American Yank

Analysis & Commentary With An EVILConservative Slant

2008: A political year thrown under the bus.

I have never been more ashamed of a fellow Christian than as I have been with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. The former Republican contender for the presidential nomination proceeded to throw the conservative vote under the bus by bogging down former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s campaign with questions and criticism of his Mormon faith. With Romney’s chances dashed, conservatives lost and now we are stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils.

While your author will punch the card for Senator McCain, he cannot help to think about things like McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform or his filibustering clique known as the Gang of 14. However no doubt McCain will stand head and shoulders above either Senators Clinton or Obama.

Obviously one of McCain’s strong points, which the reader will be reminded of constantly, was his brave stay as a Vietnam POW from 1967-73. Senator Obama will have a tough time trying to counter that with his experiences of being raised by middle class white grandparents in Hawaii while attending private school. Senator Clinton’s unsubstantiated claims of experience in foreign policy will be overshadowed. The most recent gaffe being her role in the Bosnia war, which amounted to her and daughter Chelsea dining with the comedian Sinbad during a USO tour.

While Senator Clinton’s reputation is to gain at all costs, which will also include the destruction of the Democrat Party, Senator Obama shows he lacks any insight in personal judgement. For starters Senator Obama isn’t comfortable in his own skin. While he panders to black voter and attempts to reconnect with them, a connection that never existed, he throws his white grandmother under the bus by retelling a story of how she was nervous around certain black men and uttered racial stereotypes. Of course his grandmother, Mrs. Madelyn Dunham, has refused to grant interviews and these are merely claims made by Senator Obama.

While Senator Obama is quick to toss granny to the curb, he is quiet on his relationship with Bill Ayers. The mainstream media refuses to address this gem so your author felt a duty to the reader to inform them. Back in Chicago Senator Obama was a member of the Woods Fund along with Ayers. The group is a non-profit grant facilitator that funds programs for "under-privileged" and attempts to reduce racism (whatever that means). Bill Ayers is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. However back in the late 1960s and into the 70s Ayers was heavily involved in the left wing terrorist group known as the Weather Underground. Ayers was a rich kid from the posh Chicago suburb of Glen Ellyn, which is usually the typical background of a left wing extremist. The Underground was responsible for a series of bombings in San Francisco, Chicago and New York. Ayers has yet to publicly state regret for his involvement with the terrorist group and donated $2,000 to Obama’s senate campaign.

Then of course there is Obama the spiritualist and his spiritual mentor, the racist disguised as a preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Chicago’s south side Trinity United Church of Christ. On any given day, since 1988, Obama was in Wright’s congregation taking in the anti-America and racists spew of Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright also had no qualms associating with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama even had the preacher oversee his marriage and brought his children to listen to him. At the end of the day Obama felt compelled to donate $20,000 to Wright’s church then brought him along to be a part of his presidential campaign team. As of recent Rev. Wright is retired and the IRS are investigating Trinity United while Obama has removed his services from his campaign.

Senator Obama has already told the media and his supporters he will not disavow himself from Rev. Wright. He compares this to disavowing himself with the black community, a group he never knew during his formative years and only as a Chicago ‘community activist’ in his years after college. Senator Obama can no more relate to a certain segment of black voters than you or I but yet this is forgotten too. He has never been publicly asked about his association with Professor Ayers but yet offers up his grandma Dunham, the one who raised him, as a sacrificial lamb. Senator Obama by doing so you have demonstrated your callousness even to the most ignorant and blind self-professed liberal and supporter of your political fantasy.

Meanwhile your author could write a book on the faults and empty claims and rhetoric of Senator Clinton. One could describe her as a shill, carpetbagger, finger pointer and quite possibly the biggest con to ever set foot on the American political scene. These would all be fair descriptions against the claims of her accomplishments, which amount to nothing. Whether she is trying to rewrite history as it relates to her husband’s presidential tenure or attempting to state exaggerated claims, Mrs. Clinton does not enjoy the same coasting ride as Senator Obama. Her shellacking from vocal critics from within her own party and the media is long overdue. However this is obvious, one knows the bill of goods they buy when the name Clinton is stamped on it.

As Obama and Clinton battle it out, she won’t go quietly, the Democrat Party is at stake. Senator Clinton’s time has come but yet it has fizzled. How ironic is it that the ‘product’ of what her party endorses-the advancement of minorities, the social welfare of our society and the appeal to younger voters in a rock star celebrity form-has not only taken the wind from her sail but sunk her ship as well?

Senator McCain has it all on a silver platter. Either opponent will be tired and beaten down when they have to meet the POW who showed more courage in his big toe than either of these two combined could ever imagine. The meal has been cooked and sliced. Senator McCain take off the gloves and it is yours for the taking. There is no need for us to feed it to you. On second thought the lesser of two evils exist on the Democrat ticket.

Posted by American Yank at 3/25/2008 7:20 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Our economy and the fed: A sobering hangover

Over the past few days economists have agreed there is a better than 50% chance our economy will face a recession or at least a significant slowdown. A recession is defined as a two consecutive quarters where the GDP declines or retraces. Just as with the theory of relativity, economic cycles often are filled with equal and opposite reactions.

Amid all of the whys lies the credit crunch, which is rooted in the sub-prime lending mess. Contrary to popular thought it wasn’t poor Americans and their lack of repayment on substandard mortgages that caused this debacle. They did play an early role but rather the original blame can be placed at the feet of Congress. Yes it seems that Americans and our industries are forced to adhere and suffer for the decisions made by folks who have often never ventured any bfurther in their career outside of being a career politician and future lobbyist.

The sub-prime mortgage industry, which is nearly defunct if recent bankruptcies from the participants are any indication, was the child born out of The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a federal law that required banks and financial institutions to offer credit throughout their market regardless of wealth or income. The federal law was passed in 1977 and at the time interest rates were relatively high, thus the masses were seeking financing.

