Saturday, September 22, 2007

Ahmadinejad Furor Round-up

I'm still baffled, absolutely baffled by the decision to give this murderous thug a platform anywhere in our country. If ever there was a time and reason to protest, this is it. Here are some posts and reactions from people much more articulate than I.
"How can anybody have a logical argument with the left when they bark stupidity to those who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, yet give a pass to a guy who doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened? Oh yeah... you can't. I guess empirical evidence can only back your argument some of the time."

Friday, September 21, 2007

Protest Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia


Michelle Malkin has been all over the details of Ahmadinejad's visit for the past couple of days, including details of groups who are organizing protests. If you can make it to the vicinity of the UN or Columbia University, I urge you to participate. There is no good reason that this terrorist should be given a platform in our country.

And you wonder why there is a liberal bias in the media of this country? When the top journalism school in the country refuses to have the ROTC on campus but gives this dictator a podium, there should be no doubt. Newt Gingrinch said on Fox News this morning that the New York Times Editorial Board was also taking the terrorist to lunch. Again, saddening, but not surprising.

Murderous dictators who are on record threatening to destroy Israel and us as supporters of the "Zionist regime" do not deserve a platform to speak. Period.

UPDATE: I watched a video last night of Fred Thompson speaking to supporters in Tennesseee. Fred had this to say about Ahmadinejad's visit:
I know there would be ramifications in the United Nations if the U.S. refused to let Mr. Ahmadinejad into the country. I would deny this character a visa. What’s he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own activities? I wouldn’t let him in the country.
I couldn't agree more.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Please note that the above resolution mentions nothing of support of the administration's Iraq War Policy, or how long the troops should remain and fight. Yet, the following 25 Senators voted against the resolution anyway.

NAY
  • Akaka (D-HI)
  • Bingaman (D-NM)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Brown (D-OH)
  • Byrd (D-WV)
  • Clinton (D-NY)
  • Dodd (D-CT)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Feingold (D-WI)
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  • Inouye (D-HI)
  • Kennedy (D-MA)
  • Kerry (D-MA)
  • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  • Levin (D-MI)
  • Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Rockefeller (D-WV)
  • Sanders (I-VT)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Wyden (D-OR)
And another three Senators couldn't be bothered to make the vote, including Barack Obama would somehow made it to another vote 20 minutes or so earlier.

DIDN'T VOTE
  • Biden (D-DE)
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Obama (D-IL)
Thankfully 72 Senators did vote in favor of the resolution, condemning personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces. And I thank them for maintaining some semblance of honor and respect in the Senate.

YAY
  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Allard (R-CO)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Baucus (D-MT)
  • Bayh (D-IN)
  • Bennett (R-UT)
  • Bond (R-MO)
  • Brownback (R-KS)
  • Bunning (R-KY)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Cardin (D-MD)
  • Carper (D-DE)
  • Casey (D-PA)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Coleman (R-MN)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Conrad (D-ND)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Craig (R-ID)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • DeMint (R-SC)
  • Dole (R-NC)
  • Domenici (R-NM)
  • Dorgan (D-ND)
  • Ensign (R-NV)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Gregg (R-NH)
  • Hagel (R-NE)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Hutchison (R-TX)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johnson (D-SD)
  • Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Kohl (D-WI)
  • Kyl (R-AZ)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Lieberman (ID-CT)
  • Lincoln (D-AR)
  • Lott (R-MS)
  • Lugar (R-IN)
  • Martinez (R-FL)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McCaskill (D-MO)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Nelson (D-FL)
  • Nelson (D-NE)
  • Pryor (D-AR)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Salazar (D-CO)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Smith (R-OR)
  • Snowe (R-ME)
  • Specter (R-PA)
  • Stevens (R-AK)
  • Sununu (R-NH)
  • Tester (D-MT)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Voinovich (R-OH)
  • Warner (R-VA)
  • Webb (D-VA)
NOTE: I find it especially interesting that John Kerry, who was disgusted that anyone questioned his military credentials and record during the last campaign, wouldn't condemn anyone making personal attacks on General Petraeus and our troops. I find it not surprising at all that every single one of the Democrat presidential candidates in the Senate voted against the amendment or didn't vote... apparently it is more important for them to have the support of MoveOn.org than to support our troops.

