News

Difference between Democrat and Republican

Politic

Difference between Democrat and Republican

Did you know that the US had 55 million registered Independents in 2014? It also had 55 million people registered as Republicans while 77 million individuals had registered themselves as Democrats. Why do these distinct political units exist? Well, they exist because there are fundamental differences between these units. They include differences in the role of government, citizens’ rights, and moral virtues. Other differences revolve around their approaches to relations with other nations and immigration.

Differences on the Role of Government

Republicans are staunch believers in limiting the power of the government to influence the life and activities of an individual. For example, they favor a system where the government reduces taxes as much as possible. They also prefer a system where states formulate laws on moral-based issues. In contrast, Democrats prefer a government that involves itself in the daily life of its citizenry. For example, it wants to see the government taking an active role in facilitating environmental control over industrial activities.

Independent

Differences in Individual Rights & Responsibilities

Republicans believe that individual rights define America. In other words, they believe that individual rights trump collective responsibilities towards each other. They even support the Second Amendment as a means of ensuring that the government does not infringe upon these rights. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that collective responsibilities towards each other trump individual rights. Therefore, providing welfare to homeless people is more of a priority to them than reducing taxes on Americans and businesses in America.

Statue of liberty

Differences in Approaches to Foreign Policy

Republicans believe in putting the interests of America at the heart of every foreign policy. That includes punishing countries that trade unfairly with the US. It also means pulling out of war zones or starting wars if it is in the interest of America to do so. Democrats believe that the US should restrain itself militarily. In other words, it should avoid an arms race with other countries. They also believe that the US should topple dictators even if it is not in the interest of America to do so.

General aggriment

Differences on Issues to Do With Morality

Republicans believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. In other words, they do not believe in same-sex marriages. They also believe that abortion is murder because life starts at conception. Most Republicans support the death penalty as well. Democrats believe that the basis of marriage should be love. Therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to them. They also fight for abortion aggressively especially their unwavering support for Planned Parenthood. Most of them detest the death penalty.

London bridge

Differences on Issues to Do With Immigration

Republicans have voiced their support for tough laws against illegal immigration into the United States. Most of them support the building of a wall along the country’s southern border with Mexico. They oppose continued immigration from certain countries as well. In contrast, Democrats have criticized the idea of building a wall along the southern border with Mexico. Ironically, some of them supported this idea in the past. They also propose a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million and more undocumented immigrants that are in the country.

PUMAs don’t forget to say you are voting for Barack Obama if polled…

My Blog

PUMAs,

If and when you get polled, remember to let the pollster know that not only do you intend to vote, but that you are strongly committed to voting for:
Barack Obama

It is extremely important we keep on doing this. Let Obama and his surrogates keep on being lulled into a false sense of security at having a lead in the national polls.

So far this strategy seems to be working, polls show Obama to be up…

Of course on election day, as PUMAs we all know that no way, no how, we shall not vote for Obama. We might write in Hillary’s name, we might vote for John McCain, heck we might even write in our own names, but to give our vote on Barack Obama is simply not something we shall do.

 

Letter to the Republican Party from a concerned PUMA

Republican Party

Dear Members of the Republican Party,

Like millions of other PUMAs, the only thing I’ve decided about this election is that under no circumstances would I be voting for Barack Obama. However, like millions of other PUMAs I have also realized that the only way to ensure that Barack Obama is not elected President is if John McCain wins on November 4th.

In the last few months, I have watched with amazement as you have worked hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the Presidential election. In your public and private utterances you have been pessimistic, downcast, fatalistic and have shown signs of being mentally out of the game.

How easily you forget that compared to Barack Obama, in John McCain you not only have a candidate who was legitimately elected by your party, but you have a better candidate, a better message, and a better connection to Main Street, USA. Despite all this you carry on like the election is over and Barack Obama has already won.

It is sad that compared to the rank and file of the GOP, PUMAs are more steadfast in their belief that an Obama presidency is not inevitable. All over the MSM, in the blogosphere and in conversations with people everywhere, members of the GOP who should still be fighting the good fight are talking like a party that has already lost. Why should this be so?

As PUMAs, during the primaries we took the Obama machine on and won, we kept our faith and acted from the realization that no matter what our contributions were, doing something was infinitely better than doing nothing. Either way we knew that sink or swim, till it was over, it iwas not over. The GOP needs to come to this same realization in regards to this election immediately.

The reason Hillary prevailed till she chose to give it all up for the sake of party unity (my a..) is because those of us in her corner supported her candidacy against all odds. Despite all of Hillary’s flaws, and believe you me, there are many, when it came to supporting her candidacy we never showed hurt, never showed fear, never backed down, and never gave up. You can do the same.

As PUMAs we worked our butt off to ensure Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Party’s Primary, against all odds, including being outspent 4 : 1, the MSM being in Obama’s corner, charges of racism and blatant displays of sexism by Obama and his surrogates, and last but not least, electoral fraud perpetuated by ACORN. Folks, indeed the more things change the more they stay the same, nothing has changed, except John McCain has taken the place of Hillary Clinton.

