With all eyes glued to the collapse of global capitalism as we know it, attention has been somewhat distracted from the race to lead what still remains the most powerful nation on earth -- the United States. We ignore it at our peril.
From the shockingly partisan presentation by the pro-Obama media on both sides of the Atlantic, you'd think this was a contest between twin pillars of rectitude and inspirational high seriousness on the Democratic side, and a joke Republican ticket consisting of an erratic old man and a brainless, wacko, gun-toting beauty queen, who in a fit of madness John McCain picked as his vice-presidential candidate.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the beauty queen in question, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, has struck an enormous chord with Middle America. As a result, Barack Obama's media supporters are making a huge effort to destroy her.
Continued on Page 49
#3
From Buckley's previous article where he explains why he is voting for O!bama:
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics arent going to get us out of this pit weve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in himI think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy We are the people we have been waiting for silly rhetoricthe potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
In a nutshell, Buckley is hoping the charming leopard will change his spots and renounce the left-wing politics he has practiced all his life. Christopher's dadddy would be appalled by the illogic inherent in that. In the meantime, have another glass of kool-aid, Chris!
#5
His books are lol funny -- does he have to turn in his sense of humor as his crosses the aisle? Will he become the Dixie Chicks of paperback? All signs point to "yes."
Posted by: regular joe ||
10/15/2008 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Who cares? If it wasn't for his daddy, no one would. I'm guessing he never measured up so he checked out. Only way the poor sap can get any attention directed his way is to try and cast a shadow across his father's star.
Hey Jr! Go cry in your shrink's office with all of the other FUed children of the rich and famous. Without the hourly fee, no one else cares.
#1
A lot of ACORN workers were fine with getting convicted at the State level, because the typical sentence was 1 year suspended. However, if it turns into a federal RICO racketeering suit, from top to bottom, ACORN executives and workers can get 20 years in a federal penitentiary.
The complete 6th Circuit has overturned the three judge panel, and have given only one week for the Ohio Secretary of State to confirm voter registrations against other State records.
Every registration tossed will go directly to a federal prosecutor, because it not only has the name of the ACORN employee who gave out the registration, but ACORN was dumb enough to stamp each fake registration with their logo.
#3
More than 75K new "voters" have been registered in Colorado. We have noticed a LARGE number of non-resident out-of-staters roaming around over the past 3 months. They're not that hard to spot--body language, etc. Acorn/Obama campaign is evidently bussing/funding/sending people into the state (and other swing states) to live temporarily to sign up voters for Obama's election. So much for a "grassroots" campaign. All fakers. Also, they can register here, then go back to their home states and vote again.
Doctor practicing in Phoenix, Arizona, retired lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy, former staff physician to the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. All that and a pious Muslim American who resents the radicals who've exploited his religion. A 30 minute abridged version of his documentary film "The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America". He starts with Beslan, moves to the unacceptable response of the American Muslim community to 9/11, and from there to examples of soft as well as hard jihad. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, too. :-) Well worth letting run in a second window while you do other things at the computer.
There really are moderate Muslims, and they are very concerned about the war on terror. They need to know they are supported by the Western Civilization they are a part of, not rejected because too many of their coreligionists have not their breadth of vision.
#4
I know some, Betty, and they're not afraid to stand up if need be, including talking to other muslims about it. One young man in particular told me he thinks clowns (of any persuasion) who hate Jews and blame them for everything are loons. He's a Republican.
They who follow the dietary rules, fast during Ramadan, dress as (modest) Westerners (I've never seen the men in shorts, and the women dress as modestly as most decent Christian/Jewish women I knew when I was growing up did), and don't give a rat's as if I eat bacon or drink wine, even at the same table with them. I, in turn, make sure to point out any food that has bacon or pork in it, and any Christmastime candies or cookies with liquor in them.
But, like most of us, they spend most of their time just living their lives.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/15/2008 23:34 Comments ||
Top||
I still feel like a teenager. But the face looking back at me in the mirror tells me otherwise. That's my daily mark-to-market.
The intensifying debate over mark-to-market accounting is missing the point.
