This Is a Racist

I hesitate to broadcast such garbage. This idiot and his reoccuring case of oral diarrhea do nothing to advance the state of race relations, and over the course of nine cringing minutes he spews his ignorance without seemingly batting an eye. If you believe that Obama is a black nationalist with an agenda or is unpatriotic, this racist contradicts that.

Yet, he does find time to praise the Clintons.

This is ignorance at its finest--truly a waste of time, bandwith and a Sunday morning.

'A Faith Footnote'

Of course, if you cut and paste snippets of a video you can mischaracterize anyone. The GOP sees Wright as a path to defeat Obama, and will do anything to do just that. This includes misleading the electorate by cooking up unjust resentment against Obama.

Perhaps, you should watch a larger portion of the sermon and think for yourself.

And do 'Meet the (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon.'

What This Photo Shows...

...is that you can be friendly with someone and not share his ideals, and that's not from Bill Clinton's perspective it's from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's perspective.

Over the past few weeks, he's been portrayed as a racist. But here he is at a Clinton White House prayer breakfast (a members-only event, I'm sure) shaking hands with not only a white man but with the very subject of some of those snippets that were played over and over and over again.

Assuming that Wright is a racist and not much a patriot, that here he is in this photo being friendly with the white President of the United States reaffirms what Obama has been saying: you can be friendly with someone with whom you don't always agree

And how long one knows another is irrelevant; the only thing that is relevant is if he shares the views and positions of the other. Obama has said that he does not. I reiterate; I have friends whom I do not agree with on every issue. You have friends whom you do not agree with on every issue. So does Obama.

Hold me accountable for what comes out of my mouth. I'll hold you accountable for what comes out of your mouth. And we should all hold Obama accountable for what comes out of his mouth.

The things Wright said didn't and wouldn't come out of Obama's mouth. And no one--not Hillary and not the GOP--believes that it would.

Further, that Wright was invited to the Clinton White House suggests that the clips that we've seen over and over again do not completely represent Wright. I can't imagine that Clinton would invite a racist, non-patriot to a prayer breakfast.

And in all of this, especially now that this photo has surfaced, I'm most disappointed with Hillary for not stepping up and vouching for Obama like Obama and Clinton did for Biden during the Des Moines Register Debate when he faced questions about comments he'd made regarding race.

None of this mess has anything to do with the issues, I see no reason why HRC couldn't say, "I know Barack Obama have worked with him and dealt with him throughout this race to the Presidency. I have no reason to believe that the views of Rev. Wright are the views of Barack Obama."

That's what HRC would do if she were concerned with winning on the issues, but because she's willing to win at any cost, she hasn't.

Shocking.

The Colvin Report: Some Dumb Moves By Obama?

Obama has made two poor choices to divert attention from his Rev. Wright scandel.

First, as seen in the photograph above Obama's camp has released a photograph of Bill Clinton shaking Rev. Wright's hand during an annual prayer breakfast with religious leaders. There is nothing in the picture or anything even asserted to suggest that Bill. Clinton had met Rev. Wright prior to the White House meeting or that he or Hillary knew anything about Rev. Wright’s views (afterall, she isnt the one who knew him for 20 years).

I think this is a poor move by Obama because he is basically saying, look Rev. Wright is a bigot who hates America but thats okay because the Clinton's invited him to one event. To me, this makes the 20 year case look even more appealing. He went out of his way to say that he was not attacking the man, only a few statements... but what is he implying about Rev. Wright now that its in the Clinton context?

Moreover, it is in poor taste after the Clinton's left this issue alone. I think he just invited more controversy from the Clinton camp.

Second, Obama has come out hard blaming the Bush Administration because of the conduct of a few independent contract workers who had access to a passport program. These workers were curious and it could happen to anyone in any field where there is confidential information. Just look at the staff of medical personnel that were recently fired over snooping at Brittany Spear's medical records. Even more serious, the name Valerie Plame comes to mind.

This passport viewing has nothing to do with an evil plot by the Bush Administration. Executive Agencies enact regulations but they cannot force employees to always do the right thing.

Maybe it was wrong for the independent contractors, which are employed in most airports across the country, but this isn't the Bush Administration fault and Obama made a poor decision in trying to make it an issue.

