Justified Right

American Homes Lose $700B in 1st Quarter. Nice Job, Bush and Obie

It is being reported today that 1 out of every 5 Americans are upside down in their homes right now.  That means they owe more on the house than it is worth, so they can't even sell it to get out. If they run into payment problems, they will lose their life savings even if they file for bankruptcy, because Congress won't pass a law that allows Bankruptcy judges to adjust the principal to save the home.

These aren't just people who took sub-prime mortgages they couldn't afford. The horrid economy affects everyone. Many good and hard-working small business owners who bought their homes when they were making good money have been crushed and now can't pay their mortgages either. 

Why are the mortgage lenders so special? Bankruptcy judges are permitted to adjust the terms of every other type of loan, but the lobby-rich bank and mortgage companies have their very own exception built into federal law.

So the existing state of the law is that if "you the people" get into financial trouble, you can go to hell.  Going to lose your life savings?  Suck it up, individual capitalists.  Start over.  Adversity builds character and is good for the soul, or something like that.

Unless you are a bank, mortgage company or car company.  That tough guy, rugged individualist, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps American way of life doesn't apply to you.  You are "too big to fail" even if the sleeping jackasses over at the Department of Justice Anti-Trust Unit are supposed to sue companies before they obtain so much market share they become "too big to fail." 

Does anyone really believe any of the companies we've bailed out are "too big to fail?"  They simply have friends in D.C. who are too big for us to stop them from bailing out their campaign donors.

None of those companies are so connected to the national interest that their demise would be the fall of America. That the Anti-Trust Unit never sued any of them over market share is either proof that they weren't too big to fail, or that the Anti-Trust Unit is the laziest bunch of lawyer-bureaucrats on the planet and they should all be fired.

What a disgusting reality:  A taxpayer gut-punched by the economy is in foreclosure.  Tough on him.  The bank foreclosing on him gets gut-punched by the economy The government takes what little money the taxpayer has left, gives it to his bank under the TARP program, so the bank can continue the foreclosure against him using his own money. 

What an insult to America's founding principle that people are important.  They've been replaced on the importance scale by banks, as was the case in 1930's Italy and Germany. Smells like fodder for a new Revolution, not just a tea party.

In the first quarter of 2009 American home values have dropped $700 billion.

Interesting number.

$700 Billion was the amount of the Bush TARP plan that recapitalized banks to continue foreclosures without recapitalizing the foreclosed homeowners.

$787 Billion is the amount of Obama's Stimulus plan, which does nothing to recapitalize the foreclosed taxpayer, instead taking his money and buying new cars for government bureaucrats and funding a Mafia Museum for Speaker Harry Reid in Nevada.

The net effect of Bush and Obama taking all that taxpayer money and giving it to government and big companies was that American home values have dropped $700 Billion in three months.

Nice job, Corporatist bastards.  I hope they both fail.

Senator Coburn, Obama's "Generational Theft" Stimulus and Fight Club

       

            Senator Coburn                                              Tyler Durden

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma calls the Stimulus Package the Senate is debating the "Generational Theft Act" for transferring yet to be created money, which should belong to future generations, over to ourselves.

I must confess I first read the phrase "Generational Theft Act" over at Michelle Malkin's website. Neither Coburn nor Malkin credits the other and I don't know who thought of it first or if they developed the phrase independently, but who cares - I like it.

Coburn has a plan to fix the bill, and you can read it at his website here.

This sentence of Coburn's stood out for me: "This bill is about spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need." It reminded me of a line from one of my favorite movies - Fight Club.

There is a scene when Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) is talking to his generation, the average working guy, the "middle children of history." He tells them: "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs that we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."

Coburn's quote and Tyler Durden's quote are very similar.

The correlation between President Obama's "Generational Theft Act" Stimulus Package and the movie Fight Club goes deeper.

Fight Club is really about a generation wishing for anarchy. They are neglected. They feel cheated. The movie eventually deals with the following: (SPOILER ALERT!!! STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!):

Tyler Durden's group of working-class guys blow up all the credit card companies, so their debt record is wiped out.

Wow. You have to wonder if our generation, by constantly laying debt onto future generations, isn't sowing the seeds of a Tyler Durden uprising in our children's generation.

According to the website that keeps the Nation Debt Clock every American child born today owes $35,000.00 in money generations before him spent and then handed him the bill.

If that number gets too high, is it unreasonable to think that a future generation would resent the America that came before him so much that he might turn to anarchy and dump it all?