The question shouldn't be whether regulators should relax or suspend the practice. It should be whether regulators should encourage banks to expand their use of it.
The reason: Credit markets are already marking bank balance sheets to their own view of market values, or walking away in the absence of such information.
That isn't going to change if the U.S. or Europe alters the accounting rules. If anything, it might give these investors yet another reason not to invest. What markets really need is more information about who is sitting on what losses.
However, many banks and some governments want to row in the opposite direction. The American Bankers Association on Monday released a letter calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission to essentially gut mark-to-market accounting. Internationally, accounting rule makers Monday eased some mark-to-market rules. But it isn't clear whether this will be enough to appease the European Union, which may still move to water down the practice further.
The argument against mark-to-market accounting is that it forces banks to use overly pessimistic market prices to value holdings. That triggers losses that deplete capital.
Debt investors don't buy that. They believe that the values banks put on their loans, which mostly aren't marked, still don't adequately reflect losses that will result from the housing crisis. Investors have also cast a jaundiced eye on possibly understated losses on the securities that banks do mark to market prices.
In other words, investors still think some bank balance sheets are cuckoo. Accounting rules should be used to remedy that situation, not make it worse.
#1
It seems to me that there is a similarity between the issues with Mark to Market and depreciation or appreciation of different assets. Mark to Market is the proverbial hammer. "To a man with a hammer all the world is a nail".
Different types of assets need different valuation tools and this one seems clumsy at best.
The following is cribbed from the EU Referendum site please go there for the whole thing.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/simple-explanation.html
Talking to a farmer the other day, I was trying to explain the concept of "mark to market", and hit on this wheeze. Imagine, I said, it is 19 March 1996 and you have just bought 150 head of store cattle at £200 each that you are going to fatten up and sell in a few months. How much are those cattle worth?
Simple arithmetic tells you that you have an investment worth £30,000.
But this is 19 March 1996, which means the next day is 20 March 1996. On that day, health minister Stephen Dorrell stood up in parliament and announced a tentative link between the killer disease CJD and Mad Cow Disease (BSE). The meat market didn't go into free fall it evaporated. I don't think a single beast was sold that day.
So how much are your cattle worth, I ask my farmer. £30,000, he says - he had no intention of selling them. But if you had sold them on the market that day, how much? Er there was no market. In that case, I declared feeling very pleased with myself - their value was zero. That's "mark to market". You have to value on a "fire sale" basis, according to what your cattle your assets will fetch on the day.
Now, imagine you are a bank. This is your "toxic debt" your 150 head, nominally worth £30,000. On the basis of that holding, you have been allowed for the purpose of this example to borrow a maximum of ten times that amount, which you are allowed to lend, i.e., £300,000. This is called "leverage"........
....You are now too highly leveraged. You are, in fact, insolvent. No commercial bank will lend you any money. ... Or you could go to the government for a "bail-out", in which case they'll "nationalise" your farm and put their own manager in. Whatever else happens, you certainly cannot lend any more money.....
#4
The cattle example/analogy is wrong. No cattle sold = no market price = not possible to mark to market on that day and the last available price would be used instead, ie the price they were bought for.
Mark to market is wholly a good thing despite valuation issues with illiquid assets.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics especially on political talk radio right out of legitimate public debate.
Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:
#2
Yes it does. If Obama wins it's going to be a long four years.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/15/2008 0:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Compare wid REDDIT > HAS ANYONE NOTICED THERE IS NO MORE LEFT-WING IN US MEDIA, POLITICS ANYMORE!?
We missed That Guy From Guam's FASCISM = now LIMITED COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM = LIMITED SOCIALISM,..................@ETC. arguments, premises, andor inferences all those years ago, didn't we???
#6
JM is onto something, unsavory though it may be.
I would never advocate violence, but if people get frustrated enough, or their rights are trampled enough, bad things will happen.
Before it gets to that level, ther are other things you can do. It will be easier to push back at the grassroots level. Make note of who has the Obama signs in their yards or on their bumpers. Cease patronizing their businesses, if they have them. Even if it means spending a little more, somewhere else. Alter your associations with those who do not, and let them know why you choose not to engage with them, or let your kids play with theirs.
