Texas Rainmaker
Bill Clinton: Recession is a Good Thing
January 31st, 2008 9:02 am

I love it when smarmy politicians get caught in a moment of candor and say what they really mean (video)…

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

For the common good“, right Bill?

Maybe this is one of those times Hillary should’ve used her “ability” to control him:

In an interview with Cynthia McFadden for ABC NEWS’ “Nightline,” tonight, Clinton apologized for her husband’s recent controversial remarks.

“I think whatever he said, which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone. … If it did give offenses, then I take responsibility, and I’m sorry about that.”

McFadden asked, “Can you control him?”

“Oh, of course,” Clinton replied.

Monica Lewinsky was unavailable for comment.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
Decision 2008: Liberal or Liberaler
January 29th, 2008 8:53 pm

Networks are calling Florida for John McCain. And it looks like Giuliani is bowing out tomorrow morning. And if that wasn’t bad enough, rumors are swirling that Giuliani is going to throw his support behind McCain (probably as part of his application for the VP spot).

While I initially began this cycle working with the Giuliani camp, I’ll admit I was never more than lukewarm about his candidacy. He was too liberal for me on some issues… but in the end, he was still a much better choice than anyone on the other side (which unfortunately sums up most of the Republican candidates this year).

I’m exhausted. Wake me up in November.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (5) Comments

I think I’m supposed to feel bad by the content of this article distributed by AFP.

US mortgage crisis creates ghost town

The streets are empty. Trash rustles down the road past rusted barbecues, abandoned furniture, sagging homes and gardens turned to weed.

This is Shaker Heights, a suburb of Cleveland and a town ravaged by the subprime mortgage crisis roiling the United States.

But somehow, after reading the article, I just don’t have that deep down, gut-wrenching feeling I think the author wanted me to have.

While the article starts off with examples of a town whose occupants have all but moved away or those who remain, but are on the verge of losing their homes, there are some details within that make this article and the entire mortgage “crisis” an issue with which I have little sympathy.

Am I heartless? Hardly. Unless I’m supposed to feel bad for companies who failed to conduct proper due diligence on those to whom they’re lending huge sums of money… or borrowers who over-extended themselves, didn’t take time to learn the terms of their loan or simply lied on their applications. In article after article, these seem to be the facts behind this supposed “crisis”. Even this article has examples of:

Borrowers not taking the time to understand their obligations…

After three rings of the bell, Sarah Evans, 60, opens the door with a mixture of curiosity and alarm.

She says she is one of the last people left on the street. And she is on the verge of losing this two-bedroom house in which she has lived for more than 30 years because she simply cannot afford her monthly payments.

It is a complicated story. She refinanced in 2003, but did not realize the document she signed included provisions to radically increase the interest rate.

She stopped making payments in 2006 and shows her unpaid bills totaling 24,000 dollars.

Banks too careless to bother checking on whether borrowers could repay their loans

For county treasurer Jim Rokakis, the greed of the banks is to blame for this man-made disaster.

“All you needed was a pulse to buy a house. Some loans were written with no money down, no proof of buyer’s incomes.

Borrowers not being truthful on their applications…

They did not even check what people were saying. Most of those folks were jobless,” he said in an interview.

Yeah, sorry. This sympathy train has departed the station.

“Shaker Heights was the perfect storm: poor folks, unemployed and a desire to get a piece of the American Dream.”

Apparently, the American Dream is now defined as borrowing more than you can afford to repay from lenders too greedy to check on your ability to repay… and then asking the federal government to bail out both sides using money from financially responsible taxpayers.

The era of irresponsibilty has now been fully ushered in.

And for good measure, let’s make sure we paint this story as one of racial inequality as well.

US blacks see ‘financial apartheid’ in subprime crisis

They had small means and big hopes of owning a house. But African-Americans snared in the US mortgage crisis have seen the American dream turn into a nightmare many call “financial apartheid.”

The storm triggered by risky “subprime” loans has left many in ruins, forced out of their modest homes and furious at falling victim to financial dealings that have taken a particular toll on minority families.

Of course, it’s not racist to suggest the evil lending companies targeted poor, uneducated blacks, but imagine the outrage if someone suggested those same “victims” were instead simply trying to live beyond their means and found greedy lenders willing to take irresponsible financial risks to lend to them…

And if the idiocy of this whole storyline hadn’t reached it climax yet… consider this close to the top:

For Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Phillip Morris, the extent of the devastation is comparable to that wrought by Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005.

In the hardest-hit suburb of Cleveland, “nearly 24,000 people have lost their homes to Cleveland’s Katrina,” he told AFP.

Putting aside the obvious racial implications of this ridiculous comparison, let’s just take a look at the comparison. The only way this makes any sense is if homeowners could negotiate with a hurricane the terms of the hurricane’s strength and come to an agreement with the hurricane on the financial cost of landfall prior to purchase.

Otherwise it’s just a gratuitous attempt at leveraging the alleged racism arguments from the Hurricane Katrina event to support equally asinine racism arguments in this mortgage story.