Can we expect to instill in future-born Americans a love of country when we spend their money and indenture them into paying it back?  That is taxation without representation, and I do recall a group of patriots at one time rejecting that premise entirely.

It's as if we are birthing a new generation of Americans with a secular original sin on their record (debt) but offering no baptismal ceremony to wipe it all away. 

I see the future - it's Tyler Durden:

Tyler Durden rocks.

Obama Punks the Unions

 Buy American European.

Read it here.

President Huggy Bear

 

This post is about CLOTHES.

This post is NOT about skin color or blaxsploitation cinema.

So the PC Police can just shut up before they even start talking, particularly weird little government committees in New Jersey, like the one that met twice to condemn blogger Art Gallagher for reporting that Jesse Jackson used a racial slur, but didn't announce a meeting to condemned Jesse Jackson.

My commitment to the equality of all people is well documented.

My commitment to making fun of what we all wore in the 1970's is about to be documented.

Look, you me and everyone else wouldn't want pictures of us posted from the 1970's, because the 70's had some tacky styles.

But you, me and everyone else aren't running for President.  Disco Barry in the white hat was.

Which raises the issue of when Time Magazine came into possession of the photo.  Did they suppress it so that the issue of Obama's college party days would not be fueled to actual inquiry by the media during the election?

If so, that's some special treatment right there.

There was no shortage of news stories about George Bush's party days before his election.

Bill Clinton was forced to explain everything from drug use to draft dodging to his definition of "foreign affairs" being casual sex with strangers in Europe.

So while other candidates are made to explain personal failings, was Obama protected by Time Magazine or the photographer from having to explain a simple fashion faux pas?

If so, I'm upset. 

Imagine the fun we could have had during the election photoshoping Obama and his white hat into other pictures.

Like these:

        

Obama’s Russia Policy? Doc Brown’s Time Traveling DeLorean Should Take Him Back To The Future

 

Historic. As in having an affect or influence on the future.

 

Have you taken a good look at the word “historic” lately?  He’s all frayed around the edges.  He smells like he’s been rubbing BenGay on his tired muscles.  The poor word is absolutely exhausted!

 

The media has been working the word “historic” harder than a one-legged soccer player ever since Barack Obama became the first half Kenyan-American Presidential candidate.

 

A Google search on the words “Obama” and “Historic” turns up over 11 million hits.  “Historic” has to hustle every time Obama winks, sneezes or adopts a puppy (but not so much when he flip-flops on talking to Blago about his Senate seat).

 

The word “historic” asked me to tell you to let him rest now to save his strength, because on January 20 the media just might finish off the old boy.

 

So let’s focus instead on his cousin – “historical” – for whom he is often mistaken. Unlike historic who looks forward, “historical” only looks to the past.

 

The past is here again.  I turned on the television today and Russian battleships were heading to Cuba and a young Democrat President will have to deal with it.  It’s 1962.

 

1962!  Of all the years Doc Brown could have time-traveled us back to in the DeLorean, did it have to be the ‘60’s?  I refuse to grow sideburns.

 

This time though Russia isn’t cruising to just Cuba.  Her battleships led by the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko also visited with America-hater Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Nicaraguan leftist Daniel Ortega and took a sightseeing tour through the Panama Canal.

 

Do you hear that sound?  That’s Sarah Palin tapping on Mr. Obama’s shoulder and telling him, “See, I told you it was important that Russia is close enough to Alaska to see it.”

 

It appears Russia has its eye on influencing events on our side of the Prime Meridian. 

 

That means Doc Brown has to put Obama in the DeLorean and bring him back to December 2, 1823 to listen to President Monroe deliver his State of the Union address.  It was there that the “Monroe Doctrine” was announced.

 

President Monroe told the world that Europe better keep its snooty little imperialism out of North and South America, and if they try to influence the West, America will introduce them to foreign policy via Remington rifles. 

 

The Monroe Doctrine has been America’s foreign policy ever since.

 

Doc Brown should then give Obama a time-traveling DeLorean tour to watch past presidents enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

 

Set the DeLorean’s “flux capacitor” date to December 29, 1845 for Obama to watch Texas become a State, done at the urging of President Polk (ratified by Tyler) to ward off British interest in the land.  That action saw the Monroe Doctrine teaming with Manifest Destiny for Western Expansion.