Vote (if you can) against any increases in pay for teacher's unions, or any government employee unions that were overt Obama supporters. When and if you are asked why your spending and voting patterns have changed, supply the honest answer, and tell the targeted groups that your rights of expression are under attack and they get no more money from you until whatever new version of the "fairness" doctrine their anointed one puts in place is removed. Targeted economic pressure can have a powerful effect, particularly on a group (public sector unions) that places such an insanely overwhelming emphasis on income stream security.
Talk to young people. Get involved. Challenge them to think about why a government would attempt to limit free speech, and its implications.
Enough of these might be enough to avoid the shooting scenario.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/15/2008 6:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Enough of these might be enough to avoid the shooting scenario.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/15/2008 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This is the scenario I see if Obama is president:
With a dhimocratic congress, expect huge tax increases and massive government spending. In this economy, I see another depression happening because of government policy. People will complain, gripe and criticize the government and Obama. The dhimocrats, in a attempt to stop the pointing out of their flaws (and we have already seen Obama do this) with start suppressing free speech. Expect to see the fairness doctrine come back and only be enforced on right wing venues. The MSM and the leftist sites will not be touched. As our nation falls deeper into poverty and trouble, also expect to see more "social" programs come into being and financed by the government. Only, they will be for the people that supported the left and no one else. Green projects, teachers, unions, etc. You will also see a national youth movement that will try to brainwash kids into turning in their parents for "Un-American" activities. At this point, people start shooting. Curfews and banning of public protest will come, followed by martial law. Then, full Civil War. Not like the last Civil War, but more of a Balkans type war. When enough people have died, the military will come in against Washington DC and the end for the left and Obama will come quickly.
As a couple writers have pointed out, we seem to be in a cold civil war now. It wouldn't take much to light the fuse for it to go hot, IMHO. I know I am already fed up with the expanding government and erosion of my rights by both sides. But I will not tolerate it if the left pushes it as far as I think they will. I pray the above does not come to pass. But without a McCain victory I don't see much of a way to prevent it. The left and the dhimocrats can't help themselves. They are scorpions.
#10
Oh, and the right/center will be furious if it starts to be shown that Obama won only because of massive vote fraud and nothing really happens until after January 4th. Then everything is hushed up and covered up.
Although, I can see a scenario of Obama winning and several states seem so tainted with fraud that judges rule the result void and order a new election.
Look, you can't rule out anything completely, but what you are decribing sounds like the fantasies the moonbats had in 2001, in some respects. Prepare for the worst, and all that, but realize that it is, in fact, a worst case scenario, not a most likely one.
Similar things happened when Clinton was elected in 1992. Who can forget the attempted nationalization of US history curricula, which was a veritable litany of cultural and economic Marxism, or the giant tax increases, or the attempt to nationalize 14% of the private sector (health care)? Yet within 2 years the left was turned out of Congress.
Many of the people who will "gripe and complain" will be former Obama supporters who voted for him because he was the flavor of the day, or they were fed up with Republicans. By 2010, they will vote for Republicans in the Congress and Senate overwhelmingly, upon seeing Obama's true colors.
Count on it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/15/2008 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Prolly like a lot of you I listen to talk radio periodically through the day at work. Most of the conservatives I listen to (Wilkow & Church) don't seem to worried about the fairness doctrine - as it has to swing both ways. Also, it would be really hard to implement - it's original intent as per the 1930s law does not fit how the dumb libz want to do it now. OTOH, Boortz is worried about the fairness doctrine - so who knows.
#13
I don't listen to talk radio -- they shout too much, which gives me a headache. But how would an Obama executive shut down half of the internet? After all, as evidenced on this site a good many web/IT/computer people lean conservative. The Obama team, should he win, may want to shut down dissenting voices, but I really don't think it's probable. Too, some 30% of Americans are happily in the center, and they aren't likely to be happy when half the spectrum disappears.
#14
TW, I'd suggest Bill Bennett 6-9 am - good conservative commentator and never have I ever heard him get over the top. He treats all his guests w/respects and is pretty reserved. Seems to do a good program.
