Monday, September 29, 2008

Obama "Truth Squads" in Missouri

This is the most scary thing I've heard yet! If Obama gets elected, it may be the beginning of our downward slide of freedom of speach in this country. Of course, we know he's an attorney and therefore can find ways to get around the law. He has asked lawmakers and prosecutors in Missouri to join a "truth squad" that will "target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad" about him. Prosecutors "plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics law."

In other words, those poor Missourians can't make a mistake when talking about him without being afraid they'll be arrested? Big brother is watching.

Is Obama so thin-skinned he can't take a little jab in his side from the Republicans? He can't rebut these ads? Instead, he has to resort to threatening? What a whimp!

Something feels really creepy or "wrong" about this. Could it be our intuition that this man is up to no good? Names swirl in my head: Stalin, Hitler, Castro.

Obviously, we have some friends who feel the same way about Mr. Shadey. They've put up videos about the "truth squad" for all to see.

As George Washington said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." So, the 50% who favor him are going to take the rest of us down with them. Like sheep to the slaughter...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iStZAbf47FA

Friday, September 26, 2008

The McCain and Obama Debate in the corporate world...

Last night, I watched the debate between McCain and Obama. On the left, a man with years of experience. On the right, a man who talks as smoothly as the commentators who speak about him. How would they both fair if they were in private industry? Who would get hired for the job?

Have you ever hired anyone? What did you look for? Did you look for a person who is charismatic, personable, educated, and has great ideas? Or, did you look for a person who has experience, who has delt with the types of problems you’re facing, who has a proven track record your can depend on?

If we were hiring Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama for a position in a company, here's what we would find:

Mr. Obama comes in, shakes hands, sits down, smiles broadly and is very friendly. His resume shows he has gone to an Ivy League College. Very impressive! He’s worked in the community for a non-profit organization, then worked a short time in two positions related to your type of business. He’s an up and coming young man and well-liked.

He starts the interview by telling you he has great ideas for your company. He promises to improve it by offering new products your customers can't do without. He'll have to add departments, of course, and hire more people in order to grow your business, but it will be great.

You tell him the employees are unhappy because some of them don’t have a healthcare plan. You’d like to be able to offer it to everyone. What would he do? No problem, he says. Why not bring healthcare in-house? You can afford it. Of course, you’ll have to hire more personnel: doctors, office staff, healthcare facilities, etc. You’ll need to pay the hospitals and pay for prescription drugs, but people will want to work for your company because you offer this great benefit.

The thought of running your own healthcare is scary. You ask him about the expense. How can you afford it? I’ve got an answer for that, he says. No problem. He'll just raise the price of your merchandise for a small percentage of your customers, only 5% of them. You know, the ones who currently put at least 60% of your profits on your books? The "best" customers. They won’t notice it. It’ll be painless.

You wonder about this. Will they be mad? After all, the smallest group is already paying the greatest percentage. They help you keep the costs low for the smaller companies you deal with. Will they cut down on purchasing your product, or pass the increased cost onto their customers, or maybe leave your company? You try to think of the implications. They aren’t a popular group. Everyone hates them because they’re the most cash flush. Still, it’s something to consider.

You talk about one of your biggest expenses; the cost of energy. It’s cutting into your profit margin. You are seeing a drastic increase in transporting goods and running your factories. What can he do about it? Mr. Obama suggests an alternative energy source. A clean source. You realize that’s a good idea to cut down on pollution. Yet, you’re still using gas. Hmm. When will this new energy source be available? You’re hurting now. And, the energy costs are still rising.

You deal with many foreign countries. In fact, you have factories in some of these countries. You ask Mr. Obama’s strategy for dealing with difficult customers. How would he handle them? How would he keep your employees safe? He tells you he would negotiate with the difficult customers directly. Sit down at the table with them and talk it out. You’re a little distrustful of this technique. You know these guys. Some of them are dangerous and corrupt. But, maybe he’s right.