 

Set the date to 1850 and Obama can watch President Taylor end British designs on Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast and all of Central America with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

 

Set the date to 1867 and Obama can watch the execution of Maximilian, ending the Austrian’s control of Mexico, which was helped by President Johnson keeping Napolean at bay using the Monroe Doctrine.

 

Set the date to 1898 and Obama can watch Colonel Teddy Roosevelt win a “splendid little” Spanish-American War.  The war concerned Cuban independence from Spain and was girded by the Monroe Doctrine.

 

Set the date to 1901 and Obama can watch President McKinley take control of building the Panama Canal with the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, based on the Monroe Doctrine.

 

Set the date to 1962 and Obama can watch President Kennedy quarantine Cuba with battleships and scare off the Russian Bear.

 

This cruise around history should make clear to Mr. Obama that the Monroe Doctrine is a deep line drawn in the Ocean sand that he better take as seriously as his predecessors did.

 

Since a broken clock is right twice a day we may be forced to admit that Joe Biden was right in predicting our young President will be tested soon after taking office.

 

Kennedy was similarly tested by Khrushchev at a meeting in Vienna in 1961. Khrushchev was left with the impression that Kennedy was weak, emboldening the Russian to set up nukes in Cuba. 

 

President Obama should avoid Kennedy’s mistake.  He needs to show strength right away and declare European and Asian war ships will be confronted and stopped should they enter Western waters.

 

That’s how American Presidents of all parties have kicked European rear since 1823.

Not the Rod Blagojevich Obama Knew? Or Not the Axelrod He Knew?

You know it's coming.  Another kiss-off of an Obama friendship to save face.

Obama was friends with racist Reverend Wright until it was politically damaging to know him, so Wright became "Not the Jeremiah Wright I knew."

Obama was friends with extortioner Tony Reszko until it was politically damaging so he became "Not the Tony Reszko I knew."

Obama was friends with terrorist Bill Ayers until it was politically damaging so he became "Not the Bill Ayers I knew."

Time for Act Four.

Here is what Senior Obama Advisor David Axelrod said of Obama's talks with Indicted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich concerning who will take Obama's Senate seat:

November 23: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Here is what Obama said:

December 9:  "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

So who is lying, Obama or Axelrod?

In the liberal world of moral relativism, no one is lying.  "Mistakes" were made.

Team Obama said Axelrod was mistaken, signaling Axelrod to say the same thing.

The problems is, in the Indictment of Hot Rod Blago, there are recorded conversations of the Governor being angry that Obama had at that point offered him nothing more than appreciation for picking Obama's favorite for the seat.

How would he know that if he and Obama or Team Obama had not talked?

So who in the end will get thrown beneath the bus to save Obama from yet another shady friendship? Will it be not the Rod Blagojevich he knew or not the David Axelrod he knew?

Count on Obama's Apostles in the mainstream media not to care if Obama lied.

Which Democrat Would You Bring To A Bar Fight?

Let’s say you’re going to get into a bar fight.  You can bring only 1 of 3 people to help you – John Kerry, Bill Richardson or Hillary Clinton.  Who ya gonna call?

 

You wouldn’t hesitate for second. You’d choose who I would – Hilldog!

 

If I have to have a Democrat as Secretary of State, I’m at least going to have one who knows how to bite.

 

Can you imagine our genteel new President having to face down Medvedev and Putin with only a blue-blooded Brahmin like John Kerry at his elbow?  We’d have to pray a fight doesn’t break out.  Our guys would look like two Metrosexuals arriving for a Community Organizer’s tea party.

 

Hillary would fight with them.  Plus she has experience in spotting just when a man is lying.

 

Bill Richardson?  He has a problem with fidelity. No, not that kind.  I mean disloyalty to his friends.

 

Bill Clinton made this guy. Appointed him Ambassador to the U.N. and Secretary of Energy.  Clinton liked him so much he sent Monica Lewinsky to him for a job (now that’s a friend!).  Richardson then punk’d Clinton by endorsing Obama for President.  Even James Carville called him Judas Iscariot.

 

I’m afraid if I brought Richardson into a bar fight he might turn and punch me if things weren’t going our way.  He had no problem sticking it to his friend Bill Clinton; he doesn’t even know me so what loyalty can I expect?

 

Hilldog wouldn’t turn on me  – we KNOW she’s loyal for better or for worse till death do us part.

 

Hillary for Secretary of State.  I’m not saying I’m crazy about it, but I understand.