Unlike Clinton and his congress, this time things are very, very polarized. The dhimocrats are fully bought and paid for by the Marxists and socialists and follow their ideology and methods. I wasn't too worried about Clinton in '92 since a good portion of those dhimocrats were blue dog or just wanted more welfare programs and a cut military. Unlike today where the dhimocrats are full fledged nuts, seeking to actively make the US lose in a war to strengthen their own power. Anyone who does that is capable of shredding the Constitution for their own gain. I trusted the '92 dhimocrats not to fuck up too much, this bunch I trust to fuck up completely. I wouldn't be worried about the fairness doctrine if the dhimocrats don't have a veto proof majority. But if they get a veto proof congress, with a Marxist in the Oval Office, expect things to go south really, really fast. Every liberal tax and spend fantasy that you have heard about over the past 5 years will come to pass. Every program rubber stamped. Expect to see war crime trials.
I'm not running out to buy guns unless it looks like everything will be the dhimocrats way on January 4th. Then I will buy several, just in case. I will hope and work for the common good and hope things to work as the founding fathers wanted it to. I just won't count on it. Paying taxes is not patriotic. Questioning patriotism is not wrong.
One strategy is to make the ISP responsible for what is said on the site. Find some really wacko nut case on the fringe, an ACORN shill, and then set the ISP back a few million$ in legal fees and fines. Because it's a true wacko, most people won't care. And then threatening letters to the ISPs from the local US attorney will be all that is needed to shut down a site.
#17
No unlike the Canadian Human Rights commission strategy. One of the commissioners actually had an account on a right-wing site and was posting vile comments that he or one of his fellows then made a formal claim against.
Beware the Axelrod Astroturf - it can cut the other way.
#19
When Obama went to Iraq recently and saw Fox News on many of the television sets, he asked (paraphrasing here) "is this the station endorsed by the US Army?" Obama will be all over the "Fairness Doctrine" and will use Hate Speech as his target. None of this should come as a surprise, it's the tried and true Operation PUSH/Rainbow Coalition program of extortion.
#20
But how would an Obama executive shut down half of the internet?
Just follow the model of Cisco, Microsoft, and Google that has been field tested on behalf of the Chinese government. It's not 100%, but it doesn't need to be. Just enough to keep the word from the masses [methodology as demonstrated by the MSM this election cycle]. The MSM is in the bag already and will be happy to once again monopolize the information market that the government will give them. Soul sold.
#21
I have decided that we need a Redline: an action that definitely and actually triggers physically violent counter-resistance. We need to let people know what the redline is, and we need to enforce it. Personally.
I am believing that it should center on abridgements of the first and second amendments. The First, because it is necessary to allow the truth to be told: we can get ourselves out of any situation, as long as we know the truth. It may be harder in some situations than others, but the truth will be necessary to recover from all situations. We don't have to know the whole truth, but we need communication of all the individual pieces that people have to get to the whole truth. We'd have had this election sewn up if the MSM was not actively and selectively suppressing the truth. We must not tolerate any version or shade of any 'fairness doctrine', because there is such a thing as selective enforcement, and they have the option of 'selectively enforcing' silence upon those revealing the truth of their selective enforcement. McCain-Feingold had media restrictions what were selective from the start, explicitly exemping the MSM BECAUSE if they didn't exempt it, the bill wouldn't be allowed to pass: it would be too obviously a violation of the First Amendment.
The importance of protecting the second amendment seems less obvious, which is why violations of it should be regarded as the yellow-line for the redline: The redline gets its bite from the real threat of armed resistance, so take away the adjective "armed", and the redline becomes vapor.
Finally, I do not advocate terrorism, which is armed struggle against a civilian population rather than a government. Indeed, where possible, I advocate bypassing the cannon fodder and going after the command structure, the self-comfortable little elites running things and issuing order because they believe they know better than us how to manage our lives than we do, and who feel safe from the consequences of their actions and their laws. They will need to stop feeling they are safe.
#26
the question is: does the military support the constitution or follow the orders of the commander in chief?
