There is no doubt that easy credit and the ability of unqualified buyers to obtain it and the propensity for mortgage lenders to provide it has created a significant strain on the economy, which will cost the taxpayers billions.

The left, has been quick to blame the GOP, almost entirely for the failure of mortgage giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Speaker Nancy Pelosi certainly said as much prior to today's vote on the Wall Street Rescue package. But as with most things in Washington the issue is a bit more complex.

Indeed, it was the left who opposed reigning in the free wielding tactics of Fannie and Freddie and as a result a collapse was inevitable. In the era of modern media, such a reality is inescapable, save those who refuse to see that which is obvious.

Most candidates wait until the outcome of an election before they start making excuses for their lost. Remember the ill-fated election of 2000? Gore didn't start complaining before the votes had been counted that Bush was going to steal the election. No that fantasy began afterward. Kerry didn't warn in the summer of 2004 that he was going to be swift-boated.

Senator Obama, however, and his cronies in the media, have started a new a new trend. They have begun to float rationalizations for any possible Democratic failure in November. The premise is this: If Obama loses, its not because of policy or political philosophy. Its not because he will raise taxes on Small Busineses who employ 80% of all Americans, its not because he will institute rationing of healthcare through state control, or oversee a massive expansion of government entitlements or discourage oil exploration, while simultaneously raising taxes astronomtically. No, if Obama loses its only because he is...Black. Thats right, anyone who votes against this latest Democratic incarnation of re-distributive government couldn't possibly object to anything but his skin color.

This complaint will be repeated loudly and often until this lie has be taken for the truth, in the true sopirit of Joeph Goebbles. This startegy will be used expertly in an obvious attempt to deliegitimize a McCain presidency, even before it begins. Just as the farce of a Gore victory in 2000 was used, skillfully, to delegitimize the presidency of George W. Bush. Lest we forget, the American left cares nothing for the facts, which will be the first casuality in their efforts in a race to teh bottom as they plan their next political comeback. Depend upon it!


Link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/22/2008-09-22_poll_barack_obama_could_lose_six_percent.html

Climate change on Mars...Bush to blame?

Originally published: September 22, 2005

For centuries man has been obsessed with the planet Mars, since the dawn of the space age in the 1950s man has been able to explore and understand mars (and the other planets) in ways never before imaged. With this newfound capability we have discovered that Mars is in the midst of a period of climate change. For several years now, scientists with NASA have observed that icecaps on Mars have been decreasing in size for the third straight year in a row. So its seems Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system experiencing climate change. Now all this begs the question, will the left attempt to blame Martian climate change on George Bush, as they have done here on Earth? Any knowledge of Earth history will tell us that Earth has experienced far more significant changes in temperature over the millennia.

Indeed, Earth has experienced ice ages and uncharacteristically warm periods as well, many of which occurred long before man came to dominate the planet. Yet, the left tirelessly persist in blaming George Bush and the United States. Even if, man-made gases are to blame for changes in temperature, why is it that only the US and George Bush shoulder any fault. Wasn't Bill Clinton President for 8 years prior to Bush, and why only the United States? There in lies the ultimate fault of the Kyoto Treaty (a treaty leftist insist America must endorse). A treaty which would lead any rational person to question its framers motives. Why would nations like China and India be excluded from pollution restriction, when both countries are major polluters. The US is criticized for producing 24% of the world's CO2 emissions, yet the US accounts for over 25% of the world's industrial output, China by contrast, accounts for only 3% of the world's industrial output, yet produces 14% of the world's CO2 emissions. India is also a top 5 polluter, yet both countries aren't bound to any of the provisions of the Kyoto treaty. If our concern is protecting the environment, then why such a glaring oversight?

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

Solar flares acting up again, is Bush to blame?