In 1995 under the Clinton Administration the law was reviewed and as a result sub-prime loans were allowed to be placed in bundles of bonds and sold on the market. Within a few years a new industry was born that being those that purchased mortgages, batched the maturities to match and sell them to the investment public. Both quasi government agencies known as Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Ginnie Mae (Government National Mortgage Association) would become significant participants in this arena of finance. Many times, especially with Fannie Mae issues, the credit ratings on such bonds were considered stellar and both agencies were perceived to have the bail out and full faith and credit of the federal government, which was not true. On the other hand banks were freed from the risks associated with holding a large pool of mortgages.

This worked fine for nearly a decade and coupled with lower rates, a housing boom was born. Suddenly your author was receiving real estate tips from others who had never struck him before as having knowledge in such investment. In fact one acquaintance argued that real estate should be considered a liquid investment. Real estate, unlike the securities market, does not always have a ready buyer, which is a fact we in our nation are starting to realize.

There is a popular misconception that a sub prime borrower had poor credit, a history of delinquent payments or even a past bankruptcy. First and foremost a sub prime borrower’s general credit score was below 730. Credit reports and their usage is another subject that many of ignorance has attempted to educate your author. The reader’s personal credit score can be manipulated. An easy example is having previously possessed a credit card where a delinquent payment at some time in the past and card has been paid in full and cancelled. The reader can simply contact the bureau and file a review stating the card has been cancelled. This will often times mitigate the previous delinquency.

Since banks and banking in general is a commodity industry, whereby there are few distinguishing characteristics between competitors, items such as home equity loans or home equity lines of credit began to take place. These were often accompanied with fees and ‘points’. At one time they would have been called second mortgages and were often frowned upon.

Additionally hedge funds began to invest in the sub prime industry. Now remember hedge funds are probably the second largest contributor to the volume of most stock markets. Mutual funds are often considered the first. Suddenly individuals such as former senator, retired ambulance chaser and failed 2004 John Kerry running mate John Edwards (D-NC) and his investment in the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group were sub prime lenders.

So now you have banks and hedge funds encouraged to lend, which under normal circumstances sounds fine. You have a Federal Reserve that has encouraged more liquidity, regardless of the long term impact, with plenty of greenbacks at very low borrowing rates. There are plenty of players with plenty of supply. Then you have the customers who ventured into real estate speculation often by drawing on a home equity loans to facilitate a down payment for another purchase in what is known as ‘flipping’, never actually residing in the home and merely passing it along to the next available buyer.

Furthermore you have home developers suddenly engaging in the mortgage business as they build houses like there is no tomorrow. The problem being there is a tomorrow. When the last person or family has purchased their residence it will be over and predictably it came to an end. Just like with any hyper market, whether it is the dot com bubble of the 1990s or the 17th century Dutch tulip craze, inflated and irrational markets always collapse and collapse badly.

For whatever reason our society and probably those of other countries always look to blame someone or something when the good times end and the hangover begins. When borrowing rates increased, partly to offset the action from the previous Federal Reserve, the foreclosures and late payments began. Whether it was a case of bank customers living beyond their means or banks not properly analyzing scenarios based on cash flows against rate changes, we will never know but your author believes the truth lies somewhere in between. In this case many were quick to blame the original sub prime borrowers, those perceived or otherwise as being the less well to do in America. However statistics have shown that the credit risky customers only accounted for about 20% of the current foreclosure rate. This leaves only the speculator, seasoned or rookie as failing to meet their obligations. They were caught holding the bag and without a buyer.

Suddenly Federal Reserve head Ben Bernanke had a mess on his hands as economic data began to pour out from the various banks telling the tale of doom and gloom. Why should anyone be shocked? Bernanke and his board then recommended rate cuts or rates to remain the same, which will only exasperate the dilemma . During this past Fall the Fed began to shoot funds into the stock market in a desperate attempt to prevent a sudden sell off.. Why would they do such a thing if the debacle was in the mortgage industry? While we may never know the exact reason your author believes it was because of hedge funds. As the hedge funds began to feel the heat from the foreclosure meltdown, as stated many had ventured into the sub prime business, their investors would want to pull out their investment. If this is the case and since many such funds do hold large blocks of publicly traded shares, a sell off in the stock market would have occurred. Now the reader must ponder why is this an issue? It would not be one if it wasn’t for the fact that millions of 401-K and IRAs are directly tied to the equity markets. So did the Federal Reserve "bail out" hedge funds or did it attempt to save the average American concerned with their retirement? Furthermore it should be noted that hedge funds have changed so much from their original inception, from days when ultra-wealthy, often those in another country were the investors to now where you have major American based investment houses often engaged in finding clients for these funds. Hedge funds themselves are nothing mysterious, they are not regulated and are located offshore. Due to their ability to short and buy long on securities they offer their investors a multitude of investment scenarios and allows them to "hedge" against risk. However as stated the hedge funds have become mainstream, which was never their intention and often no longer practicing the hedging aspect. This is yet another piece of this economic puzzle and that being there are more streams of cash than ever before, suddenly (in this case) mortgages were being funded by private investors.

In two weeks the Federal Reserve Board will meet and it is believed that Bernanke and company will again suggest a further rate cut. This will only pave a smooth track for the already current sliding slope of the US dollar. A rate decrease could be perfectly manageable if our country did not have a growing federal deficit and balance trade debt, which isn’t nearly as dismal when oil imports are taken out of the equation. We have already seen the Euro and Canadian dollar climb against our own currency. It is expected that both the Australian and New Zealand dollars will appreciate against the dollar. The US greenback is referred to as the "world’s reserve currency" but it has become terribly flawed and may be a known as such in name only.

What does this mean to the reader? It should mean plenty. A depreciating currency will make imports cheaper. This was fine when imports often were used in the same sentence with luxury goods. But are televisions sets and CD players made in China considered a luxury or luxury item? No not by many consumers. Also your author does not propose the political rhetoric that we should bring the manufacturing back to our country. We had our time and our economy has changed for the better and allowed us to remain competitive. Besides you can thank the unions and federal regulations for encouraging manufacturers to find cheaper labor.