So, how would he keep your factories and employees safe while they’re in some of these corrupt countries? Well, he would ensure that there’s adequate protection. He guarantees you he could handle it. You’re not sure of his experience with this type of challenge, but you believe him.

You wonder how he does in a crisis situation. You ask the question: If you were out of town on a important sales call and there was a crisis in the company, what would you do? Mr. Obama says he can multi-task. Just give him a call. He can do two things at once.

You shake hands, impressed with Mr. Obama. It was a great interview. He threw out a lot of ideas that seemed possible. He seemed to have a handle on everything.

Next, Mr. McCain walks in. He’s confident, friendly, seems to have a quiet, calm personality. He begins by telling you about his experience with these troubling countries you have to deal with. He’s dealt with them all. In fact, he’s been to all of them. He knows how they think. He was held captive in one of the worst of them for five years. When he got out, he made sure that all the other employees in that violent, corrupt country were released. He successfully negotiated with the same people who had held him captive, who had tortured him. You are quite impressed. In fact, you are amazed that he got out alive, yet was determined and brave enough to return to get his employees out safely.

You change the subject. What about the factory and employees here? What are your ideas? He tells you he knows your company is in trouble. There’s too much spending going on in some areas and some employees are taking advantage of the company. You unhappily know this. Everytime you hire a new employee to fix the problem, he says he’s going to fix it, then becomes part of the problem. You feel helpless.

Mr. McCain explains that he has a long history of battling this type of abuse and will make sure it’s stopped. He hates abuse of power, stealing and wasteful spending.You hear the commitment and forcefulness in his voice. You can see his track record on his resume. There’s a long list. He’s even taken on some of his friends, he tells you. You feel excited at the possibility that someone might finally be able to do something about this problem. He seems like an independent thinker.

But, he’s also concerned about the employees, he says. He’ll make sure, by cutting the fat that’s not needed, by curbing overspending and reining in the abusers, he’ll make the company more profitable and financially secure. That would be great, you think. You'd be able to pay off some of the huge debt you've racked up.

With this cost cutting, Mr. McCain says, he'll be able to offer your employees a large discount on healthcare, so that all of them can afford it. He won’t have to hire new office staff and doctors, or pay for their healthcare or drugs directly. The idea makes you think this may be the solution. This plan would save you money over the in-house healthcare plan proposed by Mr. Obama and the employees could choose who they want to cover them. Plus, there won’t be any threat of mismanagement, fraud, or abuse this way.

You bring up the cost of energy. It’s draining the company. How can he help? He smiles. He knows there’s a problem. The solution is a multi-pronged attack. First, he will make sure the company has enough oil to survive and thrive until eco-friendly alternatives are produced. With more oil, the costs will be kept down. He suggests that the oil be produced here, rather than buying it from foreign companies, some of whom are not our friends. That way, the billions spent in oil will stay here.

Mr. McCain also suggests the cleanest energy possible. Used safely and successfully in France and other European countries; it’s nuclear energy. It's one of the most inexpensive energies to produce and will keep the expenses down, too. And, when new eco-friendly products are finally developed, tested and brought to market, you can slowly convert to them, phasing out oil while minimizing your expenses to re-fit your factories. It is a plan that takes us from today into the future.

He goes on to discuss your customers, the lifeblood of your company. Slowly, you have been losing them and have had to lay off employees because of it. You don’t want to lose any more customers. It’s hurting the company. First, Mr. McCain lets you know that he'll keep the cost of your products the same. It wouldn’t be a good business decision to increase the cost of your product when you’re competing with cheaper, foreign companies.

Mr. McCain says he will be able to offer a price cut, a discount, for the few who purchase the majority of your products; the 5% who make up 60% of your profits. That way, they'll stay with you and won't go with your rivals in China and India. Your price cut will enable them to hire more employees and you’ll be able to keep yours. In fact, these companies may do more business with you and you'll need to add employees. You think about this. Why punish the companies who pay the majority of your profits? It doesn’t make sense.You like his suggestion.

