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