23
Sep

Sarah Palin’s Speech in Asia

Posted by: Mike's America @ 10:04 pm in Uncategorized  | 9 views

Quite a contrast with the rogues gallery on display at the United Nations!

While liars, terrorists and Jew hating psychopaths (you figure out who was who) spoke from the platform of the United Nations on Wednesday, Sarah Palin was in Hong Kong delivering a long awaited speech to Asian investors. She surprised even her critics, including the New York Times, which reported:

A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.

Though the event was closed to the media, former Governor Palin posted an extensive excerpt on her Facebook page:

SARAH PALIN: So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue their individual and national ambitions.

The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What was once called “the free world” had so much to celebrate – the peaceful end to a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny’s grip.

Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a “peace dividend,” of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time, attention and money on endeavors overseas. Many saw a peaceful future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade – like that was a good thing? – that new non-governmental actors and old international institutions would become dominant in the new world order.

As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or the end of conflict. In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. North Korea’s nuclear program nearly led to military conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called al Qaeda.

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.

~~~

During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy – because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there. As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the “necessary war” and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed.

Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy.

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:

“The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.”

That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision.

That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny. No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts.

We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the view of the current Administration. They’re spending everywhere and with disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness. Though we are engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced from current levels!

First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillion dollar Stimulus Package funding – even though many military projects fit the definition of “shovel-ready.” In this Administration’s first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed.

Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range power. Despite the Air Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration successfully sought to end F-22 production – at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt.

Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners.

Asia has been one of the world’s great success stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with right mix of hard and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this – work with our allies to ensure the region’s continued peace and prosperity.

~~~

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia “whole and free” – free from domination by any one power, prospering in open and free markets, and settling political differences at ballot boxes and negotiating tables.

We can, must and should work with a “rising China” to address issues of mutual concern. But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China’s rise. We simply CANNOT turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that can undermine international peace and security.

China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous. China provides support for some of the world’s most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup raises concerns from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence of any discernable external threat.

~~~

It is very much in our interest and the interest of regional stability that China work out its own contradictions – between a dynamic and entrepreneurial private sector on the one hand and a one party state unwilling or unable to adjust to its own society’s growing needs and desires and demands, including a human being’s innate desire for freedom.

I do not cite these issues out of any hostility toward China. Quite the contrary, I and all Americans of good faith hope for the Chinese people’s success. We welcome the rise that can be so good for all mankind. We simply urge China to rise responsibly. I simply believe we cannot ignore areas of disagreement as we seek to move forward on areas of agreement. Believe me, China does not hesitate to tell us when it thinks we are in the wrong.

~~~

How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

~~~

I see a bright future for America in Asia. One based on the alliances that have gotten us this far, one based on free and open markets, one that integrates democratic India into East Asia’s political life and one in which China decides to be a responsible member of the international community and gives its people the liberty – the freedom – they so desperately want.

Sadly, however, our largest free trade agreement ever in Asia, with South Korea, sits frozen in the Congress. In contrast, China is behaving wisely in negotiating free trade agreements throughout Asia. We want an Asia open to our goods and services. But if we do not get our free trade act together, we will be shut out by agreements Asians our making among themselves.