You ask the "crisis" question: If you were out of town on a special sales call and there was a crisis in the company, what would you do? Mr. McCain tells you he would make arrangements with the client to meet at another time and would fly right home to help with the crisis. You are comforted by this. He’s given you the right answer.

You ponder your interviews. You're impressed with both men. You’re on the fence, actually. It’s almost 50-50.

Mr. Obama’s ideas sound exciting. Maybe he can accomplish all of them without raising expenses. You call his references. They tell you he was a wonderful community leader. He worked hard and accomplished much.

His other former employer says the same thing. But there’s a problem with his current employer. They tell you he spent more money than expected, millions in fact. And, some of the money went to companies and clients who had done favors for him. You’re not happy with that. Isn’t that what you’re trying to fix? Overspending and cronyism?

And, there are some questions about one of his first employers, a Mr. Ayers. He was in trouble with the law. Also, there’s a friend who helped him get up the corporate ladder, a Mr. Rezko. He wound up in jail on federal corruption charges. You are shocked at the news. Mr. Obama seemed so trustworthy. Maybe it’s just a coincidence.

Mr. McCain has a long list of references. You give them a call. They tell you he has a proven track record of success and years of experience dealing with difficult problems. He's shown through action that he’s true to his word. He's honest, sincere and does what he says he's going to do. He gets things done. He doesn't back down when the going gets rough. He doesn't follow the crowd, but thinks for himself. There are no shady business dealings.

You ponder your dilemma. You really liked Mr. Obama. He was charismatic. But, Mr. McCain has the experience, the results, the integrity. You make your decision. You know who’s the best man for the job. You call Mr. McCain and offer him the job.

Is This The Perfect Storm?

My father was a little boy during the Great Depression. He said his family did okay because they lived conservatively and worked hard. My grandfather was a roofer and my grandmother made candies. They had a two-family house and rented the upstairs. Their furniture was utilitarian. They grew their own vegetables and, sometimes, meat. They got through it.

Now, America is in another economic catastrophe caused by it's own making. While it was speculation in stocks in 1929, now it's derivative speculation and sub-prime loans. But, people in stocks are seeing their savings fade away. Eerily similar...

While the other countries of the world are calmly observing, or maybe laughing to themselves, this will affect them, too. America is firmly rooted in almost every country in the world. Whether it's the exports from China, the customer service in India, or simply support for small nations like Georgia, it will all go out the window.

At this point, I don't see a way out of this. Something bad is coming. The house of cards is much bigger than it was in 1929. $700 billion is just a drop in the bucket and helps only a small number of banks. As I write, lending has essentially stopped; the grease that keeps our economy running. The dollar is dropping. Housing prices are dropping. All of our assets are being de-valued.

While Congress wants us to approve of a staggering $700 billion bill due to the sub-prime/derivative market fiasco, Americans are hunkering down. They are not spending and neither are the companies they work for. As this situation gets worse and companies cannot get money for their line of credit accounts, they won't be able to pay their creditors, and finally, they won't be able to pay their employees. This may take three months or more, but it will happen if banks do not begin to lend again. At the least, the lending rate will be elevated and the higher rate will be paid for on the backs of the consumer.

Next, we have the energy crisis. Our Democrats do not believe we should drill for oil. The result: higher gas prices. It's begun again. Due to Ike, we have gas shortages down South. Our reserves are down. Our oil refineries are temporarily closed. Every aspect of our economy will be affected by the gas shortage. People will struggle to make ends meet as we again see prices go through the roof.

I am angry because this economic fiasco was created in Congress. They are not qualified to make complex decisions. They are politicians, not economists. This morning, watching C-Span, I saw a Senator ask a Fannie Mae expert what made up Fannie Mae's assets. That said it all. Duh! Um, mortgages, Senator? There you have it.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Shock! Congressional Dems allow drilling ban to expire!

Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put a 290 page energy bill through the House banning offshore oil drilling where it counts - between 3 and 50 miles offshore where 95% of the oil and gas resides. It was killed, however, and the Dems allowed the 25 year drilling ban to expire. Score one for the good guys.

I guess she was too busy with the bail out to dedicate much time to getting it passed in the Senate. Plus, Bush promised to veto it. Maybe she's waiting for the election. If Obama gets in, it's probably a shoe in. If McCain gets in, with Palin's help (I hope), a bill banning offshore drilling will get vetoed.

The next few years, folks, will see if America can right itself or sink into the abyss. Right now, it's people with common sense against the wackos.

Why do I say that? Because, although we all want to see alternative energy begin it's journey to prominence in the USA, it's going to take a long, long time. Longer than 10 years.

Everything has a cost environmentally. Right now the ideal car is solar powered with a windmill on top. But, it will also need to run on electricity sometimes (cloudy and no wind), then become nuclear if driven over 50 miles. See? No solutions yet. All alternative cars are in the infancy stages.

Doing anything quickly is usually a mistake. (I hope I'm wrong about the $700 billion they're giving away.) And, that's what the Dems are pushing. Cut off gas and start replacing it with alternative energy sources. But, it's not that simple. Many Americans simply don't have the money to re-equip their homes and cars to environmentally friendly energy sources.

No, Americans will be using gas for years. The problem is, if the Dems cut off drilling, the cost will break us. We have to drill to supply ourselves. Enough with relying on other countries. Drill, drill, drill!

The United States needs something tangible to make itself strong again. White collar jobs aren't doing the trick. Industry is the key to strength and we need it back. We don't need to make toys or clothes. Leave that to China. We need to make energy.

Imagine the number of jobs that could be created drilling for gas and oil and by developing, building and installing wind, hydrogen, hydroelectric, nuclear, and solar products. So, what are we waiting for?

The United States of America was a prosperous, industrious nation. It can rise out of the ashes. It has it's people, the hardest working people on earth (and don't contradict me).

The only thing we need now, is a Congress smart enough to know it, too.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Truth: Bush's Trail of Warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

This info is just too important to miss. According to glennbeck.com, President Bush repeatedly warned about the problems with Fannie and Freddie. But, if you read our propaganda media, that never happened. This melt down has repeatedly been blamed on Bush (or the Republicans) to throw the stink off the Democratically-controlled Congress. Anyone with half a brain should know that this problem is not as simple as one man's fault.

Like I blogged previously about Fannie & Freddie, sub-prime loans were pushed by the Democrats and Clinton approved the bill to package sub-prime loans to institutional investors. That started the ball rolling.

Two Republicans, Sen. Phil Gramm, and Congressman James Leach, were part of the problem, too. Their bill kept the derivatives market unregulated. But, wait, read on: Their bill, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, was a bipartisan bill and passed the Senate 90-8-1-1. Sen. John McCain was reported absent during the roll call and was recorded as Not Voting. The House passed 362-57-15 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. (Info from wikipedia.com)

Sound entirely like the Republicans' fault? Not!

Now, on to Glenn's article about Bush's repeated warnings:

White House warned about Fannie and Freddie
September 23, 2008 - 0:49 ET

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
(White House Press Release)

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/15484/

THERE YOU HAVE IT. CONGRESS CHOSE TO IGNORE THE ESCALATING THREAT OF COLLAPSE OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

Monday, September 22, 2008

If it was 1775, I'd be picking up my musket...

I'm not a violent person. In fact, I can't remember ever spanking my youngest son. I had learned it hurt me more than him with my oldest. But, the American public's complacency is making me more and more agitated. I feel like there's about to be a fight at hand.

I suppose some of it is the media. Just watching NBC, ABC, CBS or MSNBC fills me with ire. Their reporting is so skewed to the left that I constantly feel like I am facing an uphill battle. I'm at the bottom of the hill and they're at the top.

