Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

January 20, 2010

Plain funny

Filed under: politics,Uncategorized — by lindyborer @ 8:32 am
Tags: , , ,

Hitler finds out Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts:

There’s a multiude of versions of this, I know, but this is really very funny.

A turning point

Filed under: health care,politics — by lindyborer @ 7:23 am
Tags: , , , ,

Republican Scott Brown wins the “Kennedy seat” in Massachusetts.   Rasmussen reports that he won over independents 73/25.  Democratic heads are exploding all over the fruited plain.  I can’t wipe the silly grin off my face.

I could go into great detail about how completely unprecedented this is, but those who are paying attention already know.  Interesting to me will be how Obama/Pelosi/Reid but especially the Blue Dogs in the House and Senate will respond. 

Scenario A:  They will continue, kamikaze-style, to push through with their ultra-liberal policies (govt. run healthcare, cap and trade) by passing the Senate version of healthcare or delaying Brown’s seating.  They’ll claim that the MA election defeat of Coakley is due to the voters’ “misunderstandings” or their “oppositon for opposition’s sake.”  To which I say, go right ahead and do just that.  Further insult the intelligence of We the People.  Continue to call us “teabaggers” and characterize us as ignorant and uneducated.  Because the more they do, the more they imperil themselves in midterms and in 2012.  Recall, just last week our own Ben Nelson faced the wrath of NE voters as they booed him out of a pizzaria in Omaha.  I’m sure he’s remembering that about now, too.

Scenario B:  Obama will come to his senses and move to the middle, scrap this wildly unpopular piece of crap healthcare legislation, and start over.

I have a hard time envisioning Obama moving to the middle.  I simply don’t know if he’s capable of it.  I think he’s so innately statist and ideological that it would almost be humanly impossible for him to do it.  But think for a moment what must be running through his head right now.  

Here he is, on the one year anniversary of his Inauguration, with the big State of the Union speech looming, and he just got b***h-slapped by voters in traditionally blue MASSACHUSETTS.  While the state-run media will attempt to spin Coakley’s defeat soleley on Coakley herself (of which she did play a tremendous part), they will suddenly forget that it was Obama himself who went to MA to campaign for her and to himself make the election, in large part, about healthcare and a referendum on his agenda.  (Scott Brown, too, made his opposition to this version of healthcare reform a central tenet of his campaign–something the voters obviously approved.)

The far-left is angry with him for a variety of reasons (one of which being he’s not left enough), and he’s completely losing independents because he’s too far left.  Unemployment is still in double digits, and virtually every industry in the private sector has a big target painted on its back by the Obama administration, and by extension, anyone who works in the private sector.  The Blue Dogs are already running scared, and the Republicans (thanks to the huge grassroots Tea Party movement) now have the momentum.  Every shred of reason in a person’s brain would be shouting, “Reverse course!  Steer to the middle!”  That’s what Clinton did.

But something tells me that this won’t happen with Barack Obama.  (I will eat my words if I must.)  Never, I don’t think, have we had as President such a complete and total narcissist.  Obama has placed all his chips on healthcare reform (with the full-blown, statist power and control that would come with it), and to scrap it now would irreparably damage his ego, and he knows it.  Govt. run healthcare is the easiest and best way for him to implement his statist goals for this country, and he will cling to it for as long as he is able.   It goes beyond saving face for him; it is a matter of self-preservation.

But for now, let’s all bask in the glow of this huge victory of liberty over tyranny.  Thank you, people of Massachusetts.

UPDATE:  A simply devastating rebuttal to the David Brooks’ of the world.  A must-read.  (It’s quite short and to the point.)

UPDATE 2:  Here’s a good post-election analysis, courtesy of Ed Morrissey.

November 9, 2008

My sentiments exactly.

Filed under: politics — by lindyborer @ 8:38 pm
Tags: , , , ,


November 6, 2008

“He will bring them death…”

Filed under: politics — by lindyborer @ 8:46 am
Tags: , , , ,

“…and they will love him for it.”  -Senator Gracchus of the mob’s reaction to Commodus’ rule, from the movie Gladiator 

Yes, it takes a strong stomach to turn on the TV lately.  The media and Hollywood are in the midst of what appears to be a non-stop collective Obama orgy lovefest.  I don’t begrudge them their happiness–completely.  For many of them, especially African Americans, the election of Obama is a trascendental moment in their history, and I can respect that. 

But only to a point.  For me, all celebration stops when I think of the dismal human rights policies of President-Elect Barack Obama (henceforth, PEBO), and that the liberals of the Democrat Party that have taken control of two branches of government, and are already eyeing the third.  Here we go.

