The Preference of the Rockafeller Republicans

Looking at this election strategically you have to understand that the Blueblood country club types in the GOP in cooperation with cohorts in the axis of liberalism pushed John McCain because they prefered a liberal like Obama to a hard core rock-ribbed conservative. They hedged their bets and ensured the defeat of conservatism -- in this round.

Status of Race in America

Rather that talking about what the Obama presidency will mean for race relations in the US I would like to address a more specific and meaningful fact. The African American population as a minority in the US represents 12%:

Projections
Population projections
2008 --------->
2050 --------->

Non-Hispanic whites
68%
46%
Hispanic
15 %
30%
African Americans
12%
15%
Asian American
5%
9%

A report in August 2008[23] from the U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2042 non-Hispanic whites will no longer make up the majority of the population. This is a revision of earlier projections that this would occur in 2050. Today, non-Hispanic whites make up about 68% of the population. This is expected to fall to 46% in 2050. The report foresees the Hispanic population rising from 15% today to 30% by 2050. Today, African Americans make up 12% of the population, in 2050 they are projected to comprise 15%. Asian Americans make up 5% of the population and are expected to make up 9% in 2050. The U.S. has nearly 305 million people today, and is projected to reach 400 million by 2039 and 439 million in 2050.[24][25]

What this means is that specifically in terms of race, we have elected a president that represents about 1/10 of the population. What this means is not that we have rectified a series of past ills but that as a body politic we have demonstrated magnanimity that is not found anywhere in the world. Despite the confused reasons many of Obama's voters have for electing him they have pointed out an indisputable fact once again: America is supremely unique. That this country allows and encourages this type of power shift illustrates that our nation was built upon principles of freedom which create a flexibility of interpretations and motives.

Our founders gave us the opportunity to have a moral nation and the responsibility to keep it. We shirked the accountability needed and now reap the whirlwind.

Getting Real

The real reasons the GOP lost... John McCain.

Honor in defense

Should we do the honorable thing or the easy thing?

Bloomberg Podcast: Tim Kanes and Mohammed Jabar

This podcast was especially interesting from the information decimation and transparency standpoint.

The interviewer Kanes is attempting to gather information about the overall and fundemental well being of UAE. They meander through the vagurities of differentiating between Abu Dubi and Dubai as cities of influence. Jabar consistantly deflects questions about the ruling class and their internal machanatians. More importantly he references the lack of data, consistancy in statistics and any transparency into the fundementals of these Arab states economies. He simply acts as if the data doesn't exist. "This is a problem..." Really. Rather than demonstrating any ethical understanding of the background for this very apparent lack of objective measures and metric he deceptively implys that these countries are working on it. He also confused the nouns UAE and GCC as if they were interchangable.

See: http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981020/1998102071.html

This was an eye opening interview for me, it shows that many countries have gained an unfair advantage because of the transparency and openness of the US markets. However they certainly don't find the need to reciprocate. In fact it is the limited use of infomration that is their competitive advantage and any funds investing in these countries are at their whim. In fact I would be hard pressed to invest any capital in a closed economy without specific inside information. But then again how is this any different than the domestic traders...

From them geopolitical and international standpoint it demonstrates that US firms are playing a game at a severe disadvantage. It's as if one player in a poker game can hide five cards in their hand while using 4 community cards with the other must display their five card hand publicly. Their is simply a clear information inequity.

Jamie Gorelick, Bill Clinton's perfect soldier

Comments on the recent developments in the financial crisis as they relate to the architects of these plans and their real intentions.

Mortgage Crisis Undercurrent

Mortgage Crisis Undercurrent

Let’s cover some ground here on two fronts and make the connection once again between the Leftist media and the Leftist activists.

Exhibition A:

Private Sector Loans, Not Fannie or Freddie, Triggered Crisis
Sunday 12 October 2008. »by: David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers.

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

I have already explained how lenders bolstered their position vis a vie these unqualified and under-qualified borrowers and home buyers. However this is an attempt to lead with a false headline containing assumptive language (buy the premise and check your wallet, caveat emptor!) that is picked up as fact, never examined further than the opening paragraph above. Yet, they admit the truth later on, while attempting to explain it away.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

What the authors fail to explain is that along with these targets there were punishments delineated to force loans from these companies. Now these companies could have said, “Thanks but no thanks” declined the federal governments threats and suffered the conferences. In most cases the banks would have been sued, fined, forced to testify in front of congress and literally been destroyed as a result. The CEOs could have said I’d rather go out of business than accept this harassment.

Instead these CEOs played the game, like they had done their entire career. Their response is “you tell me the rules and I will work within them and around them if I have to.” They engaged in these subprime loans in methods that still made money. Some (many) of these methods were unethical, but not illegal. Now liberals like these authors can misconstrue what occurred and point to these companies as corrupt.

When the facts bear out that it was the cabal of HUD, FHA, along with many government agencies under the control of life long bureaucrats that simply “follow orders” and the GSAs Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that completed this pincer attack on the banking industry for the sake of giving away homes to buy votes rather than handing out cash.

On to a story about handing out cash for votes…

STANLEY KURTZ: Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism “Wright 101” 10/14 4:00 AM

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation,” a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See “No Liberation.”)

What Kurtz points out is that socialism is inexorably linked to the leftist ideology which is at its core corrupt. Elections are not won or lost but manipulated and controlled, Joseph Stalin said "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything.” This paradigm has seeped deeply into the leftist conscience of American leaders of various liberal movements from radical racial politics to feminism.

In the end you have an engaged Prada with Leftist movement anti-leaders who seek to consolidate their own power while decimating all those they purport to help. We live in interesting and very dangerous times. No?