I have to laugh, though. The left thinks they are the rebels. After all, they have William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn on their side. They almost blew up the Pentagon. Barack Obama was a friend of Ayers. He worked for him. Cool, man.

What the left doesn't know, however, is that we on the right are truly the rebels. We stand for what the original rebels of this great country stood for. Not complacency. Not mindless control. Not dependence or suppression or compliance. No. We are the rebels. We are the "cool" ones. We are the ones willing to think for ourselves, to stand up and say "no" to government control, to aspire for independence. We have bravery on our side. We are brave in the face of adversity and fight for what is wrong. We do not retreat like the left when the going gets rough. We do not scream obscenities or mock or deride. We are better than that.

Truly, the left are cowards. It's cowardly to bomb a building and possibly murder the innocent within. It's cowardly to leave a war you began without ensuring the people's safety. It is cowardly to rely on the government for your well being. That's not a rebel. That's a follower.

Newt Gingrich criticizes President Bush

I love these rebels. First McCain, now Gingrich criticizes what's been going on in Washington. Let's face it. These past eight years the Republicans in office sold us out. That's why there's a Democratically led Congress just waiting to get Sen. Obama into office.

Conservatives have been in a twilight zone of disbelief as Bush approved every bill passed his way in order to negotiate with the Democrats. What a disgrace to see him pass the Medicare Prescription Drug law and not have the nerve to tell the American people we couldn't afford it.

In order to appease the Democrats, he chose not to fight. He allowed them to bully him into dropping a Fannie and Freddie reform bill that would have cracked down on risky lending practices. Senator John McCain was one of the three co-sponsors of this bill. He truly is a man who goes against the cronyism and corruption.

All of America has been hurt by the Republicans' lack of leadership. God Bless John McCain. A true American hero. A man who stands by his principles and never waivers. After you've been in a Hanoi prison for five and a half years, it truly gives you the character to never give up your beliefs!

The Truth about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

A great article about When, How and Who caused this debacle to happen. This article tells the truth. No cover up, no fluff, no lies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

The Idiocy in Congress and The New Energy Bill


The more I read or hear about Congress' decisions, Democrats and Republicans, the more I have come to believe they have no right to be our representatives. They deal with complex issues they know nothing about, then make the wrong decisions. They think with their party, rather than carefully looking into the effects of their new laws. They overlook the responsibility of staying within budget. They start new programs without money to offset it. They give away money to foreign countries that do not have our best interests at heart. They misappropriate funds with nary a blink. They use their office for their own gain; whether through campaign funding, or passing pork for themselves, friends or family. They ignore escalating problems, which they have recently done in the energy crisis, bad lending practices, or cost of health care.

Equally disturbing is the closed door meetings, the cronyism, the deceptive practices that disable the other party from contributing to these decisions. Nancy Pelosi and crew wrote a 290 page energy bill in private, released it the night before it was to be voted upon (at 9:45 pm), and expected a vote the next morning without anyone in the House being able to carefully review it. Our representatives are out of control with their dirty and downright unlawful abuse of power. This is unacceptable and has to stop!

It is the responsibility of our Congress to keep people safe, whether from another country or a predatory company. They have failed over and over to keep us safe from companies who prey on us. They are influenced by lobbyists to the point that they put the public's good on the back burner.

Still, we continue to forgive them. We believe that the next President, the next Senator, the next Congressman, will save us from themselves. We believe they will do what is right and make the American public their priority.

Then, we again hear of their own self-interests taking precedence over their constituents and we are again disappointed.

The latest shock, besides the bail out, were the recent arguments against drilling for oil in the United States by the Dems. Supposedly proponents of the poor, they wish to drive up the price of gas in order to force their hand. A hand that is driven by a minority called the Sierra Club, the green party, who wants other forms of energy.

According to "the hill.com," the House just passed an energy bill by 236 to 189:

"The 290-page energy bill, assembled behind closed doors in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office, put nearly all House Democrats on record supporting some offshore drilling.

