The Silliness of Not Talking to Taiwan

Recently, President-elect, Donald Trump, took a phone call from the President of Taiwan, and the Democrats and liberal media (and China) went berserk over it.  Even going so far as to call Trump stupid for violating a long held official non-diplomatic status.  A status which is, in itself, a charade; we know it, and so does China, which claims that Taiwan is their property and subject to their government's regulation.  However, in 1979, the then-President Jimmy Carter signed the Taiwan Relations Act into law, in order to establish an unofficial diplomatic status with them and conduct relations through a "front" organization called the American Institute of Taiwan; located in Washington, D.C.

Therefore, we do not have an official relation with Taiwan, but we sure seem to do a lot of business with that country.  "Officially", Taiwan is our 9th largest trading partner.  We sell them about $26 billion in goods, and,they, in turn, send us about $41 billion in Taiwan-made products.  Additionally, many of our major multinational companies have operations there.  Companies such as IBM, 3M, and Microsoft.  On top of everything else, the United States has sold Taiwan billions of dollars worth of military equipment under every President since 1979, in order to help them defend themselves against China.  You don't think that hasn't pissed China off more than a few minutes of conversation between Donald Trump and Taiwan's President?

So, just maybe, Donald Trump will finally expose the folly of not dealing with Taiwan directly.  I hope so, because this nonsense of not talking to them is really, really silly.  By the way.  I wish the Washington Post would take a single stand on this (note the references below).  Even going so far as to say it was "brilliant"!  Wow! That's saying a lot from a noted liberal media outlet.

References:

Washington Post: Trump speaks with Taiwanese president, a major break with decades of U.S. policy on China: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?utm_term=.d34c21b5f16e

Washington Post: Why people are making such a big deal about the Trump-Taiwan call: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/05/why-people-are-making-such-a-big-deal-about-the-trump-taiwan-call/?utm_term=.8bbef408152e

Washington Post: Trump's Taiwan call wasn't a blunder. It was brilliant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-taiwan-call-wasnt-a-blunder-it-was-brilliant/2016/12/05/d10169a2-bb00-11e6-ac85-094a21c44abc_story.html?utm_term=.fc59b878d738

Washington Post: Trump’s Taiwan phone call was long planned, say people who were involved: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-was-weeks-in-the-planning-say-people-who-were-involved/2016/12/04/f8be4b0c-ba4e-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.f12d06aa85c9

Taiwan–United States relations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations

U.S. Trade with Taiwan: https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+exports+to+taiwan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

U.S. Companies in Taiwan: http://www.ustaiwanconnect.org/US-Taiwan-Relations/Investment/U-S-Companies-in-Taiwan

List of US arms sales to Taiwan - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

Bernie Sanders: Jail Wall Street CEO's

On October 6th, Bernie Sanders said this:

“It is an obscenity that people in this country are getting arrested at near record rates for smoking marijuana, but not one Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted for triggering the Great Recession in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college because of the greed on Wall Street. We can no longer tolerate a criminal justice system that treats Wall Street executives as too big to jail when their actions have ruined the lives of so many Americans.”

Simply, the reason that no Wall Street CEO was ever charged with a single crime during the financial crisis, was that two Democratic-controlled Congresses and two Democratic Presidents -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- were responsible for the housing bubble and the fact that banking institutions were engaging in investment activities by bundling loans and selling them on Wall Street. A fact that the Obama Administration didn't want made public with a series of federal trials. 

In 1977, Congress passed a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); which President Carter signed into law. That law "encouraged" any banking institution receiving Federal Depositors Insurance to provide increased loan activity to low income neighborhoods in the area they served. In other words, banks were forced to relax their lending requirements and take on more risk by lending to lower income families.  Banking institutions not in compliance could lose FDIC and be barred from any expansion of their operations.

Enforcement was lax until Bill Clinton became President in 1993.  His administration heavily cracked down on banks and expanded the mandate to increase the percentage of low income families being served by the law. Thus, they were seriously forced to take on more risk and severely reduce lending requirements.  This resulted in people getting  loans that never should have. In the following video, Clinton brags about the fact that since 1977, 85+% of the funding in low income neighborhoods had come after his 5 years in office:

Then, too, Clinton also signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed those parts of the 1933 Glass-Stegall law which had prohibited investment banking.  Therefore, banks got the green light to use Wall Street to bundle mortgages and sell them in the stock market in order to shield themselves from the increased loan risk from low income families.

