Mortgages are going into foreclosure, banks are dropping like flies, and the taxpayer is now slapped with the bill to rescue our financial system from certain collapse. Socialists and communists, and, yes, there are both of these in the United States, watch with glee as, from their viewpoint, capitalism fails.

Liberal politicians are using the current financial crisis to put the blame for the mess on the administration of President George Bush. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi referred to what she called "the failed economic policies" of the current president in a speech preceding a vote on the bail out plan before the House of Representatives.

Although blaming President Bush is popular, it is far from accurate. The roots of the current financial mess in the United States actually reach to the administration of President Jimmy Carter. In the Carter era, there was tremendous pressure from socialist activists to provide housing for the poor and for minorities living in depressed areas of the nation’s large cities. These families could not qualify for home mortgages under the policies of banks because, quite frankly, they had no resources to pay the loans. Banks were rightfully reluctant to loan money to people who lacked incomes adequate to provide for monthly payments.

President Carter and the Congress responded to the pressures by slapping fines on banks that they accused of being "racist" because they were not making home loans available to minorities. They called it the Community Reinvestment Act, but what it did was send chills through the banking industry. Refusing to loan money to a family with no income and no credit history became a federal crime. Banks had little choice but to begin the practice of making subprime loans, a practice that had 100% chance of financial disaster at some point in the future.

Additionally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled agencies that purchase risky loans from banks in an attempt to allow families to stay in their homes even though they cannot afford them, increased their portfolios of mortgage loans that had practically no chance whatever to be paid off successfully. But the poor had homes, and the liberals had their votes.

This practice was enlarged in the administration of President Bill Clinton. Policies regarding significant down payments and adequate incomes were abandoned in favor of expanding home ownership into depressed neighborhoods. It is a noble idea to want to help families of any income level finance a home. It is a stupid idea to expect that subprime loans can be made indefinitely without paying the price of a failed economy at some point. We are now at that point.

But Peter Wellison, who was at the time a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and who was quoted in an article published in the New York Times on September 30, 1999, warned that the practice of making subprime loans would eventually backfire on the government. The practice might appear successfull in a strong economy, but if the economy experienced a downturn, which it inevitably does sooner or later, then "the government will have to step in and bail them out." Now, nine years after Mr. Wellison made that statement, it has come true.

The current crisis is not the result of failed policies in the Bush administration. It is not the result of a failed free market system. It may have originally been prompted by humanitarian concerns. But it is the result of liberal politicians, bankers and Wall Street traders who ignored sound fiscal principles in order to provide housing for those who had no means of paying for it. The failure comes from the liberal left. They are the ones who laid the egg this time.

The expectations aren’t just low; they’re in the Death Valley range. I’m not sure I remember such a vigorous race to the bottom, even when the world was coming to know a legally blond fellow named Quayle.

As Democrats in or near the Obama-Biden camp tell it, the concern is that the loquacious senator will talk too much, will be overbearing and condescending, too up-to-here with Beltway blather.

In the 1996 presidential election, 49% of the voting population actually went to the polls. 95.5 million people decided that race. Pathetic by any standards; even when compared to the 51%, or 105 million people, who voted in the 2000 election. Things were a little better in 2004 when 64% of the voting population turned up at the polls, but that was mostly because a few more people went to the polls to try and get Bush out of the Whitehouse. It failed, but what does that say about the American people?

Instead of trying to vote for the best candidate, they’re forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. That’s if they even care enough to go out and vote. For those who don’t vote, many sit at home complaining about the government or their lot in life. They demand that the government see to their needs. Things like safe neighborhoods, education, and even food somehow becomes the responsibility of a government that they didn’t even have the sense to go out and vote for. Does that mean that people are lazy?

In some cases, the answer would be yes. Ten minutes to push a few buttons is far too much time for them to spare, even though most states require that an employer allow up to two hours for its employees to go vote. In other cases it’s simple apathy, or some belief that their vote doesn’t count. They may be right about the latter in some cases, but giving up is worse than being lazy. Can it be better? Many would say that it can be, but then we look at the current choices for presidential candidates.

Parties don’t care who the best candidate is when nominating; only that the person in question is electable. Take Obama Barak for example. He talks and talks about the need for change, but if you look at his record in Illinois he flip-flops just as much as John McCain. People listen to him because he represents a voice of change, and they recognize the need for change. They’re just not listening to what he’s saying.

Would John McCain be any better? Without a doubt, the answer would be a resounding no. But people are still voting for him; at least the few who actually turn out at polling places.

So, what are the American people to so? Well, first they need to get up off their rears and pay attention. Feeling shame is fine, but they need to do something about the root of that shame or it’ll never go away. Go out and vote!