The bill also included language to end tax breaks for oil companies and authorized the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The House bill does not include any effort to expand nuclear power.

But the most notable feature of the bill was the section that allows states to decide whether to have drilling off their coastlines. The bill would still ban it between three miles and 50 miles. (Note: 95% of the oil resources are between 0 and 50 miles from the shore.)

In her speech on the floor, Pelosi said the change came as a result of President Bush’s decision to lift the moratorium on drilling in the OCS, which would allow oil companies to drill three miles offshore. Pelosi characterized the legislation as an attempt to protect the shoreline.

While putting the decision in the hands of the coastal states, it offers little or no incentive for states to allow the drilling beyond the idea that they would share in any reduction in gasoline prices and perhaps gain some industrial operations.

In the heated debate that stretched across the day from the House floor to press conferences, Democrats accused Republicans of being beholden to oil companies, while Republicans in return charged Democrats with drafting a “sham” bill that does not really open resources.

“‘Drill now, drill here, drill only’ is a slogan, not a cure,” said Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.).

Natural Resources Committee ranking member Don Young (R-Alaska) said, “You can get more energy out of this bill if you took all of the copies of the bill and put it in a bonfire.”

“A bill gets filed at 9:45 the night before and then it’s announced it’s going to come to the floor the next morning as the first bill up, a bill that no one has read, written in the dark of night that won’t do a damn thing about American energy,” Boehner said. “Enough is enough!”

He added, “It’s rigged. And the bill that’s coming to the floor is nothing more than hoax on the American people and they will not buy it.”

Although the bill passed the House, it still faces challenges in the Senate. The question of cutting states in on the potential $2.6 trillion in revenue emerged as a major point of contention. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) one of the Democrats shepherding the bill through the House, said he expects the upper chamber to cut the states in on the $2.6 trillion windfall in royalties.

The bill would also end a congressional moratorium blocking the Department of Interior from starting a leasing program for oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, giving those state governments the right to decide whether to authorize a leasing agreement."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-energy-bill-passes-2008-09-16.html

So, if this bill passes the Senate, we will be in worse shape then when this gas crisis started. By removing tax breaks for the oil companies, the companies will raise their prices to offset the additional cost. With no incentives for the states to allow drilling, they won't want to drill. And, there will be no nuclear power incentives.

In the meantime, gas prices will be higher. People who are struggling to fill their cars with gas to get to work will struggle even more. The cost of everything will skyrocket due to the expense of transportation. Companies will feel the effects of the consumer restricting their spending and employees will be laid off. The economy will not prosper. Again, Congress is simply not capable of making complex laws that affect the economy. They are not qualified.

Congress has an opportunity to make us a stronger, energy independent country. They have the opportunity to bring new jobs to this country related to energy. Instead, they are suppressing our prosperity, our freedom to travel, our spending, our very security as a nation.

Shame on Pelosi and everyone who passes this bill. Once again, they have disappointed us with their incompetence.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Universal Health Care or Americans Are Getting Lazy


America has the highest health care costs in the world. Why? Health insurance. Plain and simple.

Beginning in the 1980's, the rise of for-profit health insurance companies began. We saw health insurance costs slowly begin to rise, then escalate at an alarming pace. In the meantime, the health insurance companies were raking in the dough and giving their senior officers enormous sums of money. The zenith to this insanity, I believe, was the $1 billion in stock options to the CEO of United Health Care. Excessive. Ridiculous. Shameful.

Knowing that most Americans had health insurance, the drug companies, doctors and hospitals began to charge more for health care. They got greedy, too. And, let's not forget the government's support of anyone and everyone getting treatment at hospitals, even if the person has no insurance and/or is not a citizen of the USA. They add to the problem because they walk away without paying for anything.

Sen. Obama has suggested we go with his plan or the Federal Health Insurance Plan. At first blush, we think "Yeah. That's what I want. The same great plan offered to federal employees." Well. The federal employees are offered a variety of health plans with premiums ranging from $329. to $1,115 a month. You heard it - that's monthly. Their employee, the government (in other words - us), pays some of the premium, so the employee pays around $85 to $402 a month, depending on the health plan.