Basically, it was the federal government that created the financial mess that occurred just 6 years after Clinton left office.  And, any CEO being charged with some kind of fiduciary malfeasance -- as Bernie Sanders has suggested -- would have easily escaped  any fines or prison time because of  "the devil made me do it" defense; where the devil is really President Clinton.

So Bernie, maybe it is Bill Clinton who needs to be behind bars; and not some Wall Street CEO.

References:

Bernie Sanders wants Wall Street execs jailed for 2008 financial crisis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251653762

A Brief Description of CRA: http://www.ncrc.org/programs-a-services-mainmenu-109/policy-and-legislation-mainmenu-110/the-community-reinvestment-act-mainmenu-80/a-brief-description-of-cra-mainmenu-136

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Jimmy Carter On Gaza: Still Clueless After All These Years

Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, is probably the only president who has been so overtly pro-Palestinian.  He proved that quite clearly in his 2007 book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".  Of course, one could easily conclude that, if Carter is pro-Palestinian, he must be anti-Israeli; especially if you look at how his book is written and how it negatively portrays the Israelis; and, at the same time, ignores the past hostile actions of the PLO and the Palestine National Authority.  So, it is no wonder that Mr. Carter saw fit to write an op-ed that lopsidedly slams Israel for the current Gaza crisis.

First of all, he lays the heaviest blame for the Gaza conflict on Israel.  His ridiculous argument is that Israel has suffered less causalities.  Of course, Carter completely ignores the fact that Israel's retaliatory actions are in response to more than 2000 rocket attacks; aimed carelessly into civilian populated areas.  And, if Israel didn't have such an extensive alert and shelter system and a highly accurate anti-missile system, they too would have suffered heavy casualties.  Further, Carter also seems to ignore the fact that Hamas has intentionally positioned rocket launchers in heavily populated areas; knowing full well that there would be high causalities and heavy damage covering entire neighborhoods.  Now, normally, such a one-sided and sustained loss of life and property would be a reason for Hamas to stand down and stop its rocket attacks, but, high casualties and property loss is exactly what they want.  Hamas wants empty-headed people, like Carter, to side with them against Israel in the court of public opinion.

Then, the former President argues that the Gaza strip barricade should be torn down; allowing the free-flow of Palestinians and goods across the Gaza/Israel border.  Again, ridiculous.  The only reason  the barricade even exists is because of the terror attacks the PLO had previously conducted against Israel by coming across that border.  Now, with Hamas, as active as it is, there is even more reason to control it.  If Israel did open the border, it would open itself up to the free flow of terrorism.  Carter obviously can't see that or, perhaps, wants actually wants increase terrorist attacks against Israel.

In the final key element of his op-ed, he says that Israel should accept Hamas as a legitimate political element of the Palestine people.  Well, maybe Carter should read the 1988 Covenant (Charter) of Hamas.

First, there is this statement:

"'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'"  

And, then there's this:

"'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)".  

So, in essence, if Israel was to accept Hamas, as Carter would suggest, it would be signing on to its own obliteration and accepting that Hamas will never sign any peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 

The bottom line is that Carter is an anti-Semite.  His blind-eyed op-ed is just more proof of this.

References:

Washington Post:  Jimmy Carter, Palestinian Sympathizer: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/12/jimmy_carter_palestinian_sympa.html

U.K. Daily Mail: 'This is a humanitarian catastrophe': Former president Jimmy Carter says 'there is no humane or legal justification' for the way Israel has attacked Gaza: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717285/Former-president-Jimmy-Carter-says-no-humane-legal-justification-way-Israel-attacked-Gaza.html

1988 The Covenant of Hamas: Key Points: http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

Our Nobel Peace Prize President Gets Slammed By Jimmy Carter For War Crimes

Last Sunday, Jimmy Carter wrote a New York Times op-ed that slammed the United States for violating human rights.  Key to his argument was the use of drones to kill targeted terrorists.  Carter cited several violations under of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to which the United States is a signatory.  But, in slamming the United States, he was really slamming Barack Obama for committing war crimes; while never actually mentioning the President by name. In the world of human rights, violating any human rights during wartime is, in actuality, a war crime.  Because it was Barack Obama who greatly increased our use of drone attacks in Pakistan, Carter is backhandedly charging our Nobel Peace Prize winning president with war crime violations.  And, this brain-dead, former Democrat President of the United States did this only 4-1/2 months away from Obama's bid for reelection. Speaking for all conservatives, I certainly appreciate Mr. Carter's timing in undermining President Obama.