What can be done? This is where your author would like to provide a silver lining around a grey cloud but for now none can be found. It won’t materialize until members of Congress stop proposing bail outs and other lofty ideas, which will only legitimize and band aid some of these ridiculous transgressions. In fact nothing will happen that will hint of good economic sense until those participants along with the Fed pop an aspirin and sober up.

Posted by American Yank at 1/16/2008 8:56 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Something to cheer about: Trent Lott’s retirement

Recently Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott announced that after 35 years he is packing it in and retiring from the US Senate. The former head of the Senate and current Minority Whip leader was just reelected in 2006 and had a remaining five years of what would have been his fourth term.

Lott was revered by many in Senate as a deal maker and compromiser. While this may true in this current time where you have a deadlocked and bickering Congress this role is less relevant. To your author he was another great ‘could have been’.

Lott’s career was more about pork spending. In your author’s opinion he ranks only second to West Virginia Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, formerly of the KKK, in bringing home the bacon. In 2002 Lott was quoted in Republican Senator Tom Coburn’s book entitled Breach of Trust saying, "balancing a budget would be nice but I have to win an election".

While Majority Leader in the Senate, Lott celebrated the 100th birthday of South Carolina Strom Thurmond and said the following, "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either." Thurmond campaigned for the President’s seat in 1948 and at the time was an open segregationist. While Lott may have not intended his comments to be taken as he agreed with Thurmond’s social leanings, it was certainly perceived this way in the media and backlash resulted. It ultimately ended with Lott stepping down from his leadership position.

The reason Lott made such a statement has never been fully explained. His supporters claimed it was because Lott was a conservative and that when Thurmond campaigned, he was actually critical of Franklin Roosevelt’s expansion of the federal government. However Lott would be hard pressed to defend his first political relationship with that of Democrat Mississippi Congressman William Colmer. Lott served as his assistant on the House Rules Committee. Upon his retirement in 1972, Colmer endorsed Lott as his successor. Lott would change his party affiliation to Republican, which was indicative of the growing political trend in the South. Despite Colmer’s blessing Lott lost. Colmer himself had a bit of an infamous background as the once powerful congressman was able to convince fellow southern politicians to sign the Southern Manifesto, which was in response to the Democrat’s party embracing civil rights. The document was drawn up in 1956 and directly opposed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision of Brown vs. Board of Education.

While Lott rose in power in the Senate he campaigned on conservatism and much that has fallen under this cloak of political philosophy. While he may have known the word, his initiative or lack of it spoke otherwise.

Beginning with the Republican revolution in 1994, tort reform was on the mind of many business owners. Since the 1970s trial lawyers had been fleecing American enterprise with lawsuits. Lott could have jump-started legislation but failed. It may of had something to do with his brother in-law, the well known and rich Mississippi trial lawyer Richard ‘Dickie’ Scruggs, who will figure prominently at the conclusion of this entry. Scruggs makes former North Carolina Senator, ambulance chaser, failed 2004 Vice Presidential nominee and current Democrat Presidential pretty boy John Edwards look like a pauper.

Oddly enough Lott’s role as Majority Leader fell on Dr. Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, who attempted to begin tort law reform. Frist was pro active and for the two terms he served stood steadfast for reform. First and foremost Frist promised his supporters that they would get two terms out of him and he would retire. Imagine that, an elected official implementing his or her own term limits policy? Frist was quick to reprimand those of his own party as he was if they were Democrat. Lott was bitter about the election of Frist to his former spot, an act he referred to as a ‘personal betrayal’, stating in his autobiography Herding Cats, A Lifetime of Politics, "If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today." Yes Senator Lott and the Republican party would be worse off.

In his autobiography Lott described former Democrat Senator Tom Daschle from North Dakota and then Senate Minority Leader as ‘trustworthy’. Frist actively campaigned in North Dakota for Republican John Thune and Daschle lost in 2004. The former senator has since thrown his support behind Senator Barrack Obama for the 2008 Presidential Election. Daschle has stated that Obama, "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country." Nowadays Daschle spends his time as policy advisor for the lobby group Alston & Byrd LLP and as a fellow for the Center of America Progress, which is a research group that counters conservative thought.

Lott would later blunder when failed to listen to his constituents and supported the disastrous 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that was heralded by the likes of President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy. Your author has previously warned that all one needs to know is that if Ted Kennedy supports a proposal, it is bad news.

So what has Lott achieved that is noteworthy besides surprising some of us and not becoming a career politician? Some on the Mississippi coast could argue that Lott managed to keep local military bases opened. This may be rosy for the folks in Biloxi and Pascagoula but for the rest of America it is a waste of federal funds. Military bases were never intended to create economies but were placed in location as a matter of convenience. Don’t misinterpret your author, he is in favor of a strong and well funded military (something Democrats oppose) but they need to be overseas where threats to our liberty exist. How many untold $100 millions were shelled out to this area, we will never know but Lott managed to prop this area up instead of imploring them to create another economic stimulus.

There have been three noted reasons why Lott may have suddenly retired. The first being that Lott may wish to cash out and join a lobbying firm. In order to do so he must stay out of politics for two years. This is a rather simple explanation.

However your author believes that at least one of two storms caused the senior Senator to retire. The first being of a political nature and involving the embattled Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska. The longest serving Republican in the Senate is in a quagmire for allegations of misappropriating federal funds to benefit his former aide Trevor McCabe. Another investigation, which has brought in the FBI, is centered around VECO Corporation oil company and their executive Bill Allen. The allegations are that Allen willfully bribed Stevens’ son Ben, who was a power in the Alaskan senate. Allen has already copped a plea and is slated to be a witness for the prosecution. Both Lott and former House Speaker, who retired several months back, were photographed with Allen at a fishing retreat.

