Crooks & Liars

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely

This week, while many Americans were enthralled with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's soap opera-like home life, another distraction developed.

You might have heard about it: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick had affair with top aide, sends explicit text messages, lies about it under oath and is now, unemployed, headed to jail and owes the city $1 million.

At the same time Kilpatrick stood before microphones announcing his plans for a come-back and kissing his wife, another criminal wept and begged for leniency for what he did.

Notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff received an additional four years in prison (he's already serving two) and was fined $23 million in restitution for his role in receiving kickbacks, duping American Indian tribes in four states by charging exorbitant fees for his services to increase his profits and bribing public officials with decadent gifts, meals and trips. (Funny how the public officials received all the goodies, but Abramoff is the one behind bars.)

At their core, both Kwame Kilpatrick and Jack Abramoff are the same. Both are crooks and liars, and both received lighter sentences than were initially sought for their crimes. Heck, they even appear to have the same fashion sense (check the pics).

The only real differences between these two people are their skin color and political affiliation. Oh, and while the white Republican Abramoff raked in multiple millions of dollars for his transgressions, the black Democrat Kilpatrick lost it all over a piece of ass.

Forgive me if I offended anybody's sensitive predispositions, but let's call a spade, a spade.

At their core, both these men are crooks and liars. We just heard more about one last week, than the other.

We also heard a lot about Sarah Palin.

While many Americans were riveted by tales about the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, President George W. Bush quietly promised to send the former Soviet Republic of Georgia $1 billion in aid, a BILLION DOLLARS of OUR money.

But since Americans are currently strapped for cash, and our economy tanking, WE are going to borrow that billion dollars from places like China and Saudi Arabia. We, our children and our children's children will no doubt repay the debt, plus interest, over time.

Our old enemy-turned-ally-turned-quasi enemy Russia recently bombed much of Georgia.
The money isn't meant to be rubbed in Russia's face, President Bush said. It will be used for - get this - economic and humanitarian assistance.

Just a few days following this billion-dollar decision, the federal government announced today it would seize control of the troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

``It is necessary to take action,'' Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who engineered the takeover along with Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart, said in Washington Sunday. ``Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are critical to turning the corner.''

The takeover is being sold as a way to help shore up the economy, and help people save their homes from foreclosure.

In what is being called the largest government bailout in history, the takeover means the government can inject our taxpayer money, as needed, to help shore up the two finance companies, as well as, global markets.

Here's the kicker: This move won't help people facing foreclosure keep their homes, nor will it help common investors. This move does offer some protection for "preferred stockholders."

Who are these preferred stockholders? Just countries like China and Saudi Arabia. In fact, China is the largest holder Freddie and Fannie's preferred bonds. (Sources: NPR and Warren Buffet)

Now, I'm not saying Georgia, Freddie or Fannie don't need help, nor am I calling Bush a crook or a liar (maybe he just doesn't know how much trouble the U.S. economy is in).

I just want to call attention to other things happening under our noses and being done in our names, but not necessarily with our consent.

A Picture Is Worth A 1,000 Words, if not a Vice-Presidency

Guns, God and Country

Sarah Palin's pastor says whoever criticizes President George W. Bush will go to hell.

Did he include Sen. John McCain, the man who wants to succeed Mr. Bush?

I started not to blog tonight because the Republican convention bored me so badly. But then I came across this story about Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's pastor.

According to the piece, published in The Huffington Post, Palin's preacher chastised those who criticized President Bush following the federal government's failure during Hurricane Katrina. "I hate criticisms towards the President," said Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God, "because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

Well, McCain has criticized President Bush on the war, spending as well as to his slow response to Hurricane Katrina. Does that mean McCain is going to hell?

According to Palin's pastor, yes.

Palin was baptized and attended the church well into adulthood, The Huffington Post report says, and she continues to contribute to the church in a myriad of ways.

Media reports say that Pastor Kalnins preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a "world war" over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.

Kalnins also asserted that Palin's election as governor was the result of a "prophetic call" by another pastor at the church who prayed for her victory.

You can read the full article for yourself. But in fairness, I should say Kalnins and his church have a variety of different ministries that help the poor and children.

But so did Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Methodist Church, where Sen. Barack Obama attended until recently. Having community service ministries didn't help Trinity or Wright.

Do you think we'll get back-to-back news reports about Palin and her pastor the same way we were bombarded with flack from the Obama-Wright debacle? Somehow I doubt it.

For Palin's part, we already know that her religion leads her to believe that life begins with conception, to be against abortion as well as against the teaching comprehensive sex education in schools.

But did you also know Palin believes the U.S. invasion of Iraq was God's will? And that her energy policy also reflects personal religious beliefs?

For example, Palin asked for prayers in getting a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state of Alaska. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

Two days before McCain picked her for the Republican Vice Presidential slot, Palin signed a bill clearing the way for the pipeline.

Divine intervention or just more politics?

If I were McCain, I might watch my back and/or do some praying of my own.

Miss Congeniality, Really?

Sarah Palin came off as more than just tough, she was Dick Cheney in a skirt.

Mean, aggressive, abrasive and even nasty.

Palin, who won Miss Congeniality as a beauty pageant contestant, was sarcastic and launched a verbal assault, rightfully or wrongly, against Sen. Barack Obama at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night.

