Author: COB6

Obviously that’s a rhetorical question because “everyone” is not currently allowed to vote, ie, children, felons (unless Hillary has her way), etc. Dead people are another issue as they have been a reliable Democrat voting block since JFK.

Casper Weinberger, Jr. seems to think that some people are just too stupid to vote:

Should we allow just anyone with a registration card to vote? In my view, we should not. There will be those who will abhor the notion that only “smart” people should be allowed to vote and how and where, they will argue, can you draw the line? Good questions, certainly, but we had better try real hard to embrace the argument and find some answers.

Neal Boortz addressed the issue as well today

A listener writes to tell us he saw a bumper sticker which said “When women vote, Democrats win.” Now that is probably one of the most honest bumper sticker I’ve ever heard of – second only to “If you’re stupid, don’t vote.”

This is easy to figure out. A Democrat vote is a big government vote. Women — and I KNOW there are exceptions — seek security. They want a safe and secure next in which to raise their children. It’s someone else’s job to provide that security. That someone else is government. Studies have shown that women react much more favorably to the word “security” than to “freedom.”

Could it possibly be that the founding fathers had the right idea?

Have you ever listened to the “man on the street” questions that TV and radio hosts routinely do? It is somewhat humorous but keep in mind that these galactic morons vote.

Are you informed enough to vote? The PEW Research center put together a quick 12 question survey. They don’t link this to whether or not you should be able to vote but I think it’s a good starting point.

Looking at the demographic breakdown per question, Boortz observation seems more valid than I had imagined.

Only 17% of women knew that Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader, while 88% knew that Oprah Winfrey was in the tank for Obama. I don’t know that it totally supports Boortz’s position but it certainly states the clear irrelevance of Harry Reid.

The recommended COB scale: (Regardless of political affiliation)

100% – Fully qualified to vote and advise others
Missed 1 or 2 – Qualified to vote but avoid detailed political arguments
Missed 3 or 4 – Qualified to vote but rely on core values like reproductive rights, second amendment, War on Terror, etc…
Missed 5 or more – Do not go into the same grid square of a voting booth. You could trigger Y2K (which is something you totally bought).

I hope this is helpful.

MNF-I announces some very bad news for Barry and the defeatocrats.

BALAD, Iraq – Since the beginning of July, three highly sought after suspected terrorists have surrendered to Iraqi Security and Coalition forces.

An emir of the Sinjar area Islamic State of Iraq, a front organization for al-Qaeda in Iraq, surrendered to the Iraqi Army for reconciliation in Kisik July 5, about 43 km west of Mosul. The suspect is reportedly involved in terrorist and foreign fighter facilitation and a leader of rocket and improvised explosive device cells.

In Rutbah, a suspected AQI emir of the Rutbah region turned himself in to Coalition forces. The suspect is known to facilitate foreign fighters, weapons and narcotics. He is said to be well-connected to AQI networks in various regions and finances criminal groups coming into Iraq. He is also associated with another AQI emir in the area reportedly responsible for executing members of the Iraqi government and Iraqi Security Forces, smuggling, hijacking, and carjacking.

Of course the Surge had absolutely nothing to do with the undeniable success in Iraq. Must have been the “Victory Fairy”?

“We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not. President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a ‘surge’ of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm’s way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace.” — Wesley Clark

Obama has already started tap-dancing but he will, at some point, have to square his mad judgment skillz with reality. He is on the record after all as chief surrender monkey of the defeatocrats:

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:
We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:
My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

Even the Associated Press is starting to get it:

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago. . .

.

The Weekly Standard takes a brief but devastating shot at the latest lunacy from Wesley “I was a great General, Damn it!” Clark.

On MSNBC this morning, former Gen. Wesley Clark made some inaccurate statements about the application of the “surge” in Anbar province. “Actually, the surge was about Baghdad and it was not about Anbar province,” he said. “They didn’t bring more troops out to Anbar.”

Perhaps this pathetic loser forgot or is so stupid that he didn’t know that the better part of a Brigade of Marines were part of the “Surge” and did in fact go to Anbar?

But this was about more than numbers of troops in Baghdad or Anbar; it was about how they were to be employed.

You have to realize that Wesley was an Armor Officer. Counter-Insurgency is not a strong suit with Armor officers from the Cold War massive maneuver era. In those days COIN was almost exclusively in the realm of Special Operations forces (of which Wesley never served a day and would have no earthly idea what they did or do).