Originally published: September 12, 2005

Scientists have noted that the Sun is becoming increasingly active with a number of solar flares. This will be the 7^th major solar flare up for the sun. Solar flares can be extremely dangerous and technically devastating. Flares can cause harm to astronauts in earth's atmosphere. These flares can also cause harm to orbiting satellites. If these satellites are damaged it could be devastating for communications, and other industries and services dependent upon space technology.

Such flares can also prove dangerous to terrestrial equipment, including power grids. These flares are difficult to predict and can send high doses of radiation in Earth's direction in a matter of minutes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is monitoring the situation, but there is little that can be done other than to warn. Regardless of this it would not be surprising if leftist will try to blame the president if these flares cause any serious damage. One must keep in mind that leftists have no propensity for science. How else do you explain the belief, held by many liberals, that Bush's policies created Hurricane Katrina? Keep in mind that if certain people believe the president can control the weather, it would be no great trick to convince them that he controls the Sun as well. Such blatant ignorance demonstrates the lack of knowledge and understanding that is dominant in the party that capitalizes on poverty and ignorance.

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/050909_solar_flares.html

Two years ago shortly after Barack Obama declared that he was considering a run for president, after having served only 1 year in the United States Senate, The Phalanx declared Obama to be a new kind of politician, more pragmatic and far more palatable than the likes of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. Though certainly not an endorsement, Obama's rhetoric certainly seemed to be the beginning of a new era in American politics.

Of all the prospective Democrats running for office, however, Obama seems far more palatable than Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and worst of all John Kerry. Obama, appears to have a more pragmatic style to governing, rather than the slash and burn political style of his Democratic contemporaries.
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/10/obama-considers-presidential-run.html

Well...we take it back, we take back every last word.

Frankly, we were wrong, after 19 months it has become increasingly apparent that Obama is far less palatable than Hillary Clinton, we would much prefer Clinton, Gore or even the most extreme leftist one could envision. Far from being a new kind of Democratic as Clinton vowed to be (and for the most part was..., at least after losing Congress), Obama is the quintesential politician. For all we know he may be a Quintesson as well, he certainly is two faced.

After watching his campaign with his Democratic and Republican rivals we now see Obama for the phony he truly is. To be certain, John McCain is nothing special by any means, but most Americans know who McCain is, having been in the public eye for sometime. Obama's political inexperience, however, has been ignored by the pundits in a rush to anoint their token to prove the American left isn't the paternalistic plantation that it is. Every day we learn how inept a politician Obama actually is. I suppose you can put lipstick on a great many politicians with little to show for it.

For the derision leveled at George W. Bush for his horid speaking ability has anyone ever caught glimpse of the equally inept, pre-packaged Barack Obama without his prepared speeches?

Since the Left and the Media establishment anointed Barack Obama as their standard bearer for the November election, the hypocrisy has been practically immeasurable. For month Hillary Clinton spoke of her experience and her supposed ability to lead from day one. Obama's supporters poo pooed this argument, rallying behind his change mantra. Now we see the Audacity of Hope has become the Audacity of Hypocrisy. Obama and his camp have attacked and belittled Alaska Governor Palin as being inexperinced (particulary on the matter of foreign policy).

As any Clinton supporter can attest, Obama is the least experienced Democratic Candidate for president in the entire history of the Democratic Party, less experience than William Jennings Bryan in 1896, less experience than Alton Parker in 1904, less experince than John Davis in 1924 and while the 1872 nominee, Horace Greeley served only 1 year in Congress, Greeley had served as a prominent political leader and newspaper editor for years before his illfated run.

Inspite of Obama's non-existence in all things related to political experience, he and hsi team have been vocal in chiding the experience of, Palin. If serving as a governor is not a suffieint stepping stone for the presidency, then perhaps someone should tell four of the last five presidents.

On top of this heaping plate of hypocrsy, we now hear rubblings of attacks on Palin's children and her family. Imagine the outcry if there were attacks on Obama's children. Obama to his credit has slammed these attacks, but the attacks continue and of course the media is along for the ride.