And right on cue, here comes the immigrant angle:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As an economic slowdown and the subprime mortgage crisis deepen across the United States, Hispanic immigrants are increasingly in danger of losing their jobs and their homes.

Both legal and illegal immigrants joined Americans in buying homes they could barely afford when the market spiraled upward and many have been caught with mortgages higher than the value of their homes as prices have slumped in the past year.

So now I am supposed to feel sorry for folks who broke the law in coming here only to overextend themselves financially? I wonder if these ‘journalists’ write this crap with a straight face.

So whose fault is it this time?

Like many caught up in the crisis, the father of three said he had no idea his monthly payments would soar two years into the mortgage when he closed the adjustable-rate subprime deal.

“You have to sign a lot of things when you buy a house, so I didn’t read, I just signed. I think it was the anxiety, the happiness of buying my house,” he said. “I feel a bit betrayed.”

I rest my case. The high price of education.

Here’s a concept: “That’s why I developed this unique new program for managing your debt. It’s called, “Don’t Buy Stuff You Cannot Afford”.

Glenn hits the nail on the head: “Shouldn’t there be a price for being an idiot?”

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments
A Whole Lotta Hot Air
January 25th, 2008 1:47 pm

Remember when researchers claimed that global warming was to blame for the destructive 2005 hurricane season?

Global warming helped fuel 2005’s destructive hurricane season, researchers said Thursday. Their study adds to a roiling scientific debate over the role of climate change in spurring more intense hurricanes.

And remember how they predicted that the 2006 season, and again in 2007, would be as bad or worse… because of global warming?

Last month, researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said there’s an 80% chance of an “above-average” hurricane season with four to six major hurricanes this year.

Um, nevermind.

Global warming could reduce how many hurricanes hit the United States, according to a new federal study that clashes with other research.

In it, researchers link warming waters, especially in the Indian and Pacific oceans, to increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic Ocean near the United States. Wind shear — a change in wind speed or direction — makes it hard for hurricanes to form, strengthen and stay alive.

So that means “global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States,” according to researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Miami Lab and the University of Miami.

I guess global warming is now a thing to praise… at least if you live on the gulf coast.

Whatever the case, I’m sure Al Gore’s gonna find a way to make some money on the new revelation.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (2) Comments

Congress and the President have agreed on an economic stimulus package that’s sure to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You see, not only do all of us taxpayers get some of our hard-earned money back from the government, but part of our tax money is being “refunded” to those who never paid taxes in the first place.

The rebates, which would go to about 116 million families, had appeal for both Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi’s staff noted that they would include $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn’t have been helped by Bush’s original proposal. Republicans, for their part, were pleased that the bulk of the rebates — more than 70 percent, according to an analysis by Congress’ Joint Tax Committee — would go to individuals who pay taxes.

Individuals who pay income taxes would get up to $600, working couples $1,200 and those with children an additional $300 per child under the agreement. Workers who make at least $3,000 but don’t pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

They have to dress it up and call it a “rebate” to deflect the argument that it’s nothing more than a good ol’ fashioned gubmint handout. How do you “rebate” something that was never paid in the first place?

And Republicans are pleased that 70% of the income tax rebates are going to individuals who pay income taxes? I wasn’t a math major, but that means that 30% of the $100 billion is going to people who don’t pay income taxes at all. And they wonder why we’re not as excited about the elections this cycle? Here’s a clue, folks, when everyone in Washington acts like big-government, wealth-redistributing liberals, it’s hard to tell you guys apart.

Of course, even a $30 billion redistribution of taxpayer money to non-taxpayers isn’t a big enough give away for Nancy Pelosi, who promises to redistribute more of your money:

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining the rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including those who make too little to pay income taxes.

I can’t say that I’m totally pleased with the package, but I do know that it will help stimulate the economy. But if it does not, then there will be more to come,” Pelosi said.

This reminds me of what one of our leading Presidential candidates once said

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

Here we go again. Now that the economy is overtaking Iraq as the issue most voters claim to be concerned with, the Left has to yank Iraq back into the limelight. Here comes a study is being published claiming President Bush and his staff lied about Iraq to get us into war under false pretenses. And the AP is right there to report it.

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The real story is, once again, who’s behind the organizations publishing the report in the first place. The two organizations are the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The Center for Public Integrity receives funding from The Open Society Institute… yes, the same Open Society Institute founded by George Soros.

And the Fund for Independence in Journalism’s self-described primary purpose is “providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.”

Another day, another Soros-funded, anti-Bush study being touted by the water-carrying MSM.

And here comes the New York Times. I guess running this as a “news” article rather than an advertisement for Soros’ political agenda, they don’t have to worry about any bad publicity relating to discounted ad rates for liberals.

Bryan says this should’ve been run as a press release, because that’s what it is.

Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that the reporter, Douglas K. Daniel, paid no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Center for Public Integrity is one of many George Soros fronts. Soros pays the bills and his minions, whether they happen to work at the CPI or the Center for American Progress or Media Matters or wherever, dance to his tune. And Soros has made it his life’s work to bring down the Bush administration. He says it’s the “central focus of my life.” Do you think people paid to to “research” by a man with that stated mission are likely to deliver unbiased findings?

James highlights the fact that “being proven wrong is not “lying.””

The study is entitled, “False Pretenses: Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” Quite clearly, then, the authors contend that the statements were made with full knowledge that they were wrong in order to lead the nation to war.

The study finds no such thing.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

But those committees were taking the evidence from well after the study’s timeframe. None of those commissions found that the administration deliberately lied.

They’re essentially basing their propaganda on hindsight. Just ignore the fact that many were saying the same things about Iraq… before George W. Bush moved to Washington.

Remember this?

(hat tip: Michelle)

When will the MSM start counting these “lies”?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (19) Comments

Democrats love to pretend they’re supportive of minorities by wandering into a black church every four years or so. And MLK’s birthday in the midst of an election year is like the Superbowl of black pandering for Democrats.

Just take a look at the video below and see how important Bill Clinton thinks today’s event was.

I guess when you think you’ve got the voting bloc all locked up, there’s really no more need to actually even work at the pandering anymore.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Okay, We Get It… Democrats Cheat.
January 20th, 2008 11:40 pm

Obama’s campaign accuses the Clintons of widespread dirty politics.

The Clintons claim election shenanigans by Obama supporters.

And still no such claims on the Republican side.

As Bryan points out:

That the Democrats keep engaging in these low games may the most obvious case of long-term mass psychological projection this country has ever seen.


Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment

It’s just sad.

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic. And regardless of race, high abortion rates are linked to hard times.

“It doesn’t just happen to young people, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with irresponsibility,” said Miriam Inocencio, president of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island. “Women face years and years of reproductive life after they’ve completed their families, and they’re at risk of an unintended pregnancy that can create an economic strain.”

As a matter of fact, it does have to do with irresponsibility. If you’re not financially capable of supporting a child, don’t engage in activities that could lead to having one. Killing a baby after the fact is irresponsible.

It would be different if women could become pregnant from riding the bus, swimming in a pool, brushing their teeth, etc. But it’s common knowledge that there’s one activity, and one activity alone, that can lead to pregnancy. If you’re not ready to support the life of a child, then you shouldn’t engage in that activity. Period.

But often the women getting the abortions say they act in the interests of children they already have.

It wasn’t a hard decision for me to make, because I knew where I wanted to go in my life — I’ve never regretted it,” said Kimberly Mathias, 28, an African-American single mother from Missouri.

It’s pretty sad when someone admits that killing a baby “wasn’t a hard decision to make”.

“It wasn’t hard to realize I didn’t want another child at that time,” Mathias said. “I was trying to take care of the one I had, and going to college and working at the same time.”

If it wasn’t that hard to realize, then why the hell did you engage in the one activity that could result in a child? It’s not like you ate some bad mexcian food and wound up pregnant. You knew sex could lead to pregnancy and you knew you didn’t want to become pregnant. It’s not hard to figure out the responsible path in that equation.

…[Planned Parenthood’s national vice president for medical affairs Dr. Vanessa] Cullins views the right to abortion as an important component in the ability of all American women to determine the right size for their family.

Then why not support Andrea Yates’ right to drown her five children in the bathtub? Maybe she had just determined five fewer kids was the “right size for her family”.

“I don’t think most people understand that these are women who have families, who are making a very serious decision about their reproductive health,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The stereotype is that the decision is made lightly. It is not.”

I’m sorry, I guess I just misunderstood the “it wasn’t a hard decision to make” line.

Bottom line, if it’s such a financial burden to have and raise a child, don’t practice the act that could lead to one.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (8) Comments

His words, not mine. Check out his interview with Mark Mathews of ABC7 in San Francisco. At issue is a lawsuit filed by a union that supports Hillary to challenge the caucus process setup and agreed to by the state’s Democrat Party last year. The lawsuit comes “coincidentally” just 2 days after another large union endorsed Obama - despite having known about this issue since last year.

*Updated with embedded video*

Here’s Clinton’s response to the very first question:

Clinton: There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You asked the question in an accusatory way, so I’ll ask you back. Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody that voted at the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully in terms of delegates to the state convention that pick the delegates to the national convention. What happened is nobody understood what had happened. They uncovered it. And now everybody is saying, “Oh, they don’t want us to vote.” What they really tried to do was set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more, as much. So now they’re dealing with it.

Notice how Clinton admits that Democrat voters are stupid (in agreeing to something despite not knowing to what they were agreeing) while accusing the Nevada Democrat party of trying to subvert the caucus process.

Quite the admission.

The only thing missing was the finger wag.

UPDATE: Obama 1, Clinton 0.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (3) Comments

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blank.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: Connection refused in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/index.php on line 36

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online



    • HuckPac.com

    • sidediv

    • sidediv


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62