(Check at 2:30)

When Clinton asked if Sarah Palin was qualified he was not really answering the question, but said the following, which I thought was kinda telling:

"I was the longest serving governor of America. President Bush said I wasn't qualified and I wasn't as qualified on international issues, but I was more qualified on the economic issues and those were the things that dominated the '92 election."


Obviously the 2008 election is also dominated by economic issues.

So does that mean Bill Clinton actually thinks that Sarah Palin is qualified, because she is a governor?

I'm never sure why Clinton says what he says. It never seems to full close a circle. But maybe he has learned that it is wise to leave all ends open.

He said that Obama will probably win, but he never said that he should win. He also said that he very much likes McCain. Overall he has never lost his ambiguity and even though I disliked him as a President (I was still in Europe at the time), I think he makes American politics very interesting.

Maybe you also want to look at this clip where Bill Clinton compliments Sarah Palin



Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Shocking Truth about the Education in the US

Richard Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics and he recently said in an article of the Suedeutsche Zeitung (South German Newspaper) that High School graduates in the US usually need 1-2 years until they catch up with German High School graduates. In lower education it's even worse. He didn't criticize the people, but the education system.
Workers don't have a chance to have much ongoing education in the US and American companies rarely invest in employees over the age of 40 or 50 to get them up to speed.
Sennett believes that in a crisis of the world economy, Germans will have an advantage over Americans in terms of the better quality of education, that makes it easier for them to adapt to changes. Even though Americans are more flexible in terms of innovation, low level education might be in the way.

Today I saw that in California 24% of High School students drop-out, which I think a little bit higher than the national average. This is very scary. Innovation alone cannot drive the economy, quality education is important for a nation not just in the business world, but also in the political world.

Mercurynews.com says post the following dropout rates:
"41.3 percent of black students, 31.3 percent of Native Americans, 30.3 percent of Hispanics, and 27.9 percent of Pacific Islanders,.... white students had a 15.2 percent dropout rate, while Asians had a 10.2 percent rate.

The school districts with the highest dropout rates were Oakland Unified, with 37.4 percent; Fresno Unified with 35.1 percent, and Los Angeles Unified with 33.6 percent."


As the financial market showed last week, people make stupid decisions. On the CEO level I think it's mainly crooks who make these bad decisions, but on the average Joe level I think it is the lack of interest in good education.