~~~

I am proud to be an American. As someone who has had the tremendous opportunity to travel throughout the United States and listen to the concerns of Americans in towns and cities across the country, I can tell you that there is a sense of despair and even crisis afoot in America that has the potential to shape our global investment and trade policies for years, and even decades to come. Never has the leadership of our government ever been more critical to keeping my country, and the world, on a path to openness, growth and opportunity in global trade and investment.

~~~

These are challenging times for everyone, but we in the United States must humbly recognize that if we are to lead and to set the direction for the rest of the world, it must be by our example and not merely our words. And we must tread lightly when imposing new burdens on the imports of other countries.

Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a better future than they have had…that is a 1st.

When members of America’s greatest generation – the World War II generation – lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger. There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just “throw the bums out” of Washington, D.C. – and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats. Americans are suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected leaders are not tightening their belts. It’s not lost on people that Congress voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and despair, we see signs of hope.

In fact, it’s a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something’s up!

These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings – video clips circulating coverage – people watching, feeling not so alone anymore.

The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who’ve decided that if they want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real change – and, you know, you don’t need a title to do it.

The “Tea Party Movement” is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms.

When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth – when we roar back to life as we shall do – it will be thanks in large part to the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow and prosper.

We’re not interested in government fixes; we’re interested in freedom! Freedom! Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we’re very hopeful too.

And, after all, why shouldn’t we be? We’re Americans. We’re always hopeful.

Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.

Bravo Sarah! Quite a better speech than the apologies and narcissism Obama put on display in New York!

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin’s Speech in Asia -- Topsy.com

29 comments so far

AFSarge
 1Reply to this comment  

It’s not hard to see why the left is sooooo freaking afraid of this lady!

Sarge

September 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
 2Reply to this comment  

What a great speech! I can see why some of the Obots (2) walked out saying it was “awful” while others were proclaiming her to be “brilliant”.

I knew when she resigned the Governor’s office she was doing the right thing by taking herself out of the bulls eye, under their radar. She’s showing us that she will be in charge of her message. I love that she chose a venue which traditionally does not allow the media input. She has to keep them at bay while she builds…interestingly enough, while 0zer0 crumbles. They’ve shown that their only agenda with regard to her future is to bring her down.
Go Sarah!

September 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
southernsue
 3Reply to this comment  

i just pray for sarah and her family. if sarah is on the ticket i will vote for her.

i pray for our GOD to intervene in this horrible administration!

also, remember that obama is half white and half kenyan or muslim or something, but not american black.

September 24th, 2009 at 4:02 am
URI
 4Reply to this comment  

Is Henry Kissinger helping her with his contacts in Asia? If so, it is Kissinger vs. Soros?
Palin just told the Asian markets that they may never get their money back from the Obama administration.

September 24th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Missy
 5Reply to this comment  

Gutsy gal, lots there to think about in the short version, wish we could have heard the entire 90 minute speech, instead we get Khadafi. Wow, standing in Hong Kong taking China to task and praises our country, Obama stands in New York and attacks…America. Contrast noted and doesn’t she have impecible timing, what a weapon her Facebook page has become, what’s the score now?

September 24th, 2009 at 6:14 am
URI
 6Reply to this comment  

Missy: Currently, as of now there are 897,706 supporters of Sarah Palin and growing!

September 24th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Missy
 7Reply to this comment  

@URI:

Once in awhile I check in at Conservatives4Palin and get the scoop. I was thinking of her critique of healthcare and other issues she brings up in Facebook to take on current Obama policies. Sends them scrambling.

September 24th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Aleric
 8Reply to this comment  

She is about to get another one in a few minutes.

She is starting to refine her image the way she wants and not the way the limp wristed McCain handlers wanted her to be. Next stop the White House.

September 24th, 2009 at 7:18 am
wesmorgan1
 9Reply to this comment  

It should be noted that Palin’s excerpt is just that – an excerpt. Here’s what she didn’t put on her Facebook page, according to NBC Los Angeles, citing the WSJ. The funny thing is that the WSJ rewrote their article of yesterday, removing the Palin quotes in which she attacked Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises, blamed the financial crisis on the Fed’s low-interest policy, and pushed for elimination of the capital gains and estate taxes. However, the rewritten WSJ article does point out that Palin specifically told her Asian audience (in their words) “that President Barack Obama had weakened American influence in Asia.” It also points out that she specifically criticized the recent decision to stop purchasing the F-22 Raptor.