Now, here's the rub. We would pay the full premium because we are not government employees. Some of us might be lucky, their employer may help pay some of the cost. Maybe the government would offset some of the cost based on income. Who knows. But, health insurance would be required. You'd have no choice. Instead of going to the health care companies, large sums of our money would be deducted from our paychecks every week to go to the federal government. Think of the billions that would be coming in to the Fed. Scary.

But Universal Health Care, at least the plan that's been discussed, is not the answer. I've heard nothing of reducing the cost of health care. Instead, it's all about the government taking over our choice. Our choice to choose the plan we want. Our choice not to have health care if we don't want it. Our choice is our freedom.

We know our representatives in Washington have proven time and again that they are irresponsible with money. They have raided our social security until it's bankrupt. They never funded the new medicare prescription drug plan put in effect a few years ago. Didn't anyone wonder how we were going to pay for it? Well, we are now $53 trillion in the hole for social security and medicaid/medicare. Imagine what Washington will do when the billions start to come in for health insurance. They will spend it on everything else.

Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee. Our representatives are not looking out for our best interest. If they were, they would have nipped the escalating cost of health care in the bud. They have the authority. They have the power. They should have taken control to stem these rising costs. But, no, they did nothing.

Here's what Congress should do:

- Institute legislation to make all health care companies non-profit organizations with limited profits. Profits will be put back into their health fund for the future year.

- Set the maximum premiums allowed, according to the plan.

- Regulate and limit the cost of malpractice insurance. You have a better chance of being injured in a car accident than by a doctor's negligence. Car insurance may provide you with $100,000 worth of coverage. That's all you'll get. It should be similar with malpractice insurance.

- Regulate the fees charged by doctors and hospitals to ensure that the public is not being overcharged.

- Regulate the cost of drugs priced by the drug companies and the cost of medical equipment to hospitals and doctors.

I know these are radical ideas. The idea of regulating health care seems suppressive and socialistic, but this is one industry that has got out of control. The only other alternative would be to get rid of insurance entirely, but that's not the answer.

I'm sure we can think of a number of good ideas that warrant looking at on health care. Certainly we should make sure that all Americans are covered, and possibly base health premiums on income, but we DO NOT need universal health care. The costs are too great that we will see sub-par health care, long lines, less quality, cronyism and corruption, and misappropriation of our health care funds.

Don't be taken in by the sweet sounds of universal health care. Ask our reps. for help in curtailing the cost of health care, but don't give them the authority to take it over.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Obama Tries To Stall Troop Withdrawal

According to Amir Taheri, in the New York Post, " WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence." (The exact opposite of what he is telling the American public!)

"According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that American troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law. "

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January."

What does this say about Obama? What are his motives, really, if he is willing to stall troop withdrawal for his own gain?

If he is willing to lie about this, what else is there that he's keeping from us?

Sen. Obama's Equal Pay for Equal Work

I understand that Sen. Obama would like to see women receive as much money for their position as men. Sounds great. I can vouch for women making less than men. I've been there, done that.

As a bank Vice President and manager of the largest branch in the bank, I was discriminated against. I had more responsibilities than other branches. We held over $500 million in bank deposits, more than some banks. We had more employees and customers. We were in charge of cash coming into and out of the bank. We had the responsibility of hundreds of ATMs, and took in millions of dollars from credit unions and other financial institutions out of state. We were responsible for the rent on all safe deposits for all the branches. On top of that, I was given the responsibility of area manager of three other branches.

I know I was well thought of in my company. When the bank decided on changing the way teller's process their work, I saw the weakness of the proposed system and told them. I was given the opportunity to help convert the bank's teller system based on my recommendations. We interviewed vendors, I developed and wrote the procedures, trained bank staff, and worked on the conversion. It went off without a hitch.