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers," she said in a bullet fired directly at Obama. "And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

Direct hit.

Basically, she's calling Obama an opportunist and I can't say I totally disagree with her. But dang, did she have to come out the pocket that hard?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was a sweet, innocent lamb compared to this woman. Clinton didn't come close to being this insulting, yet she was painted as being shrill and harsh.

Well if Hillary's a bitch, what will folks say about Palin after this speech?

Palin was preceded by former Republican presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. They too mocked Obama. But it was Palin who went after him in the ugliest of ways.

Obama was so nice to the Republicans last week at his convention, what's a Democrat to do?

Oh well, hope he learns how to fight, and soon. Problem is, how can a black man fight a pretty, white mother of five without looking, well... like a black man fighting a pretty, white mother of five?

For those who missed it, here are a few highlights from Palin's speech:

• "It's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state Senate."
• "This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign."
• "What exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"
• "I guess being a small-town mayor is sorta like being a community organizer, except that we have real responsibilities...."

"What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?" asked Palin who describes herself as the former. "Lipstick."

I'm not so sure about that after tonight.

"Why I Am A Conservative Republican"

Don't look at me, I didn't say Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, that dude in the video below did.

While watching some of the Republican Convention tonight, I happened upon a video on hiphoprepublican.com, where I found the video. Funny, the views this guy tosses about are the same impressions Republicans put on display on their first "real" convention night: that somehow they have a lock on loving God and country.

The guy in the video says he's a Conservative Republican because he believes that war, genocide and slavery all suck. He says he's a Conservative Republican because he is proud of his country, believes in God and believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Excuse me, but even after watching the video four or five times, I still can't figure out why he's a Conservative Republican.

Maybe I can't figure it out because I'm not one to buy into labels. Many people, especially African Americans, feel the same way this guy does, regardless of whether they are Democrat, Republican Liberal, Conservative, Independent or otherwise.

The Republican Party doesn't have exclusive claim to any of the issues raised in this video; yet many Conservative Republicans, including this guy, act as if they do.

Question: Can you tell me what makes this guy a Conservative Republican other than the fact that he says he is. And secondly, why do some Conservative Republicans, including this dude, condescendingly think that they have moral issues and patriotism on lock?

Palin allegedly once wanted to secede from the union

Lawd, now there are reports that Sarah Palin once belonged to a fringe group a decage ago that wanted Alaska to secede from the nation.

You mean to tell me that she didn't want to be a part of a country that she now wants to lead?

I'm so done after this! No, Palin's done if this is true.

Can we say, THIS will be her real problem if Obama is smart. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

Is Sarah Palin the new Clarence Thomas?

So today I did something I don't normally do. I listened to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, or Dr. Laura for short.

She's the conservative talk-radio show host who often lambasts women who work outside of the home instead of staying in the kitchen and caring for their children. She can also be seen on television blaming working mothers/wives for America's high divorce rate and overall disintegration of marriages.

Dr. Laura was on the O'Reilly Factor hosted by another conservative darling, Fox News Bill O'Reilly. However much I brush aside her feeble attempts at intellectual analysis, Dr. Laura made an interesting observation about the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Dr. Laura said Palin, former beauty queen and mother of five, is being vilified by Democrats and liberals much the same way Clarence Thomas was in the early 1980's.

Now, I was pretty young at the time, but I do recall some Democrats - one of them was Sen. Joe Biden who is now the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee - going after Thomas on his inexperience and lack of judicial temperament, something we're all too familiar with now. I also recall many black political elites remained quiet because they very much wanted an African American on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dr. Laura noted that feminists aren't remaining quiet this time around. Instead, she said, they are vilifying Palin much the same way Thomas was vilified before his ascent to the highest court in the land.

My first reaction was 'get real.'

Clarence Thomas wasn't vilified. I think the court's sole (definitely no pun intended here) black justice created his own problems by showing up an employee's home uninvited and constantly making unwelcome advances.

But the Thomas comparison with Palin still made me pause.

Palin is currently being ridiculed because her unmarried teen daughter is pregnant. My mother, a rabid Sen. Barack Obama supporter, called me to say that Palin needs to be at home raising her children. "As opposed to what," I asked.

My mom, who stayed at home to raise me and my three sisters while my Dad worked, said it is obvious that Palin's priorities aren't in order if her teenager is having unprotected sex and pregnant.

I didn't expect to hear such a thing from my mother and was kinda stunned. After all, she raised me and my sisters to be independent, young women who accept responsiblity - and the consequences - for our own decisions. At the same time, she also drilled in us that we would be unable to bring any babies home for her to raise.

But I digress.

The Thomas-Palin comparison should make Americans think about how Thomas' seat on the U.S. Supreme Court has impacted us in the years since his arrival there; and it also brings to the forefront other issues. The least of which is whether abstinence-only education, which Palin favors, is really working in terms of preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexual diseases.

The other question that comes to mind, however, is Sarah Palin to female tokenism what Clarence Thomas was to (his words) a "high-tech lynching."

Are some Democrats and liberals vilifying Palin for not properly raising her children, is it fair to talk about her parenting abilities, and lastly, should that keep her from being the second most powerful person in the country?

I know those are a lot of questions, but I want to hear your thoughts.