The other firestorm is closer at home and involves Lott’s brother in law, famous trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs. Many will recall that it was Scruggs that led a massive lawsuit against State Farm following Hurricane Katrina. Lott, who owns a Gulf Coast home, joined in with the suit. Now Scruggs and others are under a federal indictment, which includes an interesting list of characters such as the current Mississippi attorney general Jim Hood. The indictment states that Scruggs attempted to bribe a judge that was hearing the suit. More recently the office of Scruggs’ defense attorney has been raided. What role did Lott play in these allegations that will most certainly prevent Missippians from future coverage? Your author does not know but his unexpected retirement can only make your author speculate.

The folks in Mississippi are better off without Senator Lott. Only time will tell if they decide to advanced forward by electing an effective representative or will they once again succumb to promises and deliveries of pork. Someone of a higher political rank within the Republican National Committee must have taken Lott out to the levy or the delta and told him it was over. This should have happened years ago. The Republicans are cleaning house slowly but surely and it is the first step in producing realistic hope that they will once again dominate the national political scene. Meanwhile the Democrats with an ineffective Congress and infighting among their ranks are fulfilling the second half of this equation.

Posted by American Yank at 12/12/2007 11:21 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Australia's John Howard- A winner but not in the eyes of the media.

Your author is still surprised by the blatant lies disguised as political commentary from many if not all members of the international mainstream media machine. While the New York Times and LA Times are obviously notorious for jumping the gun and apply conventional thinking or no thinking in their coverage, your author received a taste of this same incompetency while listening to the BBC radio and their coverage of the recent Australian national election.

In short Prime Minister John Howard, friend to America (which earns him the persona non grata label from Liberal Democrats), was scheduled to be the longest serving head of Australia. He was first elected in 1987 and again in 1996 while his Liberal Party dominated the Australian Parliament. He continue to serve such role until the Liberal Party defeat just a week ago. Previously Howard challenged labour laws and passed significant reforms that freed up issues such as hiring and firing thereby diminishing the power of organized labour, thus a boom was born. Under his tenure Australia’s GDP grew at 3.5-4% annually, a first for their country. The economic prosperity also spurned historically low unemployment. In April 2006 the Howard administration proudly proclaimed their federal debt totalling $96 billion was paid off, something we here in America should consider.

On the international front Howard joined President Bush and the war against terror becoming a voice for pro active initiatives against organized violence in the lower Pacific. Following September 11th terrorist attacks in the US, Australia joined the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2002 the Bali bombing attack in Indonesia resulted in 202 deaths, 88 were Australian. This spurned a change in Australian laws and aggressive investigations began on questionable figures in their country. In November 2005 international attention was focused on Australia when 16 would be Islamic radicals were arrested in Sydney and Melbourne in what was described as a foiled terrorist plot. One of those arrested was Abu Bakr, an Algerian immigrant and Muslim cleric who previously described Osama Bin Laden as a ‘great man’. Muslim terrorists would have to find another western safe haven to concoct their violence.

Howard also earned admiration from your author when he said point blank that Muslim terrorists pray that Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats takeover the White House in 2008. He later earned honorary American citizenship when he refused to apologize for the statement.

Prior to his electoral defeat, polls in Australia indicated that most trusted their economy and safety with Howard and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party campaigned simply on this fact with a bit of smugness stating ‘you never had it so good’, which is probably true. However it was not meant to be and Kevin Rudd with the Labor Party won a strong victory. Many Australian pundits have speculated that Labor was able to paint or portray labor unions as a vital part of the Australian economy and that Howard’s legislative measures had greatly curbed the role of organized labor. Additionally Rudd has planted seeds with China for what many envision as strong relations for the future. Of course your author had to scour the Australian press accounts to even present this explanation.

However if someone was to listen to the BBC and your author dare says the American mainstream media machine they would have been told that Howard and the Liberal Party lost due to their relationship with Bush and the ‘unpopular’ Iraq War. Your author has previously asked, ‘when was a war ever popular?’. Rudd has committed to bringing the 500 Australian troops in Iraq back home. Yes 500, out of the estimated 25,000 personnel that make up the Australian Army. The BBC failed to present you the reader with that comparison but that’s okay the media has failed to report the whole story and success in Iraq. The BBC also failed to explain why Howard was in power and much of it with a majority in Parliament during the tragedies and triumphs of the Iraq War up to the successful surge and current events unfolding with Sunni Iraqis joining the Coalition Forces in an effort to takedown the last of the terrorists operating in the country. In fact the uncovering of just how biased and skewed most mainstream media entities are relative to their coverage of the Iraq War is another success, which should never be forgotten.

Historical writings or presentation often forget significant nuggets of information when discussing those of significant accomplishment. The legendary Prime Minister Winston Churchill is revered in history but following World War II he opposed nationalized healthcare and social welfare initiatives that were the talk among the ‘intelligent’ do-gooders. As a result he along with the Conservative Party were defeated in 1945. The United Kingdom would pay a steep price in decades to come for implementing such measures. In 1938 Time Magazine, back when their publication was considered relevant, named Adolf Hitler their Man of the Year. In that same year Hitler had taken over enough of Europe and called a meeting in Munich with Prime Ministers Chamberlain of the United Kingdom and Daladier of France and Italy’s Mussolini. No one then criticized Hitler as he dominated the gathering drawing a new map for Europe. Hitler’s recognition by Time and others legitimized his quest and began a snowball that saw the near defeat of France and England. Often times those who document history choose to ignore or de-emphasize events in the background that lead up to the big picture. In this case 'diplomacy', a favorite word with the American Left as they attempt to understand international events, backfired and set the stage for World War II. When history writes about John Howard and his Liberal Party, following the sentence where it indicates he was defeated by Rudd there should be an asterisk stating that under Howard’s administration Australian’s economy came out of the dark and into the light as well as defining the country as an international power, informing the world that their country is more than a continent with an outback and kangaroos. John Howard placed a significant identity on his home country that will never be forgotten, shaping our world much more than the opinion page of the New York Times or the BBC's hurried and brief analysis of his defeat.