Senators, General Petraeus has not betrayed anyone. I'm not sure that the 25+3 of you could honestly say the same thing to our troops.

Alan Keyes: The Most Impressive Speaker I've Ever Heard

I was honored to be in attendance when Alan Keyes spoke at NC State University in Nelson Hall sometime in 2001. Having been fortunate enough to listen to and question countless authors, politicians, a world renowned botanist, and the engineer who almost stopped the Challenger explosion, I don't say that lightly. Lecturer or otherwise, I have never heard a speaker who had a better command of the issues or his own beliefs. Maybe because he wasn't running for anything at the time, or maybe because he doesn't fall into the trap of trying to contour his views to that of his audience... Dr. Keyes was an unashamed Christian, Conservative, and Patriot. I will never forget that evening, and how thankful I was to be in attendance.

Now, he's back. After failing to defeat Barack Obama for an Illinois Senate seat in 2006, Dr. Keyes recently announced his entry into the Presidential race with his first event being the Values Voter Debate this past Monday in Florida.

I like Dr. Keyes, a lot. Read the pledge on his website, and if you are a Conservative Christian, I'm sure you would like him too. The difference with Dr. Keyes and many other politicians is that he means every word of it, and won't downplay that because of who his audience is. Refreshing in light of recent leaders on both sides of the aisle.

But, I don't believe Dr. Keyes can be elected. As intelligent and impressive as he is, he had an awful time campaigning against Obama in 2006. Granted he was an outsider, having been recruited to move to Illinois just for the race by the party, who I don't believe supported him as much as they could. Nonetheless, Dr. Keyes lost the male vote, the women's vote, the independent vote, the black vote, and the white vote. He lost the vote of every income bracket, every age bracket, and on virtually every issue but moral values. Even on the war against terror, Dr. Keyes lost to Obama. Dr. Keyes did win with people identified as White, Conservative Protestants... but apparently many of them stayed home.

Yes, state elections are different than National Elections, and if Dr. Keyes was the party's nominee, I'm sure he would do better on the national stage, but I don't believe he can get there. And if he did get there, I don't believe he could beat an Obama or Hillary Clinton candidacy, and that scares me. Yes, the conservatives would show up, but would we be enough? Could Conservative Christians alone mobilize enough and turn out enough vote to counter the 75-95% vote that the Dems would get in every other dynamic? I don't think so.

Dr. Keyes has a couple things going against him. I don't believe he comes off quickly with the charm that can bridge ideological differences they way I think Governor Huckabee can. I don't believe he can get much of the media to portray him fairly or seriously, like I hope Fred Thompson can (this has yet to be determined). And he certainly doesn't have the name recognition of the so-called top tier. Dr. Keyes' unabashed Christian values will be seen as a detriment to many as he seems a little more hellfire and brimstone than Huckabee comes across.

And surely Dr. Keyes knows all of this. Surely, after years of attempts with very little traction, Keyes understands that his chances of waging a successful campaign are slim at best. Maybe John Hawkins at Right Wing News was right and "he's just not cut out to be a politician".

I don't know. Just as I mentioned in an earlier post about Governor Huckabee, its a shame that things have become so much about money. It could have been different a century ago. Alan Keyes is a throwback candidate who possibly could have been elected in an era long ago... if only he wasn't black. And now that the country might be ready to look past race in electing a President... we have found a new basis for discrimination... money and special interest favor.