An email is circulating of video footage of medical doctors describing how serious Senator McCain's illnesses are and the difficulties the courses of treatment would be due to reoccurrences and age. The video can be found at www.therealmccain.com, but here is an abridged version of what was conveyed:

• Senator McCain has had melanoma (skin cancer) removed four times.

• Senator McCain has been treated for invasive melanoma as recent as 2002.

• Senator McCain has been diagnosed with every type of skin cancer.

• There is a 66% chance of the cancer reoccurring within ten years; six years have passed since Senator McCain's last reoccurrence.

• Skin cancer is very difficult to treat once it has returned.

• Senator McCain's quality of life has and will continue to decline as the years pass in retrospect to the amount of reoccurrences, his age and the amount of time in between each reoccurrence.

• There is a significant increase in risk cancer returning as a patient grows older.

• Any reoccurrences at this point would be so toxic and crippling that Senator McCain if elected would be declared unable to fulfill his duties as President.

• Senator McCain smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years.

• He has a long list of ailments and diseases:
  
  
  1. Degenerative arthritis
  2. Undergone cataract surgery
  3. High cholesterol
  4. High blood pressure
  5. Vertigo
  6. Allergies
     
     
• He is currently takes five different medications for his ailments. Hydrochlorothiazide for his kidneys, Simbastatin for his cholesterol, Ambien for sleep, aspirin for blood clot prevention, and Zyrtec for his allergies.

The video I received via email, enclosed with this information, had a subject line that read, "Should Senator John McCain make his medical records public?" Surprisingly enough, the medical doctors in this video felt that Senator McCain should make his records *public. One doctor said, "You wouldn't want a pilot that has seizures to have a seizure in flight." Senator McCain is well aware of the health risks and instead of making his medical records public, (which he should not have to do because by law only the doctor and patient need to know), Senator McCain should not have tried to run in the first place and at this point should give up. I would pray that his medical doctor has advised him and continues to advise him properly.

My feeling is I want that pilot (above-mentioned reference by doctor) to be honest enough to know what his limits are and not try to fly that plane instead of putting not only others but himself in harms way. How do you feel? Should Senator McCain make is medical records public?

*Please note: Public in this article refers to other medical personnel and not the general public.

So, when you hear that AIG has 1 trillion dollars worth of assets, you may wonder why they need a bailout and ask :“Why don't they just sell their own assets?” The key word when you are talking about assets is, liquid. The companies in crisis have illiquid assets. An illiquid asset is not readily saleable due to uncertainty about it's value or it lacks a market in which it can be traded. In other words, no one is going to buy mortgage company assets because the value is uncertain and there are not buyers for the troubled loans.

When a large company is on the verge of a failure that will have vast long term effects, the government views this as “too big to fail.” They will step in for a bailout in order to stop wide spread economic repercussions and panic that result in depressions. What the U.S government is proposing to do in the mortgage bailout will be the largest since the Great Depression. Some may view this government intervention as too far reaching. Others may see it as preservation of the economy. Either way it is happening and the best thing American citizens can do is arm themselves with knowledge.

Right now, President Bush has a 700 billion dollar bailout plan laid out for Congress to approve. Ironically, the plan is on three pieces of paper. The specific details are not being released, but Republicans and Democrats alike are ripping the plan apart. Mainly they are criticizing the plan for it's heavy emphasis on private sector intervention, the tremendous dollar amount, and the lack of check and balance system r/t who is getting this money and where it is going.

Democrats are concerned about the home owners behind these bad loans and are insisting that the plan help more borrowers stay in their homes. They also want a condition to the bailout that will put limits on executive compensation. Where as, Republicans seem more concerned with who, what, when, and where all this money will go. Some Senators are pushing for a committee to oversee where all this money goes, instead of giving the Secretary of Treasury full responsibility of 700 billion dollars. Regardless of the specific disagreements, one thing is agreed upon…..something has to be done now to prevent economic collapse. But, words are only as valuable as the action behind them. Each side is holding out for their specific interests, despite admitting the essentialness of expediency. What both parties seem to be forgetting is that a bailout's purpose is not to help the specific companies and especially not the customers of the companies. It is simply to prevent the specific parties from effecting the entire economy.

Lastly, I will give you my brief opinion on what I think should happen. The bail out is necessary to prevent worldwide economic turmoil. Normally, I say the government should not intervene when a business is in trouble. However, the wide spread results of what will happen if these businesses fail is a matter of national security . It should be regulated by a committee, not just one man. Allowing one man to dole out billions, is asking for disaster. It should be passed now, without any of the added bonuses that each party wants to stick into it. The bill should not include individual home owners. 95% of homeowners are paying their notes on time. Most of the 5% that are in trouble, are in a bind because they bought something that they couldn't pay for. I sympathize with their plight. Still, it is unfair to take tax dollars from the people who didn't buy what they needed or wanted, but rather what they could afford, to bail out people who bought beyond what they could afford. Personal responsibility is part of life. If someone bought a big screen TV, but then couldn't afford to buy food, would you buy them food….. or tell them to sell their big screen? So, if you can not afford a 500,000 dollar house, sell it and buy or rent what you can afford.