Why wouldn’t she quote the excerpts where she openly criticized the current Administration?

It’s simple. She went to Hong Kong (that’s part of Communist China now, remember), brought domestic policy arguments with her, and specifically criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.

We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?

September 24th, 2009 at 7:24 am
wesmorgan1
 10Reply to this comment  

Oh, and I thought that this, from breitbart.com…, was really interesting:

CLSA, an arm of French bank Credit Agricole, said it closed Palin’s session to the media after she indicated that she would have to adjust her speech if reporters were present.

It’s one thing to take only pre-submitted questions (which she did), but “I have to change my speech if reporters are present?”

September 24th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Patvann
 11Reply to this comment  

It’s one thing to take only pre-submitted questions (which she did), but “I have to change my speech if reporters are present?”

It means the speech would have to be shortened, to make time for the reporters asking her if she’s has a paternity test done on Trig yet, or when she’ll apologize for committing crimes against wolves and fish.

Obama goes abroad and criticizes the entire history of America ALONG with the (then) sitting president, WHILE HE WAS A CANDIDATE.

If you’ll notice, Palin is not a candidate for anything, nor is she a government official.

Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate? Must not be, because you haven’t mentioned any in now two posts. Or maybe it’s just personal for you…

It’s simple. She went to Hong Kong (that’s part of Communist China now, remember), brought domestic policy arguments with her, and specifically criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.

I would like to run some tests on you, to determine the level of mind-reading you possess. I think I could win a Nobel.

September 24th, 2009 at 8:25 am
URI
 12Reply to this comment  

Wesmorgan:

You have not read my blogg…The only thing that is sacred to Asians is money..not communism or Budha but money. The 700 Billion dollars of Obama’s stimulus money was loaned from the Chinese…and they won’t get that money back and you and I will never see that money either because it has been stolen under our noses. That was the message tha Sarah Palin delivered to them yesterday..Do business with the Conservative America and get your money back or do business with the marxist regime of Obama and say Adios to your mula…

PS: It helps to read the speech.

September 24th, 2009 at 8:43 am
wesmorgan1
 13Reply to this comment  

PatVann, we’ve criticized even private citizens when they’ve gone abroad to take shots at the current government; Ramsey Clark comes to mind, for his fringe activities during the Bush Administration. Why shouldn’t a prominent (if currently inactive) politician not be subject to the same standard? Don’t get me wrong, Palin had some interesting things to say about global economics, but getting into specifics of domestic political argument on foreign soil would seem a Bad Thing, regardless of one’s position on the left/right axis.

Uri, I’d seriously love to read the speech – where may I find it in its entirety?

September 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am
URI
 14Reply to this comment  

@wesmorgan1: Go to Facebook and login and you can read the speech without becaming a supporter of Sarah Palin. However, I have noticed that since 9:30 Am today her supporters have grown by 243!. The speech must have something to do with it. It is now 897,949!
I disagree with you that Mrs. Palin should be polite or any conservative when dealing with the Obama Administration. You fight them! Remember, you are dealing with Marxists and they are thugs. No level of civilty gets to them. This is war and we the conservative bloggers are going to win this one. If this is a new world for them, by in my book, I still like to fight thugs the old fashion way. Hit them were it hurst the most and put preassure.

PS: To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against also visit

September 24th, 2009 at 9:21 am
 15Reply to this comment  

@wesmorgan1: The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists) is Sarah Palin criticized an administration but pointedly gave praise to our country and culture. We get to speak out against administrative policies and political actions in America, at least for now. Insulting and tearing down the country, as Obama has, on foreign soil borders on…well you know, the “T” word. Have you ever heard any other foreign leader criticize the country he or she is hired/elected/installed to represent at home or abroad? 0zer0 is no Winston Churchill but the contrast between an American hater and a true British patriot is stark. Churchill loved his country and its people even when he wasn’t personally popular.

BTW, I didn’t hear that she called him derogatory names or called him a…gasp…Muslim President for Life as his friend from Libya did. Funny how all the Muslims recognize a brother.

September 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
 16Reply to this comment  

@wesmorgan1: “criticized a sitting President’s foreign policy from foreign soil. She knows (or figured out after the fact) that that’s not kosher.
We heard lots of criticism when then-candidate Obama spoke abroad, and he didn’t say anything as directly confrontational as this. Will we hear that same “water’s edge” criticism now?”

Like every other tradition for civility and good citizenship Dems like Carter, Clinton and Obama shattered them long ago.

It’s soooo funny to hear you talk about them now. A little late I would say.

It reminds me of the guy who called in to Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday and said we shouldn’t criticize Obama because “we are a nation at war.” I laughed so hard!

Wes: Save your hypocrisy for your little lib friends who won’t remember the garbage that was thrown at Bush for eight years or won’t care about the contradictions so evident in your statement.