Two more tallies against the "judgment" column in my humble opinion.

Another Approach to Regressive Taxation and Regulation

For those keeping up with the news and interested in a fresh economic prospective to reducing dependance on foriegn oil here is an idea. Government bounties for technological innovation. The private sector has already began exploration with the Branson X-prize for fuel efficient Jet liners, and most recently the 10 million dollar bounty offered by an insurance company for a fuel efficient car getting at least 100 miles per gallon that is both marketable and safe. In fact, the annoucements of the prize has already induced 8 teams to compete with more sure to follow.

The idea of bounties to spur technological innovation is no unheard of. When the British Empire was looking for a way to measure longitude for their ships in the 1700's the Parliment established a bounty for anyone interested. Sure enough, the current measuring system we use today was soon developed.

Perhaps the real question is why we have politicians encouraging regressive taxes including taxes on fuel among other resources used in production. A tax on gasoline only hurts those that already have trouble affording fuel. As I already discussed, the idea of a carbon tax would only serve to limit economic growth and punish those in low income brackets. However, the solution of a government imposed prize for technological innovation would not handicap those groups of people. In fact, the economy would experience no real change from tax pressures. Additionally, there might even be extrinsic benefits as companies interested in the bounty employ workers and scientists to help. Investors might be more willing to invest.

Finally, there is also the argument that mistakes are the mother of invention. For those companies that fail to win the grand prize, I most certainly guarentee they will have established some marketable technology along the way. Marketing the "mistakes" would only serve to enhance the company bottom line and thereby increase profits and investor confidence.

I feel that these government sponsered prizes would work the more I read about them. We should impose regressive taxes that handicap the economy and injure poor American. We should use the many we have to create jobs and better technology.

-I would like to thanks Joseph Adler, whose views helped inspire this posting. The full article of his views can be viewed here.

The Colvin Report: How Not To Rebuild the Economy

Well, I may not be an economist but I have a few views on things.

First, as discussed by my colleague, I believe the corporate tax should go the wayside and individual taxation should make up the difference in form of dividends and capital gains received from corporate investment, which should be taxed at the ordinary income tax rate.

The current preferential treatment really only helps the wealthy while the high taxes on corporations raise prices for consumers and lower wages for their employees. The average investor wouldn't be effected a great deal.

Second, I believe raising taxes on commodities and income alike is a bad decision. With the corporate restructuring, this wouldn't be necessary.

Mainly, I am dumbfounded by a recent proposition by Michigan's Democratic elect John Dingell to raise gas taxes by an additional 0.50 a gallon. I wouldn't expect this from the motor capital of the world and I wouldn't expect it at a time when gas prices are at an all time high. It is almost as ridiculous as carbon taxes.

You want to do something, get the SEC to step in and stop allowing the selling of gasoline on the futures market. The future market alone account for 20 or more dollars per barrel of gas. And I point out, these returns on investment are taxed at 15% while a median income family is paying over 25% of their income to the IRS with absolutely zero chance of taking advantage of preferential treatment.

Do I believe in ending foreign dependence on energy, of course, but taxing Americans is not going to have a long term effect on consumer habits. It is only going to make their lives a little harder. Right now, thats the last thing we need.

The IRS needs to be drastically restructured, but raising the highest tax bracket alone is not going to solve the problem.

Why did Obama Stay?

A quick response to my colleague concerning Obama's reticence to leave his church. I mentioned Hagee and Wright in the last post to prove a larger point, but I don't intend to conflate the two. Obama had his conversion experience at Wright's church, so that's much more significant a relationship that McCain's is with Hagee. Obama's been going to Trinity for his entire life in Chicago. My only point was organized religion has a very strong tendency toward hypocrisy, and I'm very wary of that fact. So, I digress. I'm much more interested in talking about Obama's foreign policy speech today (and McCain's bungling of Iraq 101...). We'll save that for the next post. Back to the matter at hand...


I believe he stayed for two reasons, both equally strong, one pragmatic (although you might find it opportunistic), and the other completely honest and whole-hearted. While I think this is a mark on Obama's record, I assert the basic calculus on Obama has not changed. He is the same man I expected him to be, and the same candidate that I believe is best suited to lead this country.