I think we can take heart, though, in the fact that many of the same voters who did cast a ballot for Obama might not necessarily support some of his more radical policies, and were simply caught up in the “making history” part of this election, when it comes right down to it.  When the euphoria wears off, and people come to realize that his messianic promises are either empty, not possible, or frightening to individual liberties, basic human rights, and national security, they might have second thoughts.  It would at least show that the majority of Americans still retain some common sense and respect for the foundational values of our country.   

Of course, at that point, it might be too late. 

Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for PEBO.  This is unprecedented.  But, I highly doubt 93% of African Americans support a lot of his liberal policies–including abortion and gay marriage.  One can only conclude that a good many of them voted for PEBO due to his race.  It is said, for instance, that Proposition Eight was passed in CA precisely because of the high African American turnout.  (Quite ironic.)  [Update:  Who supported Prop. 8?] 

Of course, due to PEBO’s election, we are now in the “post-racial era.”  Thank God for that—I’m going to hold it to them, though, every time someone calls a Republican a racist for disagreeing with PEBO.  We’ll see if we’re really in a post-racial era, then.  Why do you really think Jesse Jackson was crying during Obama’s victory speech?  If there’s no more racism, he’s going to have to get a new day-job.

I already believe that Obama Buyer Remorse (perhaps, Obama Ballot Remorse) is taking place.  People wanted to “be a part of history” by voting for him, but I think many are starting to question their decision.  Why do I think this?

I can see what people type in a search query when they find my blog.  Many are along the lines of Obama’s BAIPA votes, what Obama’s economic policies are, and “what is socialism?”  Well, it’s honorable to want to be informed, but it’s a LITTLE LATE for that, now.  Others are humorous–in that they’re typing in, “Income redistribution success stories”–and arriving at MY blog!  Another, “why BO is good for capitalism.”  Hilarious.  Well, I hope they’re taking note of what I’ve said about that.  I hardly think they’ll find anything they’re looking for relating to Obama being “good” for capitalism.

But many Americans voted for change, and “change” they will most definitely get. 

Melanie Phillips has this to say about Obama’s election (entire column may be read, here):

“So now we are promised a change in America’s fundamental values. And they really will be changed. Obama has said in terms that he thinks the US constitution is flawed. America’s belief in itself as defending individual liberty, truth and justice on behalf of the free world will now be expiated instead as its original sin. Those who have for the past eight years worked to bring down the America that defends and protects life and liberty are today ecstatic. They have stormed the very citadel on Pennsylvania Avenue itself.

Millions of Americans remain lion-hearted, decent, rational and sturdy. They find themselves today abandoned, horrified, deeply apprehensive for the future of their country and the free world. No longer the land of the free and the home of the brave; they must now look elsewhere.” 

Brace up.  It’s going to be a fight, but fight we must.

November 4, 2008

Meet your new president…

Filed under: politics — by lindyborer @ 11:03 pm
Tags: , ,


God DAMN America!!!

All you Obama voters, give yourselves a big pat on the back; you’ve just help elect a man who will ensure the dismemberment and destruction of millions of innocent babies.  How does it feel?

BUT, who cares about Obama’s support of abortion and infanticide when there are handouts on the agenda?  Free money, everybody!

On a serious note, take a look at how Obama is going to affect the US and the world according to Obama supporter taniam:

“I have to declare that I have fallen in love with Obama. It did not happen suddenly but he just crept up on me. When I heard his speeches, the hairs on my skin rose in disbelief. It was as if someone had taken my thoughts and was voicing them in public. They were just an echo of my thoughts. I wanted to hear more from Obama. But I could not get enough of him. CNN always seemed to focus on Mccain and Palin. And all I had was CNN on my cable. And then I got to see more of him, on “OBAMA TV”, see him up close and personal, hear him speaking his thoughts himself and see his charming smile. And that was the defining moment.  I know that this world would change under Obama. Some are calling him a “messiah”. I think its not to be taken lightly. He is one hell of a powerful person but fortunately for the world, he is a peacemaker. He will unite this world for the first time! Religion has been dividing us, leading us to bloody wars, and violence against each other. Obama will not only change America but will change the world.  He has this power. He will bring this world together. Yes, there will be an apocalypse. And the apocalypse would be that we would see hugs, and smiles and flowers and no more guns. That is what I see when I look into Obama’s eyes. I see a world that I and others like me have been craving for. An idyllic, peaceful, green world, a world that can still be saved. A world that will be the way it was intended to be before it lost its way somewhere down the lane. It will be another new era, a melting of the ice age, melting of the ice that we have within our hearts. I love you Obama, and I pray for you and I hope with all my heart that you will be the president of the most powerful nation on earth [SIC].”