September 24th, 2009 at 9:52 am
wesmorgan1
 17Reply to this comment  

URI, you said, “To get a better understanding of who you are dealing with/against…” I’m not “dealing with” you or “against you.” We’re just talking. For the record, I don’t like everything Obama is doing (or has done), but that’s true (for me) of any politician; I certainly supported President Bush on several issues, too.

PatVann, you asked, “Other than whining about what was in a bloody facebook page, was there anything in her speech that was inaccurate?” Can we start with her notion that “government interference” alone was responsible for the financial crisis? I don’t know with certainty; they haven’t released a full transcript. What I was “whining about in a facebook page” was the excerpts Palin herself released. Now, it has been very interesting to see quotes emerging; the WSJ has rewritten their articles, removing certain quotes in favor of others, and Politico has additional quotes, in which she criticized the Administration for the C-17 and F-22 cuts AND misstated the status of DoD funding for next year. I’d like nothing better than a full transcript, instead of these dribs and drabs that keep surfacing.

Ann, you wrote, “The big difference, as I see it, (I know, obviously stupid, racist…as well as a woman…for you so-called “progressive” misogynists)…” The only thing I will say to that is that I don’t play those cards. Disagreement doesn’t mean that either of us is stupid. Criticizing Obama’s policies or actions doesn’t make one racist. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Look, Palin had some interesting things to say, and a good chunk of her speech (from what I’ve seen of it – Facebook only has excerpts) was appropriate commentary. I simply thought that going into foreign policy and national security issues (and, for that matter, domestic taxation issues) on foreign soil was a bit much. I fully expect most of the folks here to disagree with my view, but that doesn’t make me a socialist, and it doesn’t make you a fascist, and it makes none of us stupid or racist.

September 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am
wesmorgan1
 18Reply to this comment  

Mike wrote:

Wes: Save your hypocrisy for your little lib friends who won’t remember the garbage that was thrown at Bush for eight years or won’t care about the contradictions so evident in your statement.

I, for one, didn’t throw “garbage” at Bush, even when I disagreed with his policies or positions. I don’t throw everyone here in some “rightist” bucket, and I’d appreciate not being thrown in some “leftie” bucket.

September 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Patvann
 19Reply to this comment  

Wesmorgan

I can see that you are trying to be open minded in this, and I for one appreciate it. I too want to see the whole transcript, and I’m sure we will soon. I’ve been collecting the different excepts, and probably have 80% of it, but let’s wait for it all, and we can come back to particulars, if you like. I’m sure I can find things I disagree with as well, because there is NO politician that is 100%.

Insofar as the government action causing (etc….)

Put it this way, if we rolled back every law written, pertaining to how banks and investment-houses operate, back to the first Community Investment Act, and just after the S&L crisis, NONE of these problems would have occurred. The laws and protections put in place at that time were very good. Most of the deregulation happened under Clinton, in cahoots with the Repubs in Congress. Bush/McCain tried 17 times to roll these back, and got stymied by leaders in both party’s, but mostly Dems. Her word: “government” did not single out a particular party.

THAT is what Palin was referring to.

I had initially felt the cuts to those aircraft programs were stupid, but because I’ve seen no large outcry from the AirForce, I am willing to sit on the fence about it. I could make good cases for either side of the argument.

September 24th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
CoCo Joe
 20Reply to this comment  

It tickles me so to watch liberal blood pressure rise.

Mine never rises, which I highly reccommend to all conservatives. It makes watching them become apoplectic so much more fun.

To keep your pressure down just remember:
You’re right and they’re, well…. not.

PS: Go Sarah!

September 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
URI
 21Reply to this comment  

Wesmorgan1: Could you in a nutshell tell me what ideas do you support that comes from B.O?
Let’s name 5.

September 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Tom N
 22Reply to this comment  

I agree with Captain Zero over at Hotair. She may be the new leader for the free world. I don’t think anyone else can fill that role at this time especially after her speech in Hong Kong

September 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
 23Reply to this comment  

Wes: The funny thing is that the WSJ rewrote their article of yesterday, removing the Palin quotes in which she attacked Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises, blamed the financial crisis on the Fed’s low-interest policy, and pushed for elimination of the capital gains and estate taxes.

Wes, you keep saying she was criticizing the Obama admin. What you evidently do not know is that the Fed low-interest policy she is criticizing (rightfully, as part of the “perfect storm” of events that lead to the housing crash) is the policy of Greenspan during Bush’s admin after 911. Between the easy money and low rates, it drove up housing appreciation to the toxic levels we live in now. How you tie that to the Obama admin is a stretch even the most minimally informed wouldn’t attempt.