Yes.
However, the constitution takes priority over the commander. It is the duty of all men in uniform to not obey a lawful order (i.e. shoot innocent civilians that aren't involved in combat) and it is their duty to report such orders. If it is the CIC issuing unlawful orders, it is the commander's duty to disobey at the least, remove him at the worst. Which, is why I think if a Civil War breaks out the military (not counting the national guard who report to the state governor) will sit on the sidelines until it becomes clear that the CIC is not fit to be the commander.
#27
Like any bureaucracy there are 'careerists' who game the hierarchy of any organization and have no loyalty to 'concepts' but to whom ever can advance their status. The military is no different. A lesser example can be found in Clarke. When confronted by the choice between the executive and the Constitution the third option is resignation of one's commission. That opens the way for careerists who do not have the integrity in the oath of office. The higher up you go the more careerists you'll find, particularly those who view their work in the technical sense rather than the 'service' sense. I wouldn't reside particular trust in the upper echelons after a couple years of Presidential selections [lots of senior billets are nominative]. It's the middle grades that are important in the preservation of the Old Republic. So the real question will be whether the middle and junior grades will follow the orders of their seniors or will they still have the integrity to be loyal to an oath committed to "We the People...." The sad part is that if you gave a pop quiz on the Constitution, most of the officer corps probably couldn't pass [along with the bulk of the American population].
#28
Propicouis speaks of the oft-repeated "Young Officers" coup. But I don't see it happening. Obama is going to overreach. The media, which has been Obama's handmaiden, may actually turn on him/the dems in Congress. Remember, if the repubs are out of office, the journo-critters have to do something to get people to watch their drivel. They do that by beating the hell out of folks. Won't happen right away of course, but it could very well happen.
The more important factor here is the 60%+ of the population that considers themselves either republican or centrist democrat. It probably exceeds 70%. When Obama and the dems overreach, these people are going to walk right into the arms of the republican party, which, hopefully, will have once again crafted a new Contract for America.
Obama is going to fall on his face a lot. He is no Bill Clinton, by a long shot. He has not done anything of substance in any of the positions he has held. He is thin and he is not going to be able to hide that fact, especially when serious issues face him as they most certainly will.
I refuse to fall prey to the doomsday scenarios. I will remain alert, but I have faith in the enduring nature of this Republic and in the population that drives her.
#29
Its not Obama I'm afraid of - its the people like Ayers and the socialist/marxist gang who are 'pulling the strings' behind the throne I'm afraid of. Obama is, and always has been, a puppet.
And the media will either still blame the 'republicans' (boy they really screwed this up - its going to take a lot to fix!) or invent another 'the enemy' (jooos!, rednecks!, warmongers!, etc...) to point the finger at.
#30
CF, you hit the nail right on the head IMHO. I've been wondering who is the Darth Sirous (no offense DV) to this knucklehead for along time. We all know it's not say-it-ain't so Joe!
#31
The enemy they will turn to is "conservative Christians".
Oh wait, they already have...................
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/15/2008 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I don't think the real leaders of the pop-left are serious about the fairness doctrine. They are merely pandering to their base when they talk about it, since it is an enormously popular cause with the conformist hordes who are outraged at hearing their favorite myths lampooned and ridiculed every day.
Why aren't they serious?
Simple: The LAST thing they want is a real court test of the fairness of their own media, and such a test will come as surely as day follows night if they attempt to shut down the actual free media.
Mainstream news was specifically exempted when the fairness doctrine was in force. This provision was a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and would be again. At the time, however, nobody could effectively challenge MSM bias. The reason was the MSM's virtual monopoly on information and the consequent lack of public awareness. Things are very, very different today, with the internet and talk radio documenting every nuance of media-industrial complex propaganda and disseminating that information to millions.
#33
Maybe, AC. But imagine the doctrine written into law, monitored and enforced by Obama's goons. Do you seriously think it will be leveraged equally? Don't bet your AM radio on it.
As for a Redline for violent action, I would put it the day Rush, Hanity, Savage, etc. are pushed off the airwaves.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