Romney! Run, Duck, Hide! Jimmy Carter Just Endorsed You!

I told you this would be one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns ever and proof of that came just this week when Jimmy Carter proclaimed that he's "comfortable" with a Mitt Romney presidency.  My God, I think Carter just put some kind of hex on Romney.  Please!  Would someone get Mitt an amethyst to ward off this evil spell!

A Jimmy Carter endorsement of a Republican?  How diabolical! Now people are going to start mentally associating Mitt with one of the worst President's in U.S. history.  A person that referred to his recent meeting with Fidel Castro as a "meeting of old friends."  A useful idiot who certified Hugo Chavez's election as El Presidente when, in fact, all other election monitoring groups said there was obvious fraud.  Basically, a person who never met a left-wing dictator he didn't like. This, then, begs the question: Is Carter so old, demented, and confused that he possibly thinks that Mitt Romney is some kind of left-wing dictator?

Mitt Romney's Gender Gap Problem?

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won handily over Jimmy Carter by 10 percentage points; 51% to 41%.  This was despite the fact that exit polling showed that women, by a spread of 7 percentage points,  overwhelmingly voted for the loser in that contest. So, decidedly, it was a lopsided men's vote that did Carter in.

Right now, pundits and media are making a lot out of the fact that Mitt Romney is lagging behind Barack Obama when it comes to the women's vote; as if this so-called "Gender Gap" never existed before. The reality is that every Republican candidate for president has had to face the same lack of women voters.  That's because, over the years, Democrats have been successful in catering to women's needs and fears by providing one new social or safety net program after another. This election year is no different with Obama targeting the women's vote with "free" contraception. Yet, in modern times, Republicans have managed to win this nation's top job fifty percent of the time. And, in each case where a Republican won, it was the men  who became the deciding factor.

One thing we know from the Carter/Reagan match-up is that men break late for one candidate or the other. In 1980, right up to the election, most polls had Carter in the lead.  Yet, when was all said and done, Carter lost by a landslide.  That may be because men, with their alpha dog mentality, saw Carter as being the weaker of the two candidates.

I personally think that this year's election will be a repeat of the Carter loss; with men breaking decidedly for Romney on the day of the election.  And, like the 1980 election, the women's vote will be less important than how men view the electoral match-up. Obama is "a" weak, not-able-to-get-things-done leader; just like Carter. The classic male mentality rejects such weakness.  Men don't want hear constant excuses and blame for things not getting done; and, that's all Obama does.  Whereas, Romney has a proven track record of accomplishment.  To me, all this talk of the gender gap is an attempt by Obama-loyalists to psych Americans into believing the Romney can't win because he doesn't have the women's vote.  But, we know from history that's just not true. That's why I think that, barring any major misstep by Romney, Obama is likely to follow in Carter's footsteps as a one-term president.

Obama Wrestling The "Worst Ever" Crown From Carter

There's still 11 months to go to before we officially find out whether Obama has become the reigning one-term, "worst ever" President. Right now, that title still comfortably sits with the one-term wonder: Jimmy Carter.

But, based on recent polling data from the Gallup organization, Obama is proving that Carter's title isn't as implacable as many would have thought. According to Gallup, Obama's overall approval rating -- for this point in his Presidency -- is 8 points below the approval rating of Carter and certainly below the ratings of all other modern Presidents (Click here to See Story: Obama's Approval Plunges Below Worst-Ever President Carter).

This was no small feat on the part of our current Chief Executive. After all, he had to really go out of his way to prove that he was a weaker leader and a more do-nothing President than ole Jimmy. Further, he had to prove, like Carter, that he could actually make things worse since taking office. My hat's off to the man. Veni. Vidi. Vici!

pb

He Who Ignores History Is Doomed To Repeat It

With the increasing volatility in the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan, and Iraq, I would like to take this time to look back at a blog that I wrote about the "weakness" of JFK and how that same weakness is being played out today with Barack Obama. The blog I am referencing, written in March of 2008, long before Obama was even elected, was titled: Are We Ready For the Mistakes Of J.F.K., Again?