Media outlets whether in the US, Europe or elsewhere are best advised to only attempt, albeit poorly, reporting events unfolding in their own backyards. Too many times in the past they have demonstrated that they lack the tools and resources to present the customer with the entire story here much less abroad.

Posted by American Yank at 12/1/2007 7:30 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
The Swiss and Immigration

While the American media machine has been too busy describing General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, as an ‘embattled’ ally of President Bush, events unfolding in that revered bastion social liberalism known as the European continent have your author’s attention. Oh and on a personal note, Musharraf has proven leadership experience and accomplished more than any of the Democrat Party candidates vying for the Presidential Nomination. And he is far from embattled as a future post from your author will tell you the reader what is relevant and pertinent about the bravest of all Pakistani leaders.

Just over the course of the past few weeks the country of Switzerland has seen a climatic surge in popularity for their Swiss’s People Party (SVP) one of the four well known political parties found in the country. The SVP has taken a majority 29% of the country’s parliament. Their platform is simple and appeals to Swiss nationalism-expulsion of foreign born criminals, no entry to the EU and tax cuts.

While many from the mainstream global media machine would describe SVP’s platform as ‘right wing’ or ‘xenophobia’, much of the party’s popularity stems from the Swiss Constitution’s Article 72 controversy. Currently Muslims comprise 4.5% of Switzerland’s population. To no surprise and due to the obvious correlation between some Muslims and terrorist attacks, the Swiss have every reason to be concerned. Currently only two mosques exist in their country, which are located in Geneva and Zurich. Both of them are considered defunct and don’t even hold daily prayer. In 2005 the Swiss cities of Wangen bei Olten, Langenthal and Wil blocked the construction of additional mosques. Article 72 of the country’s Constitutions lays out the foundation of separation of church and state and allows for the issue to be a cantonal. In Switzerland provinces or states are known as cantons. Part two of the article states that both federal and cantonal powers should be used together in order to maintain peace and civility between differing religious groups. In the case of the three cities and three proposed mosques, thousands of local residents came out and protested against their construction. Would –be Mosque parishioners have sued the cities and the respective cantons. The SVP has called for a ban on building any future mosques.

While your author certainly respects and appreciates the US Constitution’s first amendment that recognizes freedom of religion he also knows that the underlying root of separation of church and states stems from the codependent relationship that existed between England’s monarch and a corrupt church. The Swiss, whether good or bad, are saying we don’t want you here at least until you curb your violent element that proclaims your faith. We in the western world should be demanding those of the Muslim faith to explain why they cannot address this deadly rogue element that continues to plague their faith. Your author has long argued that if it was Catholics causing terrorism that today’s mainstream media would demanding a sit down interview with the Pope.

Europe more so than the US is taking a greater risk if the Swiss view of Muslims immigrating takes a foothold in other neighboring countries. The Euro continent is in desperate need of immigrants to fill the ranks of retiring workers and subsidize social costs that are already tapping their resources. Birthrates for all European nations are at dismal lows, except for Iceland and Ireland, with no break in such demographic changes. Decades from now there won’t be any Spanish, Italian or Portuguese. Currently their birth rate is less than 2 per woman. This rate is also applicable to Canada who has seen a surge in immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East over the past 30 years. In the States we are fortunate as our birthrate is 2 per woman, which indicates a stable population growth.

The Swiss are contemplating and reconsidering the role of immigration and the laws that govern the process; we here in the United States should be asking Muslim clerics tough questions. Failure to do so will only bring about more radical reactions such as what has been seen in Zurich.

Posted by American Yank at 11/27/2007 7:57 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Watch Democrats Abandon Their Base

Over the past several weeks a remarkable but unsurprising trend is seeing the light of the day involving Democrats and throwing their left wing anti-Iraq War, anti-capitalists, anti-America, (you name it) base under the bus.

Your author has previously stated multiple times that the takeover of the House by the Democrats in 2006 had nothing to do with the Iraq War but rather was enabled by the Republicans’ failure to police their own elected members. Your author has cited the Connecticut Senate election where former Democrat now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman did not receive his party’s nomination. The endorsement went to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman had previously voted with Republicans and vocally supported the Iraq War. While DNC chairman Howard Dean, famous for screaming, requested Lieberman to stand down and not embarrass the party, as if referring to Senator Ted Kennedy as their party’s ‘conscience’ isn’t embarrassing enough, Lieberman won. Connecticut was and is still seen as a blue state, a liberal corner of New England and even they could not put in an anti-war representative.

Hint: The Democrats only wanted the Iraq War to end under President Bush’s term. The hayseed from Crawford, who defeated one of their former darlings Al Gore in 2000 and their aristocratic blue blood Senator John Kerry in 2004, would have to leave office with his tail between his legs if the war abruptly ended.

When push came to shove the Democrats could not woo Congress to garner enough votes to stop military funding. This had to be one of the most malicious examples of politicization in recent US history. Meanwhile through 2006 and this year conditions in Iraq approved. In fact much of Iraq, particularly with the case of the Kurdistan region, was already looking up long before General Petraeus’s recent assessment. However most rank and file Democrats chose to ignore facts and instead picked the path of cantankerous bitterness and demonized their political opponents.

Meanwhile House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to be held accountable and last week she had had enough of these anti-war types that were previously credited with the Democrat Congress takeover in 2006. It seems that some of her supporters had taken refuge by lounging in the front lawn of her San Francisco residence. They were none too please that Madam Speaker had not ended the Iraq War. Mrs. Pelosi was quoted in the Washington Post with the following:

"Look,I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

The reader also must remember that famed anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has vowed to run against Pelosi in 2008 for her failures to end the Iraq War. While this may be an idle threat from Sheehan, one can only imagine the first woman Speaker having to explain what she has been doing while in office to one of her base’s members she depended on in 06.

Then last week Democrats drummed up the ‘blame Bush’ beat as they did with post Hurricane Katrina aftermath in New Orleans (did the reader take note that Louisiana just elected Republican Bobby Jindal as their governor?) and anything else they didn’t like when attempts where made to expand federal funding for SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). The Democrats and too many Republicans for that matter wanted to provide insurance for those families who could not qualify for Medicaid and somehow a tax of sixty one cents per pack of smokes was going to cover the expansion, which would have increase the funding for the program from $5 billion to $12 billion. This was to be funded by a demographic group (smokers) who are shrinking in numbers?

The Bill (labeled HR 976) originally passed the House and Senate. It was heralded, most notably by Democrats, as a ‘bipartisan effort’. Democrats only say such things when they get what they want, which includes their cake and your bakery. President Bush wisely vetoed the legislation, his fourth such action since he has been in office. Now your author doesn’t know how long it took Democrats to parade children around the Capitol proclaiming Bush was callous and put their health at peril but one should know that if a group has to resort to such cheap and gross tactics something is hanky on the goods being sold. In this case it was mess of an entitlement program that would have hit you the taxpayer in the wallet before it was over. Supporters of this attempt commented on it being the largest expansion since Medicaid and that was when LBJ graced the Oval Office. Medicaid has been a bureaucratic nightmare ever since.

The Democrats vowed to garner enough votes to override Bush’s veto. At the end of the day representatives listened to their constituents and this attempt failed in the House.

Finally the most obvious display of Democrats losing touch with their anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-American (you name it) base happened over the course of the past few days. Last week California Democrat Congressman Pete Stark, a figure best left in the House basement, ranted on the floor and stated that Bush was sending troops to Iraq to be killed for ‘amusement’ and proceeded to tie in Bush’s veto on SCHIP as reckless. Today House Minority Leader John Boehner proposed censuring Stark for his ridiculous comments but the effort failed. Just last year the crowd and other leftist groups would refer to Stark as a hero, a patriot or brave. However few if any Democrats who received campaign contributions from MoveOn and others failed to come to Stark’s defense and merely voted against what would have an embarrassing strike against one of their own.

Back in 2006 your author predicted the Democrats were given hollow victory. To the victor goes the spoils but in this case the recipient is carrying spoiled baggage. Now the only question remains is: Will the Republicans be able to capitalize on the Democrats’ failures?

Posted by American Yank at 10/23/2007 6:05 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Democrats: How they betray you and our troops.

Your author has failed the reader but is now finally addressing the subject of the advertisement that was issued following the Iraq War assessment presented to Congress by General David Petraeus. The website’s message was simply, ‘General Betrayed Us’ and attempted to suggest collusion between the General and Bush Administration. General Petraeus is currently the commander of Allied Forces stationed in Iraq .


To understand MoveOn one must go back in history and study their early foundation. The political action committee (PAC) was formed in response over the impending impeachment of then President Bill Clinton. They railed against military intervention following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. In 2004 the group tossed millions to Sen. John Kerry’s failed 2004 Presidential campaign. Since then they have become a regular and reliable monetary spigot for the rank and file Democrat. MoveOn represents the far left in America , which is quickly devouring the Democrat party. Fortunately the average American views him or herself as center to the right.


MoveOn would never have come to be if it had not been for the Democrats becoming arrogant during their historical 40 year dominance of Congress that abruptly ended in 1994. While they may catch moments of passing victories, most recently being 2006 and their majority win of Congress; the overall pace is a downtrend. During their 40 years Democrats realized they had a long term majority and then proceeded to represented everyone’s interest, which was impossible. The most obvious evidence is losing the entire southeastern block, once a sure bet and reigned over by ‘Dixie-crats’. The Democrats would later find out they had few supporters and were desperate for cash.


However what has happened with MoveOn and the Democrats is historical. Very simply put General Petraeus reported good news and the tide in the Iraq War is changing. As your author thought the MoveOn crowd came out in droves and very simply said ‘we don’t like the message, let’s filet the messenger’.  However your author, as well as others who are more knowledgeable on this subject, have pointed to the steady reenlistment and recruitment goals for our armed services being met time and time again. Are the Democrats and MoveOn, one in the same, saying that these new recruits are stupid? In other words ‘there is a war and you want to join?’, ‘you must be nuts!’. Of course reenlistment and recruitment rates, when they counter the American Left’s argument, are rarely reported by the mainstream media machine. Now what is left is the Democrats being branded anti-military, a long overdue and deserving title.


Now the Democrats have found themselves in a lonely corner. They are beholden to MoveOn’s dollars and let us don’t forget that billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros bankrolled this group with a $5 million commitment. Remember when the Democrats claimed to stand up for the working guy and poor folks? Yet they continue to throw union card holders under the bus and one should want to know what is Soros’ interest or what does he expect to gain?


Because the Democrats have managed to be caught with their hand in MoveOn’s cookie jar, a container that might as well say in bold lettering ‘We despise the military’, they are without a defense. Current Democrat Presidential contender Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has already called for the removal of MoveOn from their platform. Biden knows a thing or two given his long tenure in the Senate. Thus far Presidential frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton has been quiet.


According to MoveOn they have had a surge in membership and donation following their ‘betray us’ ad. Shortly after popular AM conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh took a call from a listener that described returning Iraq veterans, who wish to see a troop withdrawal from Iraq, as a ‘phony soldiers’ and Limbaugh concurred. The fact is that such returning soldiers are in the minority and in many cases, with investigation not performed by the mainstream media machine were found to be lying. Your author recalls the greatest attempt of American Left propaganda, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, when young men dressed as American soldiers paraded around demanding an end to the Iraq War. Democrat Congressman Chris Van Hollen demanded an apology from Limbaugh. Democrats have been demanding apologies for so long, simply words, that their value has diminished. However what as not mentioned was that the soldier discussed between Limbaugh and the caller was Jesse MacBeth, a fraud who lied in interviews with left leaning publications to the war atrocities being committed. MacBeth is currently serving five months following a plea for falsifying military records. This should lead the reader to question the supposed surge in donations to MoveOn and furthermore the 3 million members they claim to have under their belt. This membership has never been substantiated.