You mean we have to wait all the way until January before this “apocalypse” of flowers, hugs, and “no guns” begins?  You know what, on second thought, I think I’m going to go ahead and jump on the Obama bandwagon.  After all, I can’t wait until Obama starts paying my bills, filling up my gas tank, curing cancer, and achieving world peace.  

After all, Obama has stated he will do any number of miraculous things—don’t tell me about unrealistic expectations!  Just listen to Peggy Joseph—Obama’s going to pay her mortgage. 

When expectations are this high, there’s only one way his approval ratings can go.  Reality’s hard, I know.      

I have a feeling that I will be displaying this logo a number of times hereafter:


November 1, 2008

define “divisive”

Filed under: politics,Uncategorized — by lindyborer @ 9:06 pm
Tags: , , ,

Obama, at a campaign stop in Las Vegas said the following:  Voters can end divisive politics “once and for all” if they elect him to the White House in three days.  Me, cynically:  Yeah, there won’t be any division because dissent will simply not be tolerated by an Obama regime.  Remember what happened to Joe the Plumber for simply asking a question?  That wasn’t even dissent.  But what’s now known as the “Obama goon squad” went after him like some suspected terrorist. 

Ah, yes, Obama the “unifier.”  Please someone define divisive, because if Barack Obama isn’t it, then I must have the wrong definition.  The most hard-left, liberal Senator we have ever been privileged to have on our Senate?  Unifying? 

Call me a cynic, but to me it appears that no mere politician—no matter if his or her name is followed by a D or an R—has what it takes to unite the chasm that separates the hard-core lefts and rights, because that chasm isn’t about something as “simple” as one might think.  The US is in a full-on culture war.  On the big issues, there’s no middle ground.  One is either for abortion or against it, for example.    One is either committed to upholding our country’s traditional values or one is not.  

For myself, most things are pretty black or white.  There are very few “grays” in my life.  And I still can’t determine if that is a good or a bad thing.  But, correct me if I’m wrong, I think more people are like this than not.    

I’m so weary of this entire election that I’m conclusively in the “slap-happy” stage.  The whole process is starting to take on an ethereal and unreal appearance, characterized by alternate giggling and weepiness on my part.  I am, in short, fatigued. 

I remain hopeful, however, and find myself feeling rather like the kid who stays up the latest at the slumber party, surrounded by empty Mountain Dew cans with the sudden giddy realization that everyone fell asleep before seeing the awesome and unexpected conclusion of the movie.  Things are getting interesting.

I see a lot of the “silent majority” turning out to vote, and many of these people might be “bitter clingers,” hard-working, small business Joes who happen to like the rewards of capitalism, people horrified and revolted by Obama’s abortion-at-all-costs mentality, and immigrants who love and respect America for its opportunities and promise.  I see a lot of people turning out to vote against the sort of “change” that a man with such a radical vision for America would bring.  

I sincerely hope I’m right.

In the meantime, go cast a vote.

October 8, 2008

Socialism, Capitalism, and Barack Obama: A Primer

Okay, everyone.  I’ve had enough.  I’ve had enough of all the bailouts.  I’ve had enough of zero accountability, among both Democrats and Republicans.  I’ve had enough of all the presidential rhetoric.  And I’ve come to the conclusion that we need an American Re-Revolution.  That’s right.  Our representatives have simply forgotten the principles and greatness upon which our nation was founded.  We need to look back in history, look at our founding, and understand again what it took to not only make America, but what it took to make America Great.

And I believe this discussion must begin with a short primer on the differences between socialism, communism, and capitalism.  One must have a crystal clear understanding of what these systems entail, why they work, and why they fail.  What does this have to do with the Re-Revolution?  Everything.  Our founding fathers championed FREEDOM and SELF-DETERMINATION.  Only one of the systems above allows for both of these.  And many of our elected officials and electorate seem to have forgotten the importance of them as well. 

I realize that many of us attended public school (including me), which accounts for our apparently abysmal understanding of history.  So, let us all brush up.

What is the difference between communism, socialism, and capitalism?  Here are a few short explanations.

Communism:  A political system where a “higher state” exists, an ideal where there are no classes, and the State ceases to have any meaning or relevance.  A society free from all forms of want and where humans are totally free to expand to higher areas of human development.  Put forth by Karl Marx, a communistic (“Marxist”) society would have no private property, and rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens–“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  It is, in short, the Mecca of human existence.   Communism is an unattainable ideal; in order for it to succeed, every human being must adhere to its tenets at all times.  Human nature is not conducive to communism, and history has shown its failure multiple times.  Societies which have attempted it end up totalitariansistic, with small groups of individuals in total power.  (the former USSR, China, and Cuba are fantastic examples of this.)  And it is important to remember, people cannot be forced into communism for it to work. 