"We've seen it all before. In 1960, the electorate got behind a young, dynamic, and good-looking candidate named John F. Kennedy. His speeches moved this country. At that time, he was destined to be the "first" Catholic President. But aside from all that fluff, he had little experience; and in the world of foreign affairs, it showed.

One of the things that JFK gets praise for was the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, that crisis, in my mind and the minds of some historians, was a crisis of his own making. It came about because the then-Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, saw weakness in John F. Kennedy. He saw weakness when Kennedy miserably failed to properly implement the Bay of Pigs invasion by not supporting that invasion with the proper military backup. The way Kennedy handled the post-Bay of Pigs Invasion negotiation for prisoners was also seen as being weak. Khrushchev saw even more weakness during the earliest meetings with Kennedy. And, that belief was never more evident when Nikita Khrushchev stated this now famous line: "We will bury you!" Khrushchev would never have put missiles in Cuba if he had thought Kennedy was strong. Much of the false memory of this event seems to imply that Kennedy, through his strength and determination, simply made Khrushchev back down and come to his knees. However, Khrushchev only conceded pulling the missiles out of Cuba after we agreed to remove our missiles from the borders of Turkey.

Like Kennedy, Barack Obama feels that we can "talk" to our enemies. Kennedy made this a centerpiece of his Administration when, in his Inaugural Address, he said: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate..." Barack Obama has quoted this famous line and made it clear that he, too, will talk to our enemies like Ahmadinejad of Iran. But, "talking" is seen by a dictatorial aggressor like Khrushchev and Ahmadinejad as a form of weakness. To an Ahmadinejad or a Khrushchev, "talks" with the mighty United States give them a sense of power; a sense of equality, or even, superiority. In their minds, the fact that the United States is "talking" to them must mean that the U.S. fears them. It's an adrenaline rush!

Just like Kennedy talking to Khrushchev while Khrushchev was preparing to put missiles into Cuba, you can expect the same kind of goings on from an Ahmadinejad or a Hugo Chavez or a Kim Jong Il, while Obama talks and talks his head off and tries to make nice with these, our enemies."

No matter what anyone thinks, Obama is a weak international and domestic leader. On the international front, he's being tested by the likes of Kim Jong Il. The same is true with Iran. Turkey and Brazil's alliance with Iran is another direct result of that perception of weakness. Because of this, we are now even weaker in our attempts to thwart Iran's ambitions to gain nuclear superiority in the Middle East. The same is true with Turkey's backing of the flotilla that is attempting to break Israel's Gaza Strip blockade of Hamas. The mere fact that Turkey is even backing this action shows that they believe that Israel has been abandoned by Obama; especially after the most recent put-down of Israel in the security council over Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It was also apparent from how badly Obama treated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in their last meeting at the White House.

With Obama, our friends are our enemies, and our enemies are taking us for a ride. Not only is this President repeating JFK's mistakes but, he is also a very bad replicant of the failed and foolish leadership of Jimmy Carter. I fear that, at any minute, we could see a major international conflict breakout. One that was totally spawned by Obama and his lack of international leadership and strength that should come with being the President of the most powerful county in the world.

Shades of the Carter Years

Yesterday morning, the financial headlines read: "Housing Construction Surges in March". But, that headline is deceiving. Actually, single family housing construction fell. That drop was more than offset by the construction of multi-family homes; condos and apartment buildings.

This kind of home building activity is very similar to the recessionary years under Carter. But, in the Carter years, it was primarily due to runaway inflation and double-digit mortgage rates. In this recession, credit is tight and we have the constant overhang of high unemployment; thus forcing people into cheaper, multi-family options.

But, have no fear, the direct parallels to Jimmy Carter's disastrous Presidency are still yet to come. That's because inflation will ultimately hit us like a rock when the economy tries to recover. We've already seen the potential of it when the 10-Treasury notes jumped up to near 4% rates. While that may not seem high, it is when you consider that the Federal Reserve is lending at near zero interest rates.

Long-term, any new housing activity will have a downside effect. If and when we ever recover from this recession and people start working again, families are going to want to dump those multi-family homes and move back into single family nests. That means that today's multi-home building will result in a glut of those kinds of homes. This will depress the condo and the apartment markets for years to come; driving rental rates and condo prices down. That, in turn, will stall out the single family home recovery because condos and apartments, at their new lower prices, will look a lot more attractive. Then, add to this, the potential for high interest rates and I don't think home prices will recover to 2007 levels for a decade or more to come.

Obama and the Chicago Cubs

It seems to me, that Obama is a lot like the Chicago Cubs baseball team. All too often the Cubs get a good start to a season and the fans start to think that the old cursed saying -- "Wait 'til next year" -- will finally be left behind. But, in the end, the Cubs always manage to lose going into the fall.

At the beginning of this year, Obama too was hot. As a new President, 70% of the population was rooting for him to do well. Now, going into this fall, Obama has suffered some serious defeats. His poll numbers have plummeted steadily from the time he took office. Depending on which poll you look at, Obama is either in a historical first place or third place when it comes to the fastest plunge in a Presidential approval rating.

Certainly, ObamaCare is floundering and needs to be rushed to the emergency room. The Stimulus Package is looking like a non-starter with the unemployment rate close to 10%. Despite a program to stop foreclosures the rate is still rising faster than expected. Most Republicans and even some Democrats are now balking on passing the Cap and Trade bill. He has lost his "green jobs" czar, Van Jones, due to the exposure of Jone's scurrilous past. Closer to Obama's heart, the community organizing group, ACORN, has been hit with more scandals and the Administration has been forced to back off from using them for the 2010 Census. The House of Representatives has voted to cut off all funds to the group. The Senate just voted to bar them from any further HUD funding.

Afghanistan is eroding fast. The six party talks with North Korea are now in the dumpster and the U.S. will have to go it alone. Iran is now ever closer to nukes and it has also been exposed that they are supplying IED's, rockets, and other munitions to the Taliban who are fighting our military in Afghanistan. The Israel/Palestine situation is on the rocks with Israel ignoring Obama's calls to stop the settlements and because Obama hasn't made similar calls for Hamas to stop the rocket fire into Israel.

China may be on the brink of a trade war as a result of last weekend's decision by Obama to impose tariffs on Chinese auto tires coming into this country. If China is annoyed enough, we may have no one left in this world who will buy all the debt that Obama keeps accumulating. That could be very inflationary.

Then, just this week, Obama may have shoved the countries of Eastern Europe to the corner with his decision to abandon the missile shield program. Russia may have also seen this move as a gesture of weakness --- not of strength.

Finally, Gitmo is looking harder and harder to close in the one year time frame that was imposed by this President. Card Check appears to be going nowhere.

Other than a few executive orders, the passage of a questionable Stimulus Package, and his Supreme Court nominee, not much else on Obama's list of campaign promises has gotten passed into law.

Just like the Chicago Cubs, it might be the followers of Obama who will be lamenting with the "wait until next year" chant when this year is finally behind us. But, in Presidential politics, the first year of any administration can wind up determining whether or not he is literally a one-term flop or not. Right now, there are a lot of opinion pieces being written that are drawing direct comparisons to Jimmy Carter's failed Presidency and to how Obama is progressing. One article actually compared Obama to Carter by asking if he was actually Jimmy Carter on steroids. I would think that Obama's handlers might be a little nervous about now.

I should point out that the Chicago Cubs are now in second place in their Division. However, they are 10 games out and it looks to be another year of hopes being dashed for these "North Siders" and any World Series dreams. It has been 98 years since this team went to the series. Some blame it on the famous "Billy Goat" curse. Others think it just has to with not committing the dollars to winning. HBO will even air a special on the topic this month. The special show carries the appropriate title: Wait 'Til Next Year: The Saga of the Chicago Cubs"

In Just 6 Months, 25% Of America Became Racists

According to the likes of Jimmy Carter and other Democrats, opposition to Obama and his programs is "mostly" based on racism. So, then, I started to think about this.

In January almost 70% of America was polling for Obama. Now, there are some polls that have Obama's approval rating down to a mere 45%. That's a 25 point differential. Does that mean that, in 6 short months, 25% of the American population have suddenly become racists? This just shows how desperately disingenuous the Democrats are being in using race as the reason why Obama's policies are lacking support. As I have said before, racism is the left's argument of last resort.

A Picture Worth 2000 Points

Today, there's a lot of people looking at Obama's method of handling the economy, and then drawing comparisons to Jimmy Carter. They point to the fact that it was the Reagan tax cuts (The Economic Recovery Tax Act Of 1981), and not taxing and spending, that really got this country going after the disaster of Carter.

Even though the Carter economic problems aren't exactly the same as now, there are some parallels to the government intervention that caused the dramatic rates of inflation and that contracted our economy during those years. Actually, to be fair, some of that government intervention started with the Nixon Administration in terms of trade barriers. Certainly, if you want to read all about the Nixon/Carter years and their economic policies, there's plenty of information on the Internet about them.

My focus of this blog entry, is to show you the reaction of the stock market to the various governmental programs/influences of that time frame; from Nixon, to Ford, to Carter and, to Reagan.

When Nixon left office, the stock market responded with a mini-crash. It did so because of the psychological impact of having a tarnished Presidency. At the same time, the country was beginning to enter another recession. After settling in, Gerald Ford's tenure ultimately saw the markets rebound. Ford's attempts to get reelected were squashed from the onset by Nixon's ethical problem. A problem that took a further toll on almost any Republican who was running for office. Through three consecutive election cycles, the House and the Senate went strongly to the Democrats; even stronger than today. Prior to Nixon's problems, the Republicans had gained traction as a result of the Vietnam war and LBJ's failed handling of that situation.

Carter came into office by riding the white horse of restored ethics and the promise of economic recovery. However, his policies, both domestic and foreign, and the policies of the Democratic Congress were disastrous. The OPEC embargo was responded to with price controls. Inflation was rampant. Carter's handling of the Iran hostage situation was terrible. When Carter left office, after just one term, the inflation rate was over 12% per annum; and, in some parts of the country, it was even higher than 14 percent. Wages were absolutely lagging behind inflation. Mortgage rates were all in double digits.

Reagan came into office with a commitment to a better foreign policy and a promise to attack the economy with tax cuts. Something called supply-side economics and better know today as Reaganomics. Just like now, the stock market continued to fall after Reagan took office as investors waited to see his plan for recovery. However, unlike the response to Obama's plans, the stock market fall was extremely muted. Obama has seen nothing short of a complete collapse of the markets with every piece of information that he has released about his plans. Unlike Obama, Reagan took his time in putting a plan together. He submitted it to both the public and to Congress and, didn't just give some outline to Congress for them to interpret. Unlike Obama's Congress of today, Reagan had an opposing, Democratic majority in Congress to overcome with his proposed recovery. He truly had to get a bipartisan agreement to do what he wanted. In August of that year, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was passed and signed by Reagan.

Unlike the rapid fall of the stock market of today, which has followed Obama's Stimulus Bill, the stock market under Reagan tread water for the next year and until it could see the fruits of those tax cuts. Once it did start seeing the inklings of a recovery, the market was off to the races by gaining 2000 points; from a level of 800 to almost 2800. The tax cuts created a growth in the econom, and without any of the runaway inflation that occurred during the Carter years.

It should also be pointed out that Paul Volker was the Fed Chairman of the time. It was his accommodative lowering of interest rates that fought off and lowered inflation in 1981 and 1982. As a result, inflation dropped from a high of 12.5% under Carter to 3.8% in 1982. He is currently on Obama's team but seems to be somewhat forgetful of what was done in that era.

The only problem with Reagan's tax cuts was that it overheated the economy and subsequently, the stock markets. As always, it was the excess of buying into the stock market, like the home buying of this last decade, that set up a scenario for failure. As a result of too much exuberance, the market crashed in 1987. Even so, the economy was in great shape and the market recovered more than 60 percent of the 1987 losses in just one year; and, then went on to even greater heights within another 2 years.

The point of all this is to show how differently the stock market responded to Reagan's plans as opposed to those being presented by Obama. Literally, the stock market stopped it's fall after Reagan's passage of the tax cuts in 1981. Obviously, the market's appraisal of the situation was a correct one. We know this from the rocket rise of the markets from 1982 and all the way into the Clinton/G.W. Bush years. In contrast, the stock markets have continued to fall with the ever passing disclosure of Obama's various recovery plans.

