Financial Reform Bill: Not Aimed At Actually Fixing What Was Wrong. "Dodd Frank Bill" ... R U Kidding Me?

I've heard multiple commentators say that the Dems' 'financial reform' bill they just passed would NOT have prevented what happened to cause the 2008 financial collapse. One doesn't have to look any farther than what the bill does nothing about to know that's true.

It's common knowledge that, if sub-prime mortgages hadn't existed or if they had just been limited to people who actually qualified financially, the collapse would not have happened. Democrats pushed these mortgages way too hard and forced lending requirements to be almost totally eliminated. In fact, Freddie and Fannie were told to make these toxic instruments HALF of their mortgage business. Which leads me to the most extraordinary point of this so-called reform. It does NOTHING to reign in Freddie's and Fannie's terrible, financially irresponsible practices. If the reform doesn't touch them and what they did as, perhaps, the principle contributor to what happened, how can it be called reform?

Everyone knows the two guys in congress who pushed the hardest for getting sub-prime mortgages to unqualified people were Dodd and Frank, both Democrats which leads me to the second most extraordinary aspect of that new financial reform bill. It is named "The Dodd Frank Bill". Is THAT just THE MOST AMAZING bit of hypocrisy you've ever heard?

Why doesn't it come down hard on Freddie and Fannie? Easy answer! Doing that would be an admission how wrong it was for them to push so hard on sub-prime mortgages which in turn would point the finger of guilt straight at Dodd and Frank! What better way to whitewash what they did than name the financial reform bill after them as if THEY are the ones who know how to keep our financial house in order (after they proved they cannot)? Gads! These guys (Democratic leaders in congress) have no conscience at all!

For The Left The Narrative Drives The News ... And Purposely(!) Distorts The Truth

A Donna Brazile column ("New bill could rebuild America") ran in our local paper on July 16, 2010. The stupidity and ignorance of her second sentence was stunning! Most amazing, her totally made-up 'fact' was the premise of her entire column. It stopped me cold from reading the rest of her comments.

Here is what she said: "It was Bush, joined by a Republican Congress, who in 2008 jointly threw a taxpayer's lifeline to Big Bankers, Wall Street Moguls and auto giants GM and Chrysler".

Her point and lead-in for the rest of what she said is that Republicans (congressmen and citizens) are therefore hypocritical in opposing and lacking in authority to oppose bailouts and huge debts from Obama and our current Democratic congress. After all, as she says, the Republican Congress did the same thing! HUH? I have news for Ms. Brazile.
1. Republicans were NO LONGER IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS after the 2006 elections. She doesn't know who won the 2006 elections? Good Grief!
2. The REAL fact is, Republicans voted AGAINST both the first and the final (senate) versions of that 2008 bailout bill by a pretty big percentage. It was Democrats (hello, Ms. Brazile, are you listening?) who passed that legislation. (Yes, it's accurate to say that Bush owned it as president for signing it but that's not who's opposing the Dems bills now so a claim of hypocrisy against him is irrelevant to the argument she's trying to make.)

So, what I presume was the premise for her entire column is factually incorrect. What does it say about her integrity, much less her credibility journalistically speaking when she can't get basic facts correct?

Her biography at the bottom of the column says she is "a political commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR; contributing columnist to Roll Call". I can't make up my mind whether that says more about Ms. Brazile or those 'news' organizations! These people ALL let The Left's politically correct narratives drive what they try to pass off to the koolaid-drinking public as news. They make up 'facts' to fit the narrative and have the nerve to call these fictions 'news' or 'reporting'. It's not stranger than fiction; it IS fiction.

I'm Blessed By Family

(Left to right: myself, Chris, Matt, Heather, and Karen)

Karen and I drove to Coeur d' Alene ID last week to spend July 4th and my birthday (the 5th) with our youngest son, Matt, and his wife, Heather. I always enjoy time with my family and was looking forward to a little 'pampering' along with some fun time.

As good as I thought it would be, I got more than I bargained for! A couple days after we arrived I was chilling in their livingroom and answered a knock at their door (they were supposedly off shopping) and there stood oldest son Chris! He flew in from San Jose to join the festivities. There are surprises that really aren't surprises but this one was a winner for sure. Never been more surprised. SCORE! Way to go guys!

Matt and Heather made us so comfortable in their new home of one year ... wonderful hosts indeed! Heather made some of my favorite food. On my bday Matt made french toast for breakfast and Chris bbq'd our steak dinner. They gave me a dinosaur(!) bday cake! Love their sense of humor. All Karen and I were allowed to do our whole stay there was enjoy ourselves. Sweet kids those!

And as for my wife of 38 years, thanks for arranging this. The bday was, indeed, special but the best gift to me was having the family together cause I love you all so much. Thank you for your love and support, Hon!

Protection Of Civil Rights: Factual History Versus Today's Politically Correct View

Isn’t is interesting in consideration of today’s narrative about Republicans in general and Tea Partiers in particular to learn that it was Democrats who historically opposed racial equality, not Republicans? Until mid-last century most of the Democratic party favored segregation. In the 40’s and 50’s things began to change and by the early 60’s a significant majority of the Democratic party and their representatives opposed segregation. In fact, Democrats have done a remarkable job overcoming their racist roots.

Nevertheless, a large enough percentage of Democrats in the US legislature still opposed equal rights at the time that they nearly defeated landmark Civil Rights legislation … the 1957 Civil (Minorities’ Voting) Rights Act and also the 1964 Civil Rights Act for which Martin L. King, other Civil Rights leaders, the Republican party, and millions of Americans fought so hard. In fact, Southern Democrats (sometimes referred to as Dixiecrats) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act 92 to 11! That’s nearly THREE times the total(!) number of the votes against it by the entire Republican party! (Yes, some Republicans did oppose the Civil Rights Act but it was a fairly small minority of the party.)