First, Obama is a religious man, a Christian who had a religious rebirth at Holy Trinity. As many of you know, this can be a powerful force. I don't see a reason to doubt this occurred, and he's spoken and written about this transformative experience. This bound him in some ways to Rev. Wight, for better or worse. I think he should have dropped him like a bad habit years ago because I find him repulsively unpatriotic. But, I also believe in Obama's honest religiosity, just as I believe in President Bush's. If you confirm you are born-again, that you have had a spiritual experience, this can be enough to keep you coming to a Church whose pastor you don't happen to agree with, if only because you see good things happening ("God's work"). It's not easy to drop someone to whom you owe your spiritual life. Conversely, it's very easy, in the abstract, to call for Obama to drop this moron and to ignore the truth that the Church may have given something to Obama beyond the mere sermons.

Even providing the above, I can agree that it simply doesn't excuse (in the political world) Obama's continued attendance. The second reason I believe Obama stuck around was simply because he was a Chicago politician from "the neighborhood". The Church is the most powerful outlet for community involvement. Call me cynical, and call Obama the same, but do realize the relationship with and reputation in his community Obama earned by attending and interacting with his neighbors and friends. Obama is, above all, a morally courageous politician (and more so than Senator Clinton, or Gov. Romney, for example, by an immeasurable amount), but he is not perfect. I do not pretend that he is, although many do. It would have been an enormous and, probably, politically deadly choice to walk away from church years ago. He would not be where he is today without the community's support in his earliest days in Chicago as a local organizer. As they came to owe him, he came to owe them. No man is an island, they say.

If this is the worst of his political expediency, then so be it. There are few reasons to believe that he makes a habit of such acts. On countless other measures, he has been apt to say and do the impolitic. By nature, he is an unlikely candidate for office, with a foreign-sounding name and an unusual journey. If anyone would need to use expediency often to cover his glaring "flaws", conventional wisdom would say it would be a guy named Barack Hussien Obama. Yet, he has most often refused to take that route. I needn't recount the numerous examples of this but only to say this:

That if I were to bet on the sanctity and sincerity of just one candidate's character, intelligence, judgment and demeanor, it would be Barack Obama's. In all that has been written, by Senator Obama himself and by others, in all that I have observed and heard, I cannot conclude otherwise. My trust, however, is not important, and I know it will convince very few. I only hope that in this coming election, after all (and I mean all) is said and done, the American people will find what I have found and elect Senator Obama to be our next President. Stay tuned.

About those churches...

Before we all get past whose Church is worse (Wright or Hagee, and both are pretty horrible, in my estimation), I thought this little article warranted a mention. It's probably only interesting to progressives and/or Clinton-bashers, but it is a rather odd coda to this whole situation. Who knew Hillary Clinton hangs around a "cult"?

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

"Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker..."

The Colvin Report: Obama's Charge Against Race

Obama's speech today got me thinking about things. He refused to disown the man who had been his preacher for 20 years and on his campaign committee until a few days ago. Its understandable, but I think it might be a bit hypocritical.

Obama claims to transcend race and stand for change. He wants frank communication about race issues in a hope to bring things to an end. I commend him for that and in all honesty, I believe it would take a strong black leader like Obama to truly transform thought patterns of Blacks and Whites alike. Al Sharpton and the likes work to divide, but Obama seems to really want to change things. An observant eye looking to the reactions of the crowd in Wright's church shows how deep the problem truly is, at least in some parts of society. Obama is right, people are bitter on both sides for many reasons and it doesn't help anyone to hide it.

However, I am still discomforted by his relationship with Rev. Wright.

And the reason why I think this all seems a bit hypocritical of Obama, and thus worthy of criticism, is that he was the first politician to come out and call for Don Imus to be fired for his infamous nappy headed hoes comment.

Direct from Obama: “There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.”

And I agree, what Imus said was stupid. He is controversial and I do not listen to him or blame Obama for calling for him to be fired.

My problem is that In the case of Wright, Obama denies ever personally hearing his pastor give sermons that damned the U.S., blamed the U.S. government for creating HIV to kill the black race, etc., etc.