How dare you back down, how dare you give up on John McCain and Sarah Palin? Right now they are the only two people in the world standing between the America we love and cherish and a society remade in the image of Barack Obama. Obama is a man whose political ideology is more in line with that of Daniel Arap Moi, a founding father of Kenya who thrived on the cult of personality, than it is in line with that of our founding father, George Washington, a man who put it all on the line so that our country would truly be greater than any one man.

Is it going to be hard to do this, but you must fight. You must stop griping, complaining and talking about how the deck is stacked against your candidate and your party, yes, life isn’t fair, but it has never been. Instead get in the trenches to fight for McCain/Palin. There must be no retreat, there must be no surrender, till it is midnight in Hawaii and the election is over in all parts of the United States, the election is not over.

Go out and talk to people, educate people on McCain and Palin’s strengths, also educate people on Obama and Biden’s extremely obvious character deficiencies. Nobody who truly loves America and the American way of life can compare the candidates and give any sort of edge to Obama/Biden.

Not everybody is going to listen to you, but who cares? If people don’t want to listen to you, go talk to someone else, if they don’t want to listen to you, go talk to yet another person, eventually, you’ll find someone who has been waiting just to hear your message, and that person will at the minimum NOT vote for Obama, even if s/he does not vote for McCain/Palin. Every single not cast for Obama is a vote that keeps Obama out of the White House, it is that simple.

None of this is going to be easy, pleasant or maybe even enjoyable, because hard work is required, but guess what? The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.

Lastly, Republicans, you can count on PUMAs to work till the bell is rung to prevent Obama from being elected, you must do the same!

Awesome! Rahm Emanuel Got Paid $320,000 For Helping Freddie Mac Scam The US Treasury

My Blog

Freddie Mac had Rahm Emanuel as a board member during the period when it willfuly decided to scam the US treasury with false numbers in order to maximize executive compensation, and when it used company resources to further the political careers of friendly politicians, including Rahm Emanuel.

Today, Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Hope and Change you can truly believe in if you are the sort of person who think a fox can truly guard the hen house.

Then again, maybe these guys need someone with Rahm Emanuel’s focus to help them get their act together…

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn’t the only one that brewed during Emanuel’s tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

For your reading pleasure here’s the ChicagoTribune

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation’s mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration’s pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.

Emanuel’s Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation’s current economic mess.

Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.

In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn’t the only one that brewed during Emanuel’s tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.

Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government’s guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.

Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation’s residential mortgages.

Because of Freddie Mac’s federal charter, the board in Emanuel’s day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.

In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free’s appointment was good for four months, and Ickes’ only three months.

Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no “meaningful role” in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.

John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm’s directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn’t help, he added.

“You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time,” Coffee said. “That’s why [they] get the stock upfront.”

Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale.

Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama’s vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board “are unnecessary and don’t have long enough terms to make a difference.”

Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon’s assessment of their uselessness.

In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each.

Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac’s investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion.

The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were “commercial information” exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Emanuel’s board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.

One of Emanuel’s fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel’s primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.

He was respected on the board for his understanding of “the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels,” Hartigan recalled. “I wouldn’t say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid.”

By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis.

In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac’s managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac’s industry reputation as “Steady Freddie,” a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac’s stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.

Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel’s day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.

During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel’s 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled “Political Risk Management” aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk’s initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.

Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel “can’t remember the meeting or topic” but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.

The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. “Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac’s board. He was very much supportive of housing,” said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.

Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel’s 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.

Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.

Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.

Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself “from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest.”

Obama to Directly Engage The Burmese Military Dictatorship

Military Dictatorship

Amazing, now we’re going to directly engage the military dictatorship in Burma. A regime that has kept the country’s duly elected Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi imprisoned since 1990, suppressed democracy, and is before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity.

But I guess all that does not matter to Barack Obama.

Oh, incidentally, Burma‘s foreign minister visited the White House earlier this week, although it was claimed he did not meet anyone from the Obama administration, well, that claim has been rubbished, isn’t it…

I shudder to think what would have happened had Obama been President when South Africa was still governed via the apartheid system…

Bloomberg

The U.S. will engage directly with the military leaders in Myanmar as sanctions alone haven’t been effective, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

The U.S. will be “moving in a direction of both engagement and continued sanctions,” Clinton told reporters at the United Nations in New York. “We believe that sanctions remain an important part of our policy.”

By themselves, sanctions “have not produced the results” the U.S. wanted, she said.

The U.S. is leading international calls for the military, which has ruled the country formerly known as Burma since 1962, to make progress toward democracy and has dismissed the junta’s plans to hold elections next year under a new constitution as an attempt to retain power.

Clinton’s announcement is in keeping with decisions made by President Barack Obama to engage diplomatically with U.S. foes including Iran and North Korea.