I'm not saying I would vote for Dr. Keyes if the election were held today... as I've said, I'm keeping my mind open and still leaning toward Governor Huckabee. But I do wish more people like Dr. Keyes could be involved in the national debate. And I hope, no matter who turns out to be the GOP nominee, that they don't forget about Ronald Reagan's appointee to the United Nations. Dr. Alan Keyes deserves to have a seat at the table and have a voice in the next Administration.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Values Voter Debate: Mike Huckabee

"If this country allows the Presidency to become more about the pockectbook then it is about the principles, we no longer are pursuing a presidency, we are pursuing a pluotcracy, and God help us if we allow that to happen."


There is nothing wrong with government leaders being wealthy. There is nothing wrong with the wealthy being involved in politics. But when the wealthy control politics, and restrict the platform from those outside their sphere of influence, then we have a problem. When the amount of money you can generate matters more than the issues, you have a problem. This country was build around noble men, stepping away from private life to make a contribution to the public at large... and then going back to private life. But how can that happen when the amount of corporate contributions or $2,000 plate dinners matters more than your values or beliefs?

If the noble man who will not give influence to lobbyists and special interest groups, can not become elected because he does not receive their money... then we have already lost.


Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Minorities Denied Mortgages?

According to this article, minorities in my neck of the woods are denied mortgages at twice the percentage of whites. The articles makes the leap that "the primary factor appears to be minority status."

B.S.

I've been in the mortgage business a long time, I've never once met a loan officer who was willing to give up a commission because he/she didn't want to work with a minority. I'm sure that person exists... but does it account for a doubling of the denial rate of applications? Not a chance.

Loan officers are generally either entirely paid on commission or mostly paid on commission. Furthermore, mortgage brokers and lenders don't get paid if they don't close loans. In that environment, can you really imagine that a large percentage of loans are denied because the loan officer would rather stick it to a minority than make a paycheck?

The study referenced only cites income levels when comparing applicants of different races. Yet income is only a small fraction of what goes into approving someone for a loan or not. Where is the mention of credit scoring, job stability, rent verification, or personal assets? Where is the mention of down payment, equity or liquidity? I would like to see the raw numbers, but I would be willing to bet that when all factors are considered the denial rate between minorities and whites is not nearly as disparate as the article implies.

  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as good credit scores as whites?
  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as good credit histories as whites?
  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as many debt accounts as whites?
  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much in savings as whites?
  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much down payment as whites?
  • Are minorities of similar income levels likely to have as much personal assets, liquidity, job stability and rental verification as whites?
These are the questions you have to answer in order to determine if there is discrimination in the denial rates of minorities versus whites. But the article, the report cited, and those who want to politicize all of it either cannot or will not answer the above questions. Quite possibly the answer will not correspond with the result they desire.

I can only speak from my experience and from the people I know in the business. I will not make broad generalizations about minority groups because generalizations serve no useful purpose and my office's overall work may or may not be representative of the industry in total. However, I have never seen any evidence of a broad conspiracy in the mortgage business to deny people mortgage loans. I have worked with a number of minorities over the years, and never once has a lender or one of my loan officers denied a loan because of race. We treat all loans equally and try to improve all borrowers financial stability. I assume most mortgage companies' experiences are the same.

And doesn't the assumption of racist mortgage denials fall in stark contrast with other media reports lately? How can mortgage brokers be actively denying loans to minorities and at the same time be offering them loans they can't afford causing mass foreclosures? How can we on the one hand be guilty of unnecessarily turning down business and on the other hand be guilty of giving people loans who don't qualify for them?

Maybe the city of Raleigh needs to look at other options instead of going on a witch hunt after discrimination that might not exist. Let's look into what the real cause is without making supposition. Then, only after you have identified the cause, can it be fixed. If you want to spend tax dollars combating the racial disparity in the mortgage business, it might be better spent on financial education in schools, credit education for the public, and money/debt management training for prospective homeowners. Maybe there should be an analysis of cultural differences when it comes to debt, finances and depository accounts?