But yet in his speech today, he said he knew Wright had made controversial remarks. He says he would have left the church if he heard the things "repeated," but what does that mean? Isn't knowing he said it enough? Even with the outcry, his speech today did little to acknowledge the remarks and he went out of his way to make it clear that he was not disowning or condemning the man, just a few words.

That just isn't enough. I want a real explanation. When Oprah left the church because it was too controversial, Obama should have followed suit. Either Obama went to this large church to build his political career or he shares the church's views... which is it?

Hey Hillary: Here's a History Lesson

After the speech today by Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton said the following:

"There have been detours and pitfalls along the way, but we should remember that this is a historic moment for the Democratic Party and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."

The part I'm concerned about here is that last sentence saying we could potentially be nominating our first women to run for president of the U.S. Well, Hillary might be correct in recent times but obviously she has never read about Victoria Woodhull, who was actually the first woman nominated to run for president. Victoria Woodhull was nominated to run by National Radical Reformers on the same ticket as Fredrick Douglass. Although Ms. Woodhull did not win, Hillary's statement is still a bit off point.

And they say those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.... (take from that what you will).

"A More Perfect Union"

Watch and listen (or read), then discuss.

Update: A fact I mistakenly excluded, but bears mentioning for various reasons, is that Obama wrote this speech himself. Although this isn't revolutionary, most candidates don't write their own material (see McCain and Mark Salter/Charlie Black, Clinton with Penn and others, , and while Obama does write his own stuff more often than others, as the Deval Patrick dust-up revealed (See Axelrod), the campaign trail isn't a great writing environment.

The Colvin Report: Where Was Obama on July 22, 2007?

I am going to take a neutral role on this and just present some of the facts.

Obama says he was in FL on July 22, 2007. Facts show that he was there at least by 1:30.

From Fox News: A National Council of La Raza official recalls Obama arriving on time that day for a 1:30 p.m. event that was part of the group’s annual national convention.

So where did the controversy arise, Bill Kristol and the NY Times aside?

NewsMax writer Jim Davis reported on August 7, 2007 that Obama and his Secret Service detail had been among the parishioners attending the July 22 sermon in which Wright spoke of the "white arrogance" in the “United States of white America” and blamed the Iraq war on “Bush administration bullshit." He said that many in the congregation, including Obama were nodding in agreement.

Since the story broke on Sunday by Ronald Kessler and on Monday by Bill Kristol, NewsMax has issued a notice that Davis stands by his reporting that Obama attended a service in July fitting the description he first reported, but he no longer was sure it was on July 22

It is rather discrediting that they cannot prove the day, I would think that would be something they would write down. Heck, he would probably be typing the story on his computer that night.

But, being fair to Jim Davis's Integrity, Is it possible that Obama was in both places on the same day?

Well according to the church's website, they hold Sunday services at 7:30am and 11:00am. If the service was over around 10, Obama and a private jet could have made it, but it would have been pushing it.

Just reporting the facts. Whether Obama attended, we may never know. But seeing as says he would have quit going to that church had he heard Rev. Wright say these things, you can bet reporters will be looking for something.

The Future of Sub-Prime Lending

We can all agree that the current downturn in the economy is at least partially caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. For those who have been living under a rock, this is basically when banks give homeowners adjustible rate mortgages, so they can buy homes. At first glance this doesn't seem like a huge problem, but the real problem is that banks performed no due diligence when lending money.

Basically this lack of due diligence procedures has led to the current crisis. Joe homeower pretty walk could walk into the bank and say he made 100K and the bank would take him at face value. The problem was Joe Homewoner really only made 40K but decided he wanted a house for the value of his "theoretical" 100K salary. The bank gave Joe the money, but Joe couldn't keep up with the payments. Additionally, with even a minor downturn in the economy, the bank adjusted Joe's mortgage and made Joe's payment schedule that much more difficult to meet.

All these homeowners living above their means in fancy homes default on loan payments, and help create the current banking crisis. (Banks make money on loans).

My suggestion is that the government pass a due diligence law that applies to banks, which would force them to comply with certain procedures and credit checks before issuing loans. These more stringent procedures would catch people like Joe Homeower discussed above.