This has changed thanks to General Patreaus. A brand new Armor Captain today with all of 5 years experience knows volumes more than Wes Clark about counter-insurgency warfare.

Maybe Wesley should check with one; naturally that does not include “Motor Pool” Larry or whatever his name is from VoteVets.org. That clown knows nothing about any kind of war.

Wesley Clark would be the greatest gift ever to John McCain.

I wondered how Barry was going to respond to a 90% reduction in violence and 15 of 18 political benchmarks being met when he was walking in Iraq with no body armor or helmet.

To me I thought surely he would execute the patented Obama “React to Reality Drill” known commonly as throwing someone or something under the bus.

It never occurred to me that he would fall on his sword and re-state that the Surge failed. The Atlantic has this exchange between Obama and the Katie Couric.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that– not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that– previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.

Okay Barry, I know that you have no frigging clue what you are doing and other than one speech (written by someone else) that you mindlessly mouthed into a teleprompter, so let me help you out.

Your approach has been tried before. It didn’t work so well. Don’t take my word for it, when the gutless DEMOCRATS killed funding for Vietnam and the country was left on its own, millions died in a genocide like the world had not seen in quite some time. Of course you are on the record as saying that averting “genocide” was not a reason to stay in Iraq.

Obama is trying an entirely new trick. This is dangerous for a one-trick pony and it makes no sense.

I do expect Code Pink to protest his next state side appearance sine he is now calling for a SURGE in Afghanistan. That won’t happen of course since they share the common dream of Socialism.

And yes, it appears that he is more than willing to lose a war to win a political camapaign…..but then again, so was McGovern.

I am going to be in a non-disclosed location for the next few days because I am seriously considering buying this small piece of desert property. Okay, not actually buying it but probably leaving some cash there.

My most valued advisor the LBBTTB has suggested no laptop. This will be tough for me but I am up to the challenge.

I should be back NLT Wednesday. I know that nobody cares but it’s information none the less.

Fox News just reported that that IndymacBank has been seized by the feds. This was a bank that specialized in high risk loans.

This bank has $17 billion in deposit assets.

Raise your expectations? How about “Open your wallets tax payers”.

Fannie Mae is in a spiral and Freddie Mac is struggling as well.

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — Shares of Freddie Mac ended a wild session Friday down about 4% after losing more than half their value earlier in the session as the market battled the federal government for the hearts and minds of investors.

A report that the Federal Reserve will allow the mortgage giant to access the discount window to relieve capital pressures rallied the share from more than 50% losses into positive territory late in the session, before they slipped back into the red.

Both of these programs are what are known as “Quasi-Governmental” programs.
The reality is that almost 70% of mortgages in this country are touched (or stained) by at least one of the colossal failures. What do you suppose the government plans to do to fix this?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac trade remained under severe pressure amid prospects that the mortgage giants, which help make the American dream of home ownership possible for millions, will need to be bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer.

This suggested solution is a train wreck for the tax payer.

I just received an email asking for clarification; well actually a straight forward question, “COB, Just WTF is “Quasi-Government” anyway?”

Sadly enough, I have had cause to burn many brain cells on Government Sponsored Enterprises which is one of many categories of evil spawn of QG programs.

So, I will try to write a Readers Digest version of this beast, so the rest of you can erase a small part of your mind and fill it with just what happens when the government tries to help. As I am sure TSO can attest, trying to make something as intentionally convoluted as legislation make sense is no small feat. But I’ll take one for the team and try.

For this post, just remember that this Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac implosion has the potential of doubling the national deficit over night. Think about that for a second and then go get a drink.

Hell, it’s Friday, I am!

This is interesting. Some folks over at CNBC put together a list of the top states for business.

Here are the ten categories ranked in our study:

– Cost of Doing Business
– Workforce
– Economy
– Education
– Quality of Life
– Technology & Innovation
– Transportation
– Cost of Living
– Business Friendliness
– Access to Capital

Some of the criteria such as transportation and technology may have little impact on some businesses but I think it’s fair to say that the “cost of doing business” and “cost of living” impact any business.

The Top 10 in terms of Cost of doing business are: Texas, Virginia, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, North Carolina, South Dakota, Georgia, Iowa and Minnesota.

The Top 10 in terms of cost of living are: Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia and Mississippi.

Do you see a pattern here? Nine of the Top 10 “Cost of doing business” states voted for George W. Bush in 2004. (Minnesota being the exception where John Kerry won by less than 100,000 votes.)

All 10 “cost of living” states voted for George W. Bush in 2004.

Just a little something to feed the trolls.