I'm tired. Tired of combating societal impulses for media-driven buzzwords, a lack of personal responsibility, and the creation of evil that doesn't exist... all at the expense of what? The truth.

The truth doesn't matter anymore. We're all just a bunch of racists.

I Can Fix Health Care!

The problem with the current health care system is that it has been removed from the free market. Individuals, especially those who have a history of illness, smoking, or obesity, find it virtually impossible to get health care on their own. And when they can, the costs are astronomical. The cause of this is simple... health care companies are not competing for your business as an individual, they are competing for the business of your employer.

The health care industry has a pretty good racket going on. Convince people that their employers should offer them health care. Convince companies that they can not hire good workers unless health care is a benefit they offer. Lobby congress to pass legislation offering tax incentives for employers who offer health care, and in some circumstances require employers to offer health care.

What effect does this have? Businesses are not as sensitive to increases in coverage, and whatever the cost, get to write off the expense. Health care companies only have to cater to the businesses and not the individual, making the cost of underwriting and closing each transaction smaller per policy than it otherwise would be. Not that they pass any savings on to consumers. In my small business, it has often proven that the company policy costs considerably more than the same policy an individual could get... but because it is an expected benefit, I have to offer health insurance or lose good employees. What a scam. And even the costs to the employee are too high, higher than they would be in a truly free market system.

Think about how many car insurance commercials you see on tv. The Geico lizard or cavemen are on virtually all the time. And then there is David Palmer with All State, the eSurance cartoons, Progressive and their semi-celebrity ads, and State Farm with their “real life” agents. Car insurance commercials are on all the time. Why? Because they have to compete for your business and you have to have car insurance. You know what else happens with car insurance? When they are fighting for your business they offer you competitive prices. They have to, because they have to work for every single customer they get. And everyone can get car insurance... even if you have had a DUI in the past. It might be expensive... but you can get it, and people want your business. You also get pretty good service from your auto insurance company, because they know you can go to one of a number of their competitors if you aren’t happy.

Why is auto insurance like that? Because your employer doesn’t provide you with auto insurance. The government doesn’t provide you with auto insurance. You have to have it... and so a number of companies are out there, competing for your business.

Imagine if that applied to health care. Imagine if there were a number of health care companies competing for your business on an individual level. Imagine health care providers competing on price. Imagine calling your health insurance company and not having to wait on hold forever... or imagine billing issues that don’t require an advanced degree. Imagine a health care system where everyone who wanted it could get health care... and it followed you. Imagine if you didn’t like your plan you could switch to another provider who was eager for your business.

Want to know how to do it? It’s simple, and it is so much better than socialism.

Prevent the government from offering health care coverage to government employees. Close tax incentives and prevent companies from providing health care coverage to their employees. Require that all people have to find their health care coverage on the open market. If that is a reality, they will compete for your individual policy, rates will fall, and service levels will increase.

It really is that simple.

But, it will never happen.

There is too much money in the health care lobby. People are conditioned to believe that they can't afford health care on their own, the employer must provide it. Congress will never give up their sweet health care package. And people will never admit that paying for it themselves would be cheaper. And liberals and much of the rest of the government won't allow it. If you take their social programs away from them, then they lose power. They lose something to hold over your head to entice you for your votes.

So the people will keep becoming more and more dependent on the federal government and our capitalist republic will become more and more like a socialist experiment. Social Security is screwed up... but the people are too dependent on it and too scared to make a change. The IRS and tax law is screwed up... but the government is too dependent on it and so are countless lobbyists. The education system is a bloated mess... but see how far you get criticizing it. And the health care system too needs reform... and so the government wants to create yet another social program instead of taking the necessary reforms to fix it.

Any time a government makes you more dependent on it, it is doing you a disservice. Bar none. Socialized health care is certainly no exception. All it will serve to do is give more powers to the government and take your freedom and ability to choose away. Want to fix it... make it truly compete on an open market. I promise... it is that simple.