As the Democrats become more radicalized the reader should be aware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is time for MoveOn and the radical American Left to move out, fortunately America will decide when their time has come and it appears to be sooner than before. The only question left will be ‘where will Democrats go?’

Posted by American Yank at 9/28/2007 1:25 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Equal Justice and Criticism

The events unfolding over top Democrat Party fund raiser, convicted felon and all around con man Norman Hsu have given the appearance, at least from the media machine, of having little importance. In 2005 ill famed lobbyist Jack Abramoff became the ire of the American Left and many traditional mainstream media outlets. Abramoff as the reader will recall was linked to several bribery scandals that most notably put former Republican Congressman Randall ‘Duke’ Cunningham of California behind bars and ended the political career of former House Majority Leader Republican Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas. Your author has previously argued that Abramoff, along with several other scandals, was the primary reason why the Republicans lost control of the Congress in 2006.

One would have to live in a cave not to have heard about Hsu and his seedy past. In short he was pled no contest to fraud in 1992 for bilking $1 million from investors in a what amounted to a Ponzi scheme. Hsu had other ideas and skipped town for the east coast. He emerged in Manhattan and went to work raising funds for Democrat Party heavyweights such as Senator Ted Kennedy of Chappaquiddick fame, his son Congressman Patrick Kennedy, Presidential contenders Senators Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It isn’t so much that Democrats are linked to questionable fund raisers just think back to the 1990s when the Clintons courted Chinese officials in exchange for political contributions; no it is being reported even now and that being that Hsu appears to have been bilking other investors in similar scams. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Hsu scammed $40 million from investors in a fund managed by Joel Rosenman who is also known as the brainchild behind the Woodstock concert of 1969.

The strange journey of Hsu continues as allegations of his lavish lifestyle, no doubt facilitated by his sticky fingers, continue to roll off the presses. There is also the allegations, which have all but been proven in a court of law, that he siphoned funds close to a million dollars through a series of straw donors. This is where the Paw family of Daly City, CA comes into play as the family of average income proceeded to donate (launder?) $200,000 to Democrats.

While Hsu has been apprehended following one more attempt to slip from justice, it is the reaction from Democrats and the press that is most troubling. It wasn’t until a week or so after the Wall Street Journal ran with the story that only the New York Times devoted similar coverage. Rewind to when the Jack Abramoff story broke and the mainstream media went into hyper mode. They called for the head of the President, Vice President and attempted to convict DeLay before a trial. For the record your author was critical of DeLay pre Jack Abramoff.

After mounting pressure the Democrats, who are critical of the rich but have no problem accepting their donations thus only proving they are genuinely hypocritical, decided to give back the funds. It is what some have said or their actions since that has a cause for concern. From the Clinton camp, who dubbed Hsu as a ‘Hillraiser’ for his ability to siphon $850,000 in contributions, returned the funds but issued an condition that the contributions will be reaccepted if they are proven to be from legal sources. While Clinton sees the dollars as too sweet, Obama’s Presidential campaign top dog Mark Gorenberg was flattering when he revealed , "Despite it all, I still love the guy, despite everything you read, every experience I ever had with him was nothing but delightful, and I just scratch my head". It is only now that many of these politicians are considering having background checks on top contributors. What a concept!

Other mainstream media outlets have described the Hsu affair as an ‘embarrassment’, which is true, it also reeks of incompetence. Where is the criticism?

Posted by American Yank at 9/16/2007 12:38 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Organized maliciousness and bad choices.

Your author will avoid discussing the obvious events, which is the constant bombardment from Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle and focus on behavior that is quickly becoming acceptable in our society. The behavior being recklessness and ‘thuggery’ with no one putting on the brakes but rather hyping it to infinitum. Finally your author must ask who is steering the wheel? This question will be a regular theme for some indefinite timeframe as he attempts to make sense of the most recent events. Who is steering the wheel? Who is calling the shots?


The recent uproar and plea agreement from NFL player Michael Vick is a prime example of someone in need of a wheelman, someone to steer his wheel. While Vick was initially charged with promoting and facilitating dog fighting he ultimately pled out to one charge of participating and funding a dog fighting operation and will likely receive at most a prison sentence of one year. Michael Vick was grossing, between his football contract and endorsements, well over $100 million. His supporters, who are few, have stated that Vick’s childhood in a Virginia ghetto sparked the interest in dog fighting. In fact according to some dog fighting is a regular part of their culture. So in other words Vick couldn’t help it, it is how he was raised.


Then you have his critics, which numbered many, stating that Vick should be thrown in jail and never to show his face on an NFL field again. While speaking of good taste and decency these critics may be just but where are these critics when we speak of say greyhound racing or horse tracks? Not only do these facilities promote gambling ultimately the animals are slaughtered unless they are adopted.


Where is the NFL in this media spectacle? As we know Vick lied to NFL head Roger Goodell and clearly stated he would be vindicated. It was only after several of Vick’s pals or homies decided to talk to prosecutors that Vick agreed to a plea. However the NFL failed to recognize events that occurred prior to this case. These include the following two examples:


Early 2004 two men were arrested in Vick’s home state of Virginia for hauling marijuana in a truck registered to Vick. Vick received a lecture.


In October 2004 Vick found himself at the Atlanta Airport where several of his pals were charged with stealing a watch belong to a security screener.


Where was the NFL? Who was steering Vick’s wheel and saying it was a good idea not to modify his behavior?


Your author proposes allowing Vick to come back to the NFL. Allow the market to determine if Vick’s actions can be tolerated. If every Atlanta Falcon fan stays home and stops buying tickets, memorabilia, etc then the message would be quite clear. The critics of Vick have yet to speak so loudly about the Kentucky Derby or Florida greyhound tracks. Furthermore many of these critics are worried that Vick is some kind of  role model. The idea that anyone who is not living at home with younger children is some type of a role model is a joke. Any parent that argues athletes sign some type of an unknown silent contract and gets on a box of Wheaties should be revered as something other than a fellow citizen is an idiot who is raising idiot children.