Today both Bush’s and Obama’s Bernanke has still boxed himself into a corner… trapped into forever low rates without great repercussions to rock the economic world yet again. He’s eyeing the perfect moment to raise the rates needed to defray inflation, but knows the minute he does, he tanks the housing market again. I’m telling you right now… we are all sitting on the toxic mortgages of the next crash when the rates rise in the next couple of years…. or as soon as October when Bernanke stops buying the MBSs. Rock and hard place… bite the bullet on overleveraged housing for a few years and eat a few million more short sales and foreclosures, or suffer runaway inflation. Housing will be the sacrificial lamb… just as soon as they cushion it’s next fall a bit.

Criticizing Obama for “utopian sounding” campaign promises is also nothing earth shatteringly new to the Chinese… nor is it arguable as fact. All his promises are “utopian” fantasy. Hang, even the Chinese are economically more capitalist than Obama. Unlike the O’faithful, the Chinese are painfully aware of Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending, and Bernanke’s printing presses running 24/7/365 with fake US dollars. There’s no “spilling of beans” here.

And the cure does include elimination of capital gains and estate taxes.

So I suggest Palin merely shot straight about the current financial situation, and the US’s errors along the way for the past decade and a half.. and it’s reckless spending now. I’d say the Chinese have viewed the summer of unlikely activists attending tea parties, and the loud cry of dissent. No surprise there are American voices, adding to the those of the Chinese, dismayed at the pure abandonment of fiscal responsbility in the name of nanny welfare.

September 24th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
 24Reply to this comment  

The world is waiting the hear the voice of one who hears from the Living God, the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit – the 3 in One God. But many have closed their minds to understanding and locked into repetitive mind-blinding mantras. Many have deadened their understanding to a God that can be One but 3. But as we are created in God’s image is this really so hard to fathom? Is not a Father, also a husband, and a son, all at the same time and all in the one person – 3 in 1? Is a son inferior to his father in person hood because he came from and after his father? Are they not each equal in their manhood though different in their ages and agendas?

As we are body, soul and spirit, so we reflect in our humanity the very nature of our Triune Creator God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No wonder a mere woman in whom dwells this triune God, causes a crisis and triggers trembling across the nation, in those who oppose not just her politics but her God.

Sarah’s humanity, warts and all is available for all to see. Not so the President with his polished performance, ringing rhetoric and studied statesmanship (plus TelePrompter).
Yet despite Sarah Palin’s well publicized, criticized and exaggerated weaknesses, she remains the Democrats Public Enemy #1. Why so much ado about nothing? Reminds me a bit of the winsome Queen Mother who Hitler described as the most dangerous woman in all England. Why so much fear for a woman they despise and ridicule? Could it be they fear the greater reality of the Living God who lives within her, that they know, even though subconsciously, they are dealing with a power greater than them all?

As it’s recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

Could it be that the Obamocrats are now awaking to the fact that they backed the wrong horse? Forget about playing Carters ‘colour’ card, it’s the CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER that is now being questioned. He’s still the same colour as when America first voted him in, but the facade is flaking and what’s being exposed is not what was being sold to the voting public. Sarah, while she may have changed tracks, is staying the course, and she’s still the same ‘horse’ and being a Republican – that would have to be the ‘Right’ horse – you can’t say ‘neigh’ to that!

GO GIRL!
GOD BLESS YOU SARAH!
AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

September 25th, 2009 at 8:45 am
wesmorgan1
 25Reply to this comment  

MataHarley wrote:

So I suggest Palin merely shot straight about the current financial situation, and the US’s errors along the way for the past decade and a half.. and it’s reckless spending now.

So, her recommendations for repeal of the capital gains and estate taxes (which, of course, she called the “death tax”) were all just par for the course? Her criticism of specific national defense decisions, like the C-17 and F-22 cutbacks, were “shooting straight about the current financial situation?” I will, respectfully, disagree.

I will also take issue with her general point about “government intervention” being the major factor in the crisis. Most folks put a HUGE chunk of blame squarely on Wall Street, and specifically mention the effectively unregulated markets in which credit default swaps and other derivatives were traded. Palin even contradicted herself (to some degree) later in her speech, when she said:

Now even Milton Friedman, he recognized that the free market is truly free when there is a level playing field for all participants, and good financial regulations aim to provide the transparency that we need to ensure the level playing field does exist, but we need not, we need to make sure that this regulatory reform that we’re talking about is aimed at the problems on Wall Street and won’t attack Main Street.

So, government intervention was the problem, but there are problems on Wall Street that must be corrected by government intervention, but those problems on Wall Street didn’t cause the crisis in any way, but we need regulation to ensure a level playing field? She endorses Friedman’s view after opening with “we don’t want more government action”? Can you see where I find that, well, unconvincing?

I don’t think it’s going to be productive to go any further in our discussion unless/until we get a full transcript. It’s ridiculous to try to discuss things based on different sets of quotes from different parts of the speech. It doesn’t help that the news outlets are revising their articles to add some quotes and remove others; for instance, the WSJ changed their entire article (and quote selection) to eliminate Palin’s specific complaints against the Obama administration. What’s the point of THAT? Let’s get a transcript.