According to a letter dated September 5, 2008, state Rep. John Coghill released the following statement in a letter: “(Democratic Senator Hollis French) appears to be steering the direction of this investigation, its conclusion and its timing in a manner that will have maximum partisan political impact on the national and state elections”. Coghill, a North Pole legislator, is on the Alaska Legislature's Legislative Council which appointed French to supervise the vetting of Palin. In this letter, sent to council chairperson Kim Elton, a Juneau democrat, there's an inquiry about whether French should be replaced. According to a statement by Coghill to the Associated Press yesterday, “He just failed that, in my view”. Elton refused to comment.

In the letter, Coghill wrote that French had told various news organizations that the probe results would be “an October surprise” which is likely to be “damaging to the administration”. Which administration? McCain-Palin or some local government?

As for Coghill, he said that he was not approached by McCain or Palin to draft the letter, but he was contacted to “apprise” them, but as far as he is concerned, “I'm on my own on this one”.

Meanwhile, French has admitted that he had said some things that he shouldn't have said, but insists that he is in charge of neither gathering information nor writing the report: Prosecutor Stephen Branchflower has been brought on to continue the investigation and to prove the legitimacy of the Palin probe. French said that “The reason we hired Steve Branchflower was to avoid this entire discussion. Sooner or later, everybody gets accused of partisanship no matter what you're doing”.

So, what can we conclude? The Republicans are in disarray while Obama & Biden continue their roll toward the White House.

“Barack O'Bama, maybe?”

The sound of Obama's name is beautiful to some, and peculiar to others. To prejudiced and other small thinking Americans, “Obama” is not just odd, but “un-American”, as the would be novelist of popular fiction may have seen. It might therefore have occurred to the Obama campaign that posing the name “Obama” with nearly each surname of the other Democrats on his short list for the Vice Presidential nominee created a further awkward sound. All but one of these names linked to “Obama” might have caused the concern that it would create a sort of sound and rhythm that might inspire laughter at best, and derision at worst, and not just amongst the electorate. Elements of the media would not refrain from getting into such a childish name game, thus causing another needless distraction from the issues which should elect America's next President, and Vice President.

I am supposing, perhaps in my own small mind, what effects “Obama”, matched up with the last names of most of his potential running mates, might have brought from small minds. How would “Obama” look and sound with the name “Sibelius”?, in reference to Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelius, considered by pundits to have been on Obama's short list.

Obama Sibelius?

That might sound like a conspiracy of too many foreigners trying to get control of the United States government. (Except to Americans of Greek or African descent, of course. However, when it comes to name preferences, what could be better than plain old John McCain? It goes with just about everything. And it's really “American”.)

He was a long shot, but then there was the retired U.S. senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn.

Obama Nunn?

What are they trying to pull on us here?, I can imagine some right wingers thinking, especially those who don't care for Catholicism.

Another on Obama's short list was Virginia governor Tim Kaine.

Obama Kaine?

That sounds vaguely threatening, and biblically so. Most “Evangelicals” would spurn that combo.

Then there was U.S. Senator Bayh, of Indiana. I have heard “Bayh” pronounced both as “bye” and as “bah” (as in, “Bah Bah Black Sheep”, as someone would discover, and pass along.)

Obama Bye?

There's a joke or too in that. Jay Leno wouldn't leave it alone.

Obama Bah?

If not open to racist “humor”, that one might seem a little silly, at least.

However, Obama has made his choice for VP, and it's a sound choice, too: Joe Biden.

And so we have: Obama Biden.

That sounds okay. Think about it. Maybe the name-phrase is already suggesting to some that Obama is now “biden” his time, as it were. Perhaps. Anyway, Obama Biden sounds “American”. Or at least “half-American”.

Obama Biden.

Sounds good.

And it's got rhythm.

As we all know the past couple have attacked Obama's rock star status, featuring celebs and music. However, his tactics are beginning to sing a different note.

About a month ago it was Paris Hilton who came out and responded to an McCain ad that used her likeness. Now, I'm not a big Paris Hilton fan, but when I saw the ad it was too funny. The ad has her in a lawn chair relaxing reading a book gracefully addressing the issue.

She said, "But then that wrinkly white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I'm running for president. So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude, and I want America to know I'm, like, totally ready to lead."

Like, this was so funny.

The Paperbag Luchadore usually blasts politicians for their foolishness but this was more a misdirection play that came about because guess what? Now another celeb has come out blasting the camp about music that was used.

Singer-songwriter Jackson Browne sued McCain and the Ohio and national Republican committees in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles this month, accusing them of using his song "Running on Empty" without his permission.