The U.S. will provide more specifics on the engagement shortly, Clinton said, adding that “engagement versus sanctions” is a “false choice.” The U.S. has imposed trade and financial sanctions on the junta.

Myanmar is facing a critical year in 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement after a meeting in New York of the Friends of Myanmar group that involved 11 foreign ministers, including Clinton.

“The first planned election in 20 years must be held in an inclusive and credible manner in order to advance the prospects for stability,” Ban said.

Prisoner Amnesty

Myanmar last week declared an amnesty for about 7,000 prisoners, a move Ban said fell “short of expectations.”

The military holds more than 2,000 political prisoners, including Buddhist monks, journalists and artists and has doubled the number of such detainees in the past two years, Human Rights Watch said in a report last week.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy, remains under house arrest. She has spent 13 in detention since the NLD won elections in 1990, a result the military rejected.

Myanmar’s junta triggered international condemnation last month when it extended her custody order for 18 months after convicting the opposition leader of violating the terms of her detention. Suu Kyi, 64, is appealing against her conviction.

Senator’s Visit

Senator Jim Webb became the first senior U.S. official to meet with junta leader Senior General Than Shwe when the Virginia Democrat visited Myanmar last month and secured the release of John Yettaw.

Yettaw was imprisoned for swimming to Suu Kyi’s lakeside home in the former capital, Yangon, a visit that prompted charges to be brought against the opposition leader.

The UN has called on the junta to open “genuine” talks with Suu Kyi and begin national reconciliation.

Ban and Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo, who also attended the meeting of the Friends of Myanmar, called for Suu Kyi’s release.

“Our engagement with Myanmar must take a longer term view beyond 2010,” Yeo said. “Singapore sees the army as being part of the problem, but also as a necessary part of the solution and in the end what’s required is a process of national reconciliation. It will take time.”

Singapore is part of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian nations, which includes Myanmar.

Was Obama Ignorant About Bill Ayers? Of Course Not…

Obama

For a man who is hell bent on showing his superior judgment to lead, it is very interesting how all of a sudden he claims (albeit through his surrogates) that he is a man who is unaware that his associates are domestic terrorists.
Yesterday, his mouthpiece, David Axelrod went on air to spew the following nonsense:

JIM ACOSTA: Now a college professor in Chicago, Ayers and Obama served together several years on a nonprofit board. And in 1995 Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama when the young community organizer was making his first run for the State Senate. At this point looking back, should he not have done that?

DAVID AXELROD: Well I mean, when he went, he certainly — he didn’t know the history.

ACOSTA: The Democratic nominee’s chief strategist David Axelrod maintains Obama at that time had no idea about Ayers’ violent past.

Wait, did he just say Obama did NOT know the History of Ayers?

If we are to believe Obama hack, Robert Gibbs, then we can assume Obama truly didn’t. Furthermore, we can also assume it is a “distraction”

ROBERTS: I just want to try to get to the heart of it so that people at home can understand. Our Jim Acosta talked with your senior strategist David Axelrod about this. In 1995 William Ayers held kind of a get to know you event at his place where he was introducing Barack Obama to the political culture there in Chicago when he was running for the state senate for the first time. David Axelrod said that at that meeting Senator Obama was not aware of Ayers’ radical background. Is that true?

GIBBS: Look, if that’s what David said, that is true. look, again, this is a relationship, excuse me, that Barack Obama has condemned the actions of Bill Ayers. This is somebody that “”The New York Times”” said Barack Obama’s not close to, and, again, John, this is a way of distracting the American people from what’s important. just in this more than’s paper John McCain’s campaign said if we talk about the economy, we lose. That’s why we’re seeing the type of dishonorable, dishonest, despicable smear campaign that you see right now with only four weeks to go in this election.

Well, it seems Obama would have had to be as clueless as a rock not to have known. Erick Erikson provides the following analysis:

At the height of this exposure, major media outlets were quoting Bill Ayers and pointing out his radical past.

What else happened in 1996 when the media was reminiscing about the Democratic Convention of 1968, and interviewing key players like Bill Ayers?

Bill Ayers held a fundraiser for Barack Obama.

And we’re really supposed to believe Obama did not know, by 1996, given all the major media coverage of the 1996 Democratic Convention going back to Chicago despite the 1968 riots — including local and national media interviews with Bill Ayers on the subject — that Obama did not know?

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Hotair has the coup de gras on this issue:

Ayers was hardly quiet about his life and his aspirations. He wrote a book about it in 2001. Chicago Magazine did a lengthy profile of him at the time, complete with pictures of Ayers standing on an American flag thrown on the ground in an alley. Nevertheless, Obama continued to work with Ayers at the Woods Fund and work together on public events. Either Obama liked what Ayers did, or he’s the most clueless politician to have ever reached the US Senate, and neither commends itself as a recommendation for a presidential candidate.