September 25th, 2009 at 10:50 am
 26Reply to this comment  

Wes, you can hardly blame Palin for using a phrase “death tax” that has been utilized since the 90s. You think she made this up?

I may disagree with Palin on the aircraft cutbacks simply because I’ve read enough on both sides to know they may be more obsolete for anticipated future conflicts. However if they are retiring current models without building the more advanced models as replacements, it is a downright dumb move. So I hold my judgment until I am in possession of more facts. A change in aircraft and vessel types more adapted for future conflicts is a good idea. i.e. the Navy focusing on the VT Group and the OCPV’s… high speed, shallow water craft. However depleting the inventory without replacing it is simply not a wise option.

I will also take issue with her general point about “government intervention” being the major factor in the crisis. Most folks put a HUGE chunk of blame squarely on Wall Street, and specifically mention the effectively unregulated markets in which credit default swaps and other derivatives were traded.

You are thinking too simplistically, and confuse “intervention” and “regulation”. There are underlying causes in Congressional regulation, overregulation, the Feds interest rates, and the Congressional push for EZ lending … all of the above, not one. Over regulation is the expansion of the CRA requirements to any banks who entertained mergers.

Regulation has a couple of avenues of blame… the refusal to reign in the GSEs and the foolish move of higher Congressional threshholds for GSE leveraging. The securitization, which you call the credit swaps, isn’t bad in itself… unless, of course, you were Congress… helping to create risky securities to package. Being able to mass distribute quality cookies is a fantastic idea that has worked for decades. However when you sanction the manufacture of toxic cookies with arsenic, mass distribution becomes foolhardy. Thus the higher GSE leveraging, EZ money and lowering of loan standards for the GSEs became “arsenic” that was passed on thru a distribution system that wasn’t flawed in itself… but by the product Congress allowed to proliferate.

Regulation also is a problem because Congress had the ability to reign the GSEs in with oversight… and deliberately chose to ignore as “there is no problem with Fannie/Freddie”. In this instance, you might want to use your blanket phrase, “under regulation”. It was not, however, for the lack of the power to do so… just the will.

Government intervention can encompass all the above.. meaning it intercedes unwisely. Either by not regulating and using oversight that exists, or creating the legislative environment that allows for the manufacture of arsenic cookies. I understand perfectly what Palin was saying. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons and not fall back on a cliche of “under regulation”… since that is not even remotely accurate in the big picture.

As far as a full transcript goes… why? So you can nit pick it to death? Frankly, Wes… never met a politician with whom I agreed 100% on everything they say. I’m quite sure there are things in there that I can argue contrary to Palin’s belief.

But I can say this… I have met a politician with whom I *disagree* 100% of the time. And that bozo is sitting in the Oval Office. So given my druthers of a Palin or Obama presidency? I’ll take the former. But then again, if Goofy were running against Obama, he’d get my vote.

September 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
wesmorgan1
 27Reply to this comment  

Wes, you can hardly blame Palin for using a phrase “death tax” that has been utilized since the 90s. You think she made this up?

No, not at all. I fail to see the relevance of the estate tax (which hits less than 1% of the estates in the US each year, and only then if it’s a multi-million dollar estate) to the global financial crisis, or even the recovery from the same.

Again, it isn’t so much the positions (which we can always discuss) as it is the foreign-soil delivery. Go back and read my original comment; if we’re going to bash one side (say, private citizen Ramsey Clark) for doing it, we can’t applaud the other (say, private citizen Sarah Palin) for doing the same.

September 26th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
wesmorgan1
 28Reply to this comment  

URI asked:

Wesmorgan1: Could you in a nutshell tell me what ideas do you support that comes from B.O? Let’s name 5.

Well, in no particular order of importance:

1) Further regulation of the derivatives industry. When people as ideologically disparate as Warren Buffett and Ben Stein agree that these are “financial weapons of mass destruction,” I think that we need to keep a close eye on them, and we’ve seen that the industry won’t regulate itself.

2) Public option health insurance in competition with the private sector. I know that is not a popular position in this forum, so I’ll suggest that we just leave it at “agree to disagree.”

3) Re-engagement with the UN. Sure, it has its share of clowns, but it is also an avenue toward international support for one’s initiatives, as we saw during the first Gulf War. I also think that our interaction with the UN does not need to be an all-or-nothing thing. We can participate in those UN activities of our choosing, and we can walk out on activities of which we want no part (e.g. Gadhafi’s and Ahmedinejad’s speeches).

4) Further regulation of the banking industry in general. Specifically, I would support a return to the barriers erected by Glass-Steagall but removed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

5) Reform of the PATRIOT Act. I think that several of its provisions are appropriate for terrorism investgiations, but not for other criminal investigations; I also think that several of its provisions should be subject to judicial review as a check on Executive power.

September 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: