THOSE RACIST WHITES WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN

Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas have something in common. Governor Palin is rejected by the element of the Democratic Party that believes a woman is not a woman unless she subscribes to Feminism Uber Allis. Clarence Thomas is not the “right kind of black” to serve as a role model to black children. (He was once denied the opportunity to speak at an Atlanta high school because he would not support the notion of blacks-as-victims).

Socialist liberals, the captains of the Democrats for now, use the terms “black,” “feminism” and racism” not in an analytical sense but with the intent to divide; to pit groups against each other. “Black” is not an attitude but a race. Check Webster’s. When the socialist liberals want a black person in power they mean “a person of any race who believes blacks are interminably oppressed and cannot possibly thrive without the help of government and the transferring of wealth from us privileged whites.” Bill Clinton fit that description and was adored by black “leaders,” although I think he was white.

Sarah Palin faces the same hatred, in this case from feminists, also holders of influence in the Democratic party. Sarah enjoys all rights articulated by feminists. She is a mother, a successful career woman and a wife who has interests distinct from her husband’s. Feminists hate her because she does not depend on government to achieve her goals and does not support the notion that other women must either. A comment in an article in the “Wall Street Journal” in the early 70’s captured the Feminist brutality when a banker, a woman, was quoted as saying “I leave my young son every morning for my career. He is crying but I am proud.” That woman was characterized as an idol for other women who had interests outside the home.

Sarah Palin has a career and a family and works to sustain both. Then she finds time to hunt, using, uh, guns! She does not disown her role as a mom on a day when she feels feisty at her career. She will not confer power to the feminists and the feminists know that. Because Feminism is not about individual women but about Feminism as a power base, they hate her. “Hate” is not too strong a word.

In previous posts I have stated that I will not vote for McCain and Palin. He cannot be trusted to pick a path to any issue and stay on it but that pair deserves respect for believing our social and economic systems are still the best available in contrast to Obama, who believes that there must be a new social and economic order to effect long overdue “retribution” to blacks still spoon-fed by the Jesse Jacksons, that slavery is still their handicap or the feminists who believe that not all women are created equal and it is government’s job to make sure they are retrofitted equally.

After learning more about each of them, I could vote for Clarence Thomas or Larry Elders (A Libertarian talk show host in Los Angeles,) but not because they are “black” as Obama and Jesse Jackson define “black” but because they represent me in Washington. I could vote for Palin, were she to lead the ticket, not because she is a woman, but because she represents an independent spirit of individual rights that I share. Those statements are neither sexist nor racist.

90% or better of the blacks will vote for Obama as will, maybe 40% of whites. Does that not dispel the favorite myth of socialist liberals that only whites are racist?

That was rhetorical, the answer is, of course, “yes.”

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Let 'em Fail

The irresponsible rush to salvage FannieMae, FreddieMac and then the contradictory refusal to salvage the private mortgage companies is puzzling.

None of them should have been salvaged and it really does not matter the economic consequences. Investments pay interest as a product of “risk.” When one invests there is no guarantee of any return. Can you imagine for instance, an armored car parked in front of a casino (wouldn’t the Indians love it) to pay losers the money they lost in the casino, thus being “bailed out” for horrible choices. “Have a wonderful, fun-filled evening compliments of more prudent taxpayers.”

The mortgage companies made many bad loans for several reasons. One, they were afraid of prosecution under “redlining” law which says that “one must not lend less frequently in impoverished areas.” During the Clinton administration more Federal Deposit Insurance Company ("FDIC") enforcement officers were assigned to investigate allegations of discrimination than were to assure solvency of the banks. No one speaks of this because, well, uh, it might be “racist.” No matter that the loans are horrible. The bankers chose to not argue that abomination publicly. They should have. Years ago.

Then mortgage bankers make marginal loans because the interest rates are higher and since the “bottom line” must be superior to those of the competitors in order to attract capital, the bankers increased the risky loans, that capital now should be worthless.

Lastly there is the stupid, greedy borrower. If Mr. Jones can buy a bigger house than Mr. Smith and does so to strut his peacock feathers, we should let Mr. Jones fail on his loan, lose his house and Mr. Smith, who chose to live within his means is not taxed to pay for Mr. Jones extravagance.

It may seem like a stretch but the same “they must not fail logic” is an unaddressed campaign issue. At least two states, California and New Jersey are now in irreparable budget deficits. Others may follow. The two governors, one a Democrat (NJ) the other a Democrat wannabe (CA) pray for a Democrat administration to bail out their miserably managed states. McCain? He might. That is why Palin would be a better lead but that arrangement has already been decided. Moot point.

Let the mortgage companies fail; strip the CEO’s of their golden parachutes (ESPECIALLY the CEO's of FannieMae and FreddieMac since those are monopolistic providers of funds and should be held to a higher standard) and let the borrowers fail, thus providing prudent purchases at reduced prices for those folks who were responsible and waited! The imprudent borrower’s mistakes become the prudent borrower’s opportunity.

Capitalism at its best (yes, seriously)