Think about that for a minute. Only 46 years ago 90% of the Southern Democrats in the US legislature voted AGAINST the landmark 1964 Civil Right Act and came scary close to defeating it! Yet the narrative today and what, incidentally, our kids are being taught via distortions in The Media, schools and from Democratic leadership is that it’s Republicans and Tea Partiers who are and, by extension, always have been against Civil Rights. That makes NO sense whatsoever based on actual history. Sorry, but truth is truth.

Yes, Republicans tend to be against excessive welfare, believing that it makes people dependent on the government for their lives which in turn effectively robs them not only of their self-respect but of their will to succeed that is uniquely possible for all Americans. That doesn’t make them racist … because, if for no other reason, the use of welfare is not limited to African Americans. It’s a stupid argument to say Republicans are racist on that basis. As for racism, it’s the Republican party that has fought the hardest against it. The facts of history prove it unequivocally. (Ref the link at the bottom for more proof of that.)

Look at the history of the Democratic party in all aspects of Civil Rights and be reasonable for a minute. Fact is, NEITHER party nor Tea Partiers can be considered racist as groups now. Indeed they DO have racists among them and I’d estimate that the numbers are ballpark equal between the two political parties. Neither party has a right to call the other racist and the Democrats can rationally be called hypocrites (or worse?) for many of their recent claims about which party protected and protects Civil Rights the best/most.

And to say that Tea Partiers are racist because Rand Paul who, in general, supports the Tea Party movement recently said he doesn’t like one aspect (ie, States’ Rights) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is nutty on many levels. First and foremost, States’ Rights and racism are two distinctly different issues. Supporting one DOES NOT automatically mean you support the other. It’s a nonsense argument. Second, it is Democrats who’ve been historically opposed to integration and related Civil Rights. Check out the link below.

Who filibustered vigorously AGAINST and nearly defeated the 1957 Civil (Minorities’ Voting) Rights Act? Democrats! It was, in fact, a historically RECORD filibuster! Who filibustered vigorously AGAINST and nearly defeated(!) the LANDMARK 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT? Democrats! Good grief folks! How can you fall for Democrat leadership’s nonsense claim that they’ve always been THE party that protected Civil Rights? Maybe they do now … but so do Republicans who always have done so.

If you need more proof, the following link provides it. The Republican bias obvious on the website may be annoying to Democrats but I encourage you to block it out and pay attention to the actual voting record of Democrats over the years. After reading it perhaps you’ll understand why Republicans and Tea Partiers get a little annoyed at today’s narrative about being racist. BTW, I’d be the first to say that Democrats’ history does NOT mean they’re still racist as a party. In easily provable fact, they’re not.
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Answer To Question #3 (Who Conducted The Longest Senate Filibuster And What Was His Political Party?)

Answer to question #3: Senator Strom Thurmond, Democrat, lobbied strongly against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, setting a filibuster record in the process. Incidently, he was considered the Democrat's elder statesman of the senate at the time.

Next blog: some observations and analyses about my recent questions/answers regarding the 1957 Civil (Minority Voting) Rights Act relative to today's perception about what the Republican Party in general and the Tea Party in particular are all about with respect to civil rights.

Answer To Question #2 (What Was The Date & President Re. Voting Rights Act W/Longest Filibuster?)

Answer to question #2: Eisenhower was the Republican president who, in 1957, successfully pushed for passage of the Civil (Minority Voting) Rights Act that was filibustered in record fashion by Democrats.

Next question #3 (to be answered in my next blog): who conducted the record Senater filibuster aimed at defeating it and to what political party did he/she belong?

Answer To Question #1 (What Was The Target Of The Longest Senate Filibuster In US History?)

So, question #1 in my previous blog was: What was the nature of the legislation that was the target of the longest Senate filibuster against a bill's passage in US History?

ANSWER: An Important Civil Rights Act aimed at affirming and judicially protecting African Americans' right to vote

Question #2 (to be answered in my next blog): What was the legislation's year of debate and passage and who was the president that pushed for this law?

Target Of The Longest Filibuster In US History?

I have a question for you: What legislation was the target of the longest filibuster in US Senate history? I'll have an answer for you in my next blog.

How Does It Feel Mr. President?

Let's see if I have this straight. President Obama says insulting, demeaning and dismissive things to us "Tea Baggers" ... the people for whom HE works ... and that's okay. But General McChrystal does essentially the same thing to him (for whom McChrystal works) and that's NOT okay. Not only is it not okay it's deserving of firings and a trip to the woodshed.

From what I read about this, Obama is "furious". Oh, I get it. HIS furry is justified and understandable but ours is not. That seems fair to me.

Hmmmmm. Maybe just a tad hypocritical and arrogant? Maybe a LOT hypocritical and arrogant!

A US Senator Doesn't Like The Federal Government Playing Politics With Border Security

OMG Senator Kyl, you CANNOT be serious! You, a member of our legislature, are upset with Obama playing politics with border security? Whether he did or not, who exactly are you to criticize someone else on this subject?

You’re a member of the same branch of government that, FOR 30 YEARS(!), HAS REFUSED to do immigration reform the way a large majority of Americans want (ie, seal the border … NOW). You all have refused for 30 years to carry out one of your most important constitutional duties and keep our borders secure. You’ve refused to do reform because we citizens won’t let you do it the way YOU want. YOU ALL have been playing political games with sealing the border for all this time and you have the unmitigated gall to complain about someone else doing it too?

I strongly recommend you close your hypocritical pie-hole, roll up your OWN sleeves and help get the senate going on securing the border. THAT, sir, is not only your constitutional duty but is what we The People want as well.