Socialism:  Often incorrectly used interchangeably with communism, it is not a political system; it is a way of distributing goods and services.  It is described as the state between capitalism and communism.  It nationalizes the “means of production” (banks, corporations–sound familiar?).  It is seen as the necessary stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

Capitalism:  An economic system that utilizes the power of individuals–especially entrepeneurs–to stimulate economic activity.  It is based on the (accurate) human assumption that individuals operate based on self-interest.  By doing so, the individual not only helps himself, but also propels others to economic success.  Unlike communism, capitalism can work even if there are some who don’t want to pull their weight–they face the consequences of their action (or inaction.)

A key item in this discussion deals with incentive.  Without incentive, there is no motivation, a key component to economic growth.  To destroy incentive is to destroy innovation and motivation.  This is what socialist policies do:  they are an invitation to stagnation.  Right now, our economy does not need stagnation.  Socialism is arguably the antithesis of the freedom and self-determination upon which our great nation was founded.  (Freedom from governmental tyranny, remember?) 

The U.S. is now taking baby steps toward socialism.  Recall that socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism.  Look at the countries that are run based on communistic principles.  Would anyone in their right mind wish to live in China, Cuba, or North Korea? 

Now, look at the many European countries that force socialist policies on their people.  An obvious display of socialism’s open invitation to economic stagnation.  “Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives” (Perry, following article).  Why socialism fails:

The author of the above link has this to say:

The Marxist [professor the author spoke with] admitted that many ‘socialist’ countries around the world were failing.  However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing ‘pure’ socialism.  The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work.  Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant.  In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources.  In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency.  The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism.  Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.”


 Now, look at Barack Obama.  If you can claim, with a straight face, that the policies he proposes do not reek of socialism, then you, my friend, are living in a dream world.  And remember, what he calls “fairness” is codespeak for policy that comes straight from the communist playbook.  Income redistribution, for instance, is an example of Obama’s socialist view of fairness.  In reality, to take from one to give to another is a form of tyranny; a form of tyranny from which our founding fathers were determined to separate

The following article is required reading, class.  It is a list of Obama’s socialist policies.  Freedom lovers, be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Freedom and self-determination will not only be seriously undermined, they will be wiped out completely by an Obama presidency.

And now, as if that all weren’t enough by itself, I will emphasize again the alliance between Barack Obama and William Ayers.  The media and the Obama campaign should be terrified of this alliance being pursued and brought to light, because it is DAMNING. 

Read the following article:  Obama’s Real Problem with Ayers

What the heck, I’ll just copy it right here:

“At an education forum in Venezuela, Bill Ayers showed the real issue is not his terrorist past. It’s the socialist revolutionary agenda that he and Barack Obama want to impose on the nation’s schools.

Still more evidence of how the media are in the tank for Obama was evident in Tom Brokaw’s description of Ayers on Sunday’s “Meet The Press.”

“School reformer” is how Brokaw identified the co-founder of the Weather Underground, the radical organization that, among other activities, bombed government buildings, banks, police departments and military bases in the early 1970s.

Yeah, right: Ayers is a school reformer in the same sense, as City Journal’s Sol Stern put it, as Joe Stalin was an agricultural reformer.

An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.

With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”

Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion.” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.

Ayers, now a tenured Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, works to educate teachers in socialist revolutionary ideology, urging that it be passed on to impressionable students.

As Stern points out, “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”

If Ayers was just another nutty professor, we’d be lucky. But he wields great influence in academic circles and has had Obama’s ear. He’s the author or editor of 15 books. Chicago’s current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has employed Ayers as a teacher trainer for Chicago’s public schools and consulted him on the city’s education-reform plans.

Just last month, Ayers was elected vice-president for curriculum for the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association. AERA is the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers.

In a recent interview on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Obama upgraded Ayers’ status from “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” to “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”

Actually, Obama knew him quite well, having worked together on a school “reform” project called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Annenberg Challenge, securing a $50 million grant to reform the Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg.

Obama was given the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office. He ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds.

Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients.

During Obama’s tenure as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’ own education projects received substantial funding.

One of Ayers’ descriptions for a course called “Improving Learning Environments” says a prospective K-12 teacher needs to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, teaching for social justice and liberation.”

John McCain needs to repeatedly point out the stealth socialism of Ayers’ education agenda and Obama’s complicity in it. Otherwise, we may one day see Ayers as Obama’s secretary of education.”