Much like the Enron scandal spawned the creation of Sarbanes Oxley, I expect the sub-prime mortgage crisis will have a similar result. I only hope that things get done quickly so peope that actually have good credit and don't lie to banks about income can get the homes they have worked hard for.

Bill Kristol is a Moron

Other than being a blood-hungry chickenhawk, and a terrible writer, he's also flat wrong in this Sunday's NY Times editorial "slamming" Obama for Rev. Wright's comments.

Check your facts Bill. You've been wrong so often, it's like it's a pattern for you. It sort of diminishes your credibility, just a bit...

Red Monday

Lost in the midst of all the political drama is the currently reality of just how desparate the economy has become. On a Sunday, the American cinsumer saw two unprecedented events. The first was the federal reserve cutting rates from 3.50 to 3.25. The second was the announcement of JP Morgan Chase's bid to buy failing investment bank firm Bear Sterns for simply 2 dollars a share.

The federal reserve cut is difficult to swallow simply becuase it occured on a Sunday rather than waiting until Monday morning, when such things are usually announced. This potential could indicate that the government really does think we are in desparate straits despite all the rosy rhetoric of the White House.

Second, is the bid to buy Bear Sterns. Although, the bid is perhaps reasonable, the government's willingness to approve the acquisition in light of traditionally extensive regulatory review indicates again that something is amiss.

Both events coupled together could make for a desolate Monday on the trading floor. Perhaps it is time that those in power recognized something is wrong with the economy and do something about it. What we need is a long term economic policy that puts America back in competition on the world market. Unfortunately, I only expect to see worse as time progresses.

The Colvin Report: The Credibility of Obama's Denunciations

Obama had to come out and publicly denounce the statements of Rev. Wright as soon as he saw them... or thats what he says now. He would have quit the church if he had ever heard the statements repeated.

But what is the truth?

I find it amazing that a man could take his family to the same church for 20 years and never hear the anti-american and anti-white rhetoric. A Reverend who openly travels to Cuba and Libya and maintains a close relationship with Farrakhan. A man who could even consider the proposition that "the white man" created AID's to kill black people. The man who said Bill Clinton "did to black people what he did to Monica Lawenski, he was riding dirty (add thrusting motion)." But somehow Obama missed it. For 20 years he had no idea, even though he credits Rev. Wright for shaping his religious foundation. Heck, Obama even named his book "The Audacity of Hope" after a Rev. Wright sermon.

Thats judgment we can count on?

No, thats the same judgment that entered into a land deal with Rezko after hundreds of papers reported on illegal activities that lead to his federal indictment. (But on a side note, Obama did have the "judgment" to get Rev. Wright to come to pray through and bless his chicago home).

If Obama had no idea about the Reverend, why did he withdrawal his invitiation to Rev. Wright to speak at his presidential candidacy announcment ceremony the day before? The answer is that his senior staffers warned him.

Lets take a closer look at beginning of his campaign. In an effort to build consensus between his new politics and faith, Obama's campaign launched a new Web page, http://www.faith.barackobama.com that prominently featured a testimonial from Jeremiah Wright. Now this has been removed, as Rev. Wright has stepped down from Obama's committee of religious advisors.

This drew a quick rebuke from the Catholic League wherein the organizations President Bill Donohue stated that Obama knew his spiritual advisor was so divisive that his inclusion could cloud the ceremonies. He further noted that "Wright has a record of giving racially inflammatory sermons and has even said that Zionism has an element of 'white racism.' He also blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy."

This letter from Bill Donahue is irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is lying when he claims no previous knowledge of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's hate speech.

But lets not jump to conclusisons; lets look at things closer. Wright stated in a quote to the New York Times, "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," and "I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen."

Well, why distance himself if Obama had no idea? Interestingly enough, that article dated April 30, 2007 mentions several of these anti-american and racial sermons with direct quotes.

Seems odd to me that he just found out about this. Harvard law, top of his class... and he missed all of this? If thats the case, he wouldn't have made a very good lawyer because a 20 year lapse in judgment would amount to malpractice.

Take off the shades and take a good hard look because the great light that came to save us all is not as bright as it seems.