So, given the market actions of today, what do you think the stock market is really saying? It certainly isn't saying that Obama's Keynesian belief in big government spending, high taxation, and vast government regulation and control will get us out of this recession. Also, it certainly isn't buying all the "smooth talking" coming out of this so-called communicator. The markets are responding with disbelief and they aren't buying Obama's explanations. In 1981-1982, the stock markets were right in betting on the words and programs of Ronald Reagan. And, today, I am betting that they are right in responding negatively to Obama. And, that's just my opinion.

Note: You can get a larger, clearer view of the above stock market chart by clicking on it. Use your back button to return.

Out of Domestic Disaster Comes a Democratic Win

If you follow the polls, you can clearly see that Barack Obama is gaining strength every day over the last two-and-a-half weeks. As of this writing, he has a 6-percent combined-average lead over John McCain in the Real Clear Politics reporting of all polls. Almost daily, the lead is extending for Obama.

The best thing that could have happened to the Obama campaign was the credit crisis in this country. Conversely, it was a disaster for McCain and it, alone, may have sealed his loss in about a month. Our society is apparently too educationally naive on this subject to understand that this crisis was primarily created out of a socialistic desire by the Democrats and Obama to put unqualified buyers into housing.

Anytime there is a domestic problem of any significance, the party in power gets kicked to the gutter. In many ways, it was the failures of Katrina/Rita that beat the Republicans in 2006 in their various runs for Congress. If Katrina/Rita had occurred just before 2004, I doubt that Bush would be in office. Now, the credit crisis is going to give Obama the win because it happened on George Bush's watch and because McCain is a Republican. While McCain would be the better candidate to handle this crisis over the long haul, he will lose because of the political "R" behind his name.

History, in terms of the Great Depression, has proven that increased government spending during FDR's Administration actually prolonged the depression. Now Obama is ready to take office in the midst of recession with government spending being his only solution to the problem. I personally don't want to even think about the disastrous effect that could have on our economy.

If this crisis had be an international one, like an Al Qaeda attack anywhere in the world or another move by Russia, McCain would have naturally gotten a bump. But, at this late date and because this credit crisis will continue to linger for weeks and months, voters are going to go to the polls with the economy on their minds and Obama will get the win. It is just that simple. I believe the game is truly over. Sarah Palin's performance slowed the fall of McCain in the polls. However, the mainstream media is doing everything it can to downplay that performance.

The only thing that could rescue McCain at this point would be a major misstep by Obama or some new revelation about his past. A major problem on the international stage might be a game changer. However, I don't really think McCain can change the course of his fate at this late hour. Obama has been a product of a media love affair. Sadly and wrongly, the media seems to think that Obama's background, lack of experience, and his views mean nothing in this campaign. They simply want history to be made. Even if our country suffers from it! The last time the media created a Presidency, we got Jimmy Carter. We all know what a foreign and domestic policy disaster that was.

The New Neville Chamberlain

It is too bad Jimmy Carter wasn't around, as an elder statesman, when Hitler and the Nazis ran Germany. If so, Carter would have probably replaced Neville Chamberlain in the history books as the "great appeaser" of the Third Reich. Sadly for Carter, the only "Jew threatening" group that he could find to appease today, is Hamas. Don't get me wrong, Hamas is probably everything that the Nazis were and maybe more, but they just haven't gotten to the level of killing Jews that the Nazis are world famous for. Carter must be hopeful!

So, for the first time in American history, an ex-President of the United States has decided to step into the role of "elevating" a world "thug" like Hamas as a recognized and legitimate political force. If you don't think that is true, just read this comment from the Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar: "This meeting is a message to those who don't recognize Hamas' legitimacy as a movement." (See Full Story). That's right. Carter is legitimizing a rocket hurling, suicide bombing, killer of Jews, just as Neville legitimized the Nazis before World War II. For that, Jimmy Carter should lose his Nobel Peace Prize.

PS. Hey Jimmy.... I can have a "Have You Hugged Hamas" bumper sticker made for your car! Be the first (and only) on your block!

Love

Well, it's Spring. And, as they say in France:"love is in the air!" So, it is no wonder that Jimmy Carter picked this time of the year to spend some quality time with the terrorist group, Hamas. His meeting with these "killers" was all smiles. And, God knows you can drive a 747 through Jimmy Carter's sh*t-eating grin! He even gave a big hug. (See Full Story)

Isn't love blind?