Educational indoctrination of young children.  The “Obama Youth movement.”  Consorting with terrorists and people who hate America and desire to re-create it according to communist principles.  It’s all terribly disturbing. 

I don’t consider myself an expert on anything, except, perhaps, changing diapers or breastfeeding babies.  But there once was a time in the United States where freedom and self-determination were revered and championed above all, and I consider them great things, worth upholding.  There once was a time in the United States when, in the simplest terms, one at least thought, “Communism, bad.  Democracy, good.”   I’m not so sure that this is the case anymore, if we elect Barack Obama as the next POTUS.  I fear that an Obama presidency will be the end of the United States as we know it.

October 7, 2008

We want some accountability, please.

Is that so much to ask?  This is where political correctness has gotten us. 

Read this editorial.  Barney Frank’s Bankrupt Ideas 

This is INSANE.  What is the definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.  By that definition,  Barack Obama and Barney Frank are lunatics.

An anonymous learned individual had this to say regarding this editorial on the housing crisis:

“Please read this essay (above) on the housing and world financial crisis, noting the following facts:
‘Those paying their mortgages on time don’t get that break.
Rep. Elijah Cummings said Obama told him that, if elected president, he would direct a Treasury Department official to work with homeowners in foreclosure to restructure their loans. Cummings said Obama also told him he’d seek changes in bankruptcy laws allowing judges to reduce what borrowers owe on their home loans.
Section 110 of the rescue legislation has the Orwellian title of “Assistance to Homeowners” — but only for the deadbeats.’
Think what that would do to the value of mortgage-backed securities.  Your pension fund or insurance company holds these securities.  If a judge in Arlington, Nebraska, could arbitrarily reduce the interest rate that the mortgagee owes, there would be a corresponding drop in the value of the bonds.  Even worse, a judge in Brooklyn, or Los Angeles, could decide to reduce the principal value of the mortgage.  That reduction in principal would be deducted from your pension or the invested value of your insurance.
Remember, this program would not be available to people who pay their mortgages on time, or who do not have mortgages.
Banks and investors are suffering from these mistakes.  But, the people who caused this problem, Congress, have not suffered, nor does it appear that they have learned anything from their mistakes.  I hope that we have.”
Well, according to the DOW so far this week, the bailout worked with flying colors.  Oh, wait, I guess it’s BAD when the DOW plunges 500 points. 
In case you were wondering, I’m so mad I’m typing through the pain in my finger.   
Some more thoughts on Obama’s poor choice in friends:
“What do Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.”
“This Ayers situation is another example of Barack Obama’s morality-optional approach to government. To promote his political career, he was willing to look past Bill Ayers’ domestic terrorism. There’s no right and wrong for Obama, only things that are advantageous or disadvantageous to him and his career.”   Amen to that.
Dr. Thomas Sowell:  
The Real Obama. Basic Facts
This is an important election.  We will either have a leader who is committed to preserving the institutions and freedoms upon which this country was founded, or we will have a leader whose agenda it is to undermine and destroy them.  Socialism is not freedom.  Remember:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” –Ronald Reagan 





September 23, 2008

Something stinks…

Well, the only issue that is going to make a difference in the election now is the economy.  I think we all can agree on that.

That being said, I want to point out that I only have a rudimentary understanding of all the recent goings-on with AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  All I do know is that there has ensued a flurry of finger-pointing.  It all seems too nuanced to understand.  McCain says we need more accountability, and Obama says we need more government regulation (of course.)  Actually, it’s not only Democrats who think this.  (Why does government oversight rub me the wrong way?  If there’s no risk, there’s no reward, right?  Isn’t that the way the market works?  The job of a CEO is to make sure the corporation that employs him makes money to pass along to the shareholders in that corporation.  But, if I were a CEO, and I knew that the government was going to bail me out no matter how crappy of a job I did, wouldn’t my incentive to do a good job lessen considerably?  Seriously, I’m rambling.) 

I do know that there are some things that are quite interesting about all this.  Namely, that Fannie and Freddie and Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were all in bed together.  And I can tell you one thing for certain:  If this were the case with, say, John McCain, or any other Republican, there’d be a demand for investigation upon investigation, and the media would be having a hayday.  Really.  You know it’s true. 

I thought this article did an excellent job in explaining all of this.  A great analysis and TIMELY revelation regarding S.190, a bill that would have averted this mess, that was not passed in Congress by Democrats, one of whose sponsors was none other than…John McCain.

Too good to keep off of this post:

“[Barack] Obama… blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ‘90s by Clinton and his social engineers.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Blog at