According to an AP report, the advertisement mocks Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's contention that if U.S. drivers got regular tuneups and drove on properly inflated tires, they could save the same amount of oil that would be gained by offshore drilling. According to the suit, "Running on Empty" plays in the background of the ad criticizing the remarks.

Of course, when it discovered, it got pulled--courtesy of the Ohio Republican party, the people who released the ad.

Oh it doesn't stop there, ABBA and John Cougar Mellencamp have also asked McCain to stop using their work.

It's getting desperate.

This just shows how hard the Republican Party is reaching just to make something stick when it comes to attacking Obama in ads. How sad.

It's like watching a guy in the Octagon getting his head bashed in and even though the ref wants to stop the fight, the guy keeps yelling "don't stop the fight!"

Come on Senator, you know better than this. Check your people. They represent you and what type of campaign you're trying to run....maybe walk..you are like, kinda old.

Today's society seems to be fighting against racism more with each day that passes, lets take a closer look into the current event surrounding Fox 5 which landed them into a very hot seat.

All He Needs is “One Mic”

World known rapper Nas known for his outspoken and truthful ways has once again approached his microphone with a heavy heart. Nas recently just got slammed from releasing his newest album containing the name “Nigger”, his fans and public views are well aware that his title is no way trying to offend; more so bringing light to exactly what his album's message is all about. On Nas' latest album a song by the name of “Sly Fox”, is a direct hit towards Fox 5 and their racial recent ways.

Nas was Colbert's guest on Wednesday the 23rd of July speaking his mind on Fox 5 and his involvement with ColorofChange.org. After ColorofChange.org printed off their 620,126 signatures petition, Nas personally delivered the 19 boxes of signatures to Fox 5's national headquarters located in Manhattan on 6th Avenue and west 48th street, along with members of ColorofChange.org on behave of ColorofChange, MoveOn, and Brave New Films.

Fox 5 sneered away and refused to accept the petition which did not surprise Nas and pledged that this will not be the last that rival Bill O'Reilly will hear from him “we're not done yet, we are not done”.

Fox's Response was No Better

Fox 5's response to their petition was not a surprise, an email sent out to their fellow citizens whom signed the petition stated “Since then, our powerful message to Fox keeps spreading, and they're sounding desperate. True to form, Fox responded with a racially insensitive statement comparing our partner MoveOn to the Klan -- yes, the KKK! It's outrageous -- comparing an organization that works everyday to engage citizens in politics to a hate group that hunted and murdered Black people in a reign of terror. It's another example of how far Fox will go, but it also shows that they can't address the real issue -- their racist attacks -- because they have no defense.”

Fox 5 has always been very opinionated and far from truthful, their broadcasting has always showed personal point of views rather than a mutual standing on bring the news to their viewers. This time around it seems that Mr. Bill O'Reilly has dugged a hole deeper than usual, he will require assistance to get himself out of this one. These issues are not and will not go away until O'Reilly faces them head on and takes the heat.

Here are the videos of Nas making his speech in front of Fox 5's headquarters and clips of his appearance on the Colbert Report.

After that, the Bush administration bombed, not once, but four times, I believe it was reported, and in fact killing possibly two terrorists in the attacks. When Obama announced that as president, he would want to send at least two brigades to Afganistan, because that is where the center of the war on terrorism, actually is, as that is where the plot to bomb the World Trade Center, originated, on the same border with Pakistan, where, it is said that Bin Laden is holed up. The very next day Senator McCain said he would send three brigades.

Senator Obama has also said he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, sooner rather than later, Senator McCain has insisted the troops stay there, having permanent bases there, and not worrying about bringing them home, as he said to a news commentator, that it didn’t matter when they came home, as long as there were limited casualties, and just how do you propose to have limited casualties? The Iraqi president Maliki, disagreed and said that in the statement being negotiated now, between the U. S. government and Iraq, the Iraqis, wanted no bases in their country, unless they controlled them, and they wanted a timeline for American troop withdrawal.

It was just announced that within that official statement, there will be a reference to a “time horizon” for troop withdrawal, translation there will be a timeline, however arbitrarily stated. Once again, toward Senator Obama’s position. Senator McCain has not weighed in as yet. We can all remember Senator Obama’s opposition, although he could not vote on the war, as he was still a State senator, to invading Iraq, that it would be the wrong thing to do, and would turn out to be a disaster, as it has.

So in all these cases, the novice, according to some, is apparently leading the charge, and those who call him inexperienced, are are jumping on the Obama wagon, as far as advice goes on how to conduct foreign military affairs.

In other partially related news, former Senator Phil Gramm, Senator McCain’s Chief Economic Advisor resigned, late Friday, so as to not become a distraction, from the McCain campaign. Just a little too late for that, with his “mental recession” remark. But I guess better late than never.