Another individual who made bad choices was Jesse Davis. She was the mother of a two year old in Ohio and another one on  the way who died when her estranged ‘baby daddy’ and former police officer Bobby Cutts, Jr. is alleged to have killed her in June. A bit of summarizing Cutts’ background clearly demands someone ask ‘who was steering Davis ’ wheel?’. Davis ’ two year old and the child she was carrying were fathered by Cutts. He had also fathered at least one other child out of wedlock.


While what happened to Davis and her unborn child along with the two year old left behind is heinous, what was she thinking? Having not one but intentionally having two children out of wedlock with someone who makes such an event a habit and Davis never thought to pause about her involvement with him? Now it is too late and if her husband is found guilty prosecutors have stated they will seek the death penalty.


There are a multitude of examples that your author could opine on but to only do so would bore the reader. However what the reader should be asking is where are the social commentators and media pundits? Why aren’t they asking who is steering the wheel?

Posted by American Yank at 9/9/2007 12:45 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)
Democrats Debate: A depressing trail of failures.

Your author has managed to avoid addressing recent Presidential campaign debates that mean little of substance as it relates to the Democrats. The primary reason being that the Democrats have all but publicly refused to engage if Fox News sponsors a program. Imagine that-ones vying for the ultimate leadership position scared of Fox News but yet are capable of tackling issues facing our country?

So the Democrats have decided to initiate a series of forums that can be best summed up as depressing. This is hand in glove tactics that are straight out of the Democrat Party playbook. Democrats and self professed Liberals must, your author repeats must, always focus on some crisis or at worse create one then apply such event on a macro level. For instance the War in Iraq first made America an imperialist country. When this didn’t work it was the growing federal deficit caused by the War. When that failed it was the fact that this debt was being financed through Treasury securities purchased by China. They failed to realize that American federal debt, the largest portion of it, is actually owned by Japan. When this argument failed they exploited the bridge collapse in Minneapolis and the mining catastrophe in Utah as proof that American infrastructure was being ignored in order to fund the Iraq War. Nowhere do any of the candidates acknowledge that all of their years of public service did they once address this supposed crumbling infrastructure. What next? An ignorant public is consuming trans fats because their attention is devoted to the Iraq War?

Two recent debates have been chiseled in your author’s mind as the ultimate lunacy. The first being the AFL-CIO sponsored event on Chicago’s Soldier Field. Because of the union tone that was present your author knew he would be in for some of the best doom and gloom dialogue since the American Left claimed the homeless population was primarily made up of Vietnam War veterans.

While Senator Barrack Obama attempted to explain why he opposed the war in Iraq but somehow going to war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would better suit the battle against radical Islam (surprisingly he actually admits the existence of such crisis); it was Senator Hillary Clinton that came under the spotlight and heat lamp as other opponents (all of them politicians still living in the bygone era of collectivism and failed Democrat Party mantra) chastised her for accepting corporate political contributions. This is Hillary Clinton, the one who swore she would take on big oil, Wal-Mart or anyone else that fit the most recent ‘evil’.  However it was when an audience member, who had obviously been coached, railed against his job with Maytag being sent to Mexico that your author thought now maybe we will see some blood. The audience member along with the panel of contenders disappointed your author and it was now time to turn off such dribble. The gentleman should have pointed out that under the Clinton Administration such trade agreements such as NAFTA were signed and facilitated the relocation of his job. Not once was Senator Clinton asked about this tie in and finally succumbed by stating ‘If you want a winner, I’m your girl’. This statement was after she apologized for the unfortunate good advice that resulted in her sending daughter Chelsea to a private school once they set up shop in the Oval Office.  Your author has previously predicted that the baggage from the Clinton years will be too much to bear for Madam Senator.

Meanwhile John Edwards reminded the audience he is not the corporate American candidate. He also sternly told the crowd, as sternly as a male feminist can be that you could take that to the bank. Your author suggests that while at the bank check out the millions he made suing hospitals and shutting them down thus terminating jobs when he was ambulance chasing trial attorney.

The second debate was most unusual for your author to even comprehend. The Liberal Democrats have always been champs at dividing the nation despite their claims that President Bush and Karl Rove engaged in such behavior. Whether it is black or white or Hispanic, rich, poor, gay or straight a Democrat and self professed Liberal will divide and create war between two camps in order to advance their own political career.

This was probably the most telling of these marches or debates as the mainstream media labels them. The event was sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Coalition and in this case the tiger by the tail would not be let go. Senator Obama struck out and said he would remove the debate of gay marriage from the political spectrum. One must wonder why even showed up? John Edwards in his best dog and pony show attempted to explain his ‘comfort level’ with gays. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who swears he could be the first Hispanic President despite a very non-Hispanic surname, fell from the sky when he declared homosexuality as a choice.

Hillary Clinton did probably the best skirting job since dancing around files pertaining to White Water when she said gay marriage should be left up to the states. Rocker Melissa Etheridge was a panelist and with Hillary Clinton she had a grip and unlike most in the mainstream media, she wasn’t about to let go. Etheridge retold how when Bill Clinton became commander and chief that the gay community had such high hopes. Etheridge along with many truly believed they had a political voice, someone who listened to them and more importantly someone who had accepted their monetary donations. At the end of the day this was not to be and President Clinton would later sign the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically squashed any attempts of having legal marriages between same sex couples. What Etheridge failed to do was remind the audience and the contenders that Senator Clinton vocally supported the bill. Since then the Act has spurned other states to either adopt it into law or tailor similar laws.

Senator Clinton now knows what it is like to have your feet to the fire and if poll numbers are any indication she may very well end up being a charred crisp before it is over. Meanwhile your author waits to see if there will be an Islamic American sponsored powwow.

Posted by American Yank at 8/20/2007 2:44 PM | View Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (0)