When we merged with another bank, again I was pulled off my duties and worked on the merger for two years. Again, the teller conversion went off without any problems. I can't say the same for other areas of the bank. Some of them took months to fix the mess from the merger. I again was pulled to work on a merger with a bank in Pennsylvania. Again, the merger of the teller procedures was flawless.

I was rewarded with a nice bonus, but ironically lost my position as area manager when the former Senior Vice President (Mr. S) of a bank we merged with came in above me. I understand these things. I can play in the sandbox with others. I accepted it.

Mr. S was then in charge of about ten branches, including mine. He wrote our reviews. Every time we had annual reviews, he would give me a competent review and a minimal raise. His former employees, all men, would always receive a commendable review and with it, a better raise. This went on for five years until Mr. S retired.

Was I discriminated against? I believe so.

Now. On to Senator Obama's promise of equal pay for equal work. For women, this sounds enticing. Women consistently do not get paid the same wage as a man in an equivalent job. According to womensmedia.com, women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn. It's not that they are not deserving of equal pay, it's simply that they are being discriminated against.

Obama promotes "Equal pay for equal work!" He would like us to believe that there is nothing we can do as individuals to combat this discrimination. No, we are helpless. Helpless like little kittens. We need the government's help to ensure that we are paid the same as everyone else.

Imagine, for a minute, what Sen. Obama's promise of equal pay for equal work would be like. Big Brother will be watching our every move. If you hire someone, even though their qualifications are not the same as another employee, you will have to pay them the same salary. If you are a worker with more experience or expertise, it won't matter, your fellow employee deserves to make as much as you. If you work harder, if you do more work, sorry, it won't matter. If you have perfect attendance and your fellow comrade calls in sick all the time, stop complaining, it won't matter.

Doesn't this smack just a little bit of communism? And, the U.S.S.R.? Wasn't everyone guaranteed equal pay for equal work? The government controlled all industry, all companies. Everyone was treated equally. Everyone was treated the same. The workers morale was in the basement. Their motivation was non-existent. Why should they try? Excellent workers were paid the same as mediocre workers.

This equal pay for equal work doesn't hold water. There are just too many variables involved. But Obama would have us believe that this is a wonderful idea.

The federal government has already given us an avenue to handle discrimination. It's called the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate on wages provided to employees on the basis of sex.

If you feel you have been discriminated against, take action. There's a website that will help you below. And, if that doesn't work, hire an attorney. But, please, please, do not be deceived by the pretty words of "equal pay for equal work." It's not the answer.

http://www.wageproject.org/content/scenarios/pay.php

The Mortgage Crisis and Obama's connection

I cringe when I hear some of the news media talk about the mortgage meltdown. In the media's ignorance, the blame has been put on a variety of U.S. Presidents: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and now, Presidential candidate, John McCain. Of course, Senator Obama is relishing in the meltdown while he blames Senator McCain and the "good old boys." He hasn't been in Congress long enough to be tied to this mess.

Let's inject some truth into what is happening with this mortgage crisis. Early in my career in banking, I took mortgage applications. At the time, the government restricted the rate of interest on mortgages through the usury law. Only fixed rates were offered and the going rate for conventional mortgages was 8.5% and slightly less for FHA and VA mortgages. The minimum amount of downpayment you needed was 20% for a conventional mortgage and around 3% for an FHA and VA mortgages. Your income could be no more than 28% of the Principal, Interest and Taxes for a conventional loan. That means if your mortgage was going to be $1,000, you had to make $3,571 a month, or $42,857 a year. FHA and VA mortgages were slightly more complex in their calculations and flexibility, but essentially they were similar.

Mortgages were not easy. The underwriter received written verification of the borrower's income and savings. You had to have money to buy a home. You had to have a job and to be in that job for at least two years. You could be declined if you had bad credit. And if you had one late on a credit card or loan, you had to provide a legitimate reason why you were late.

The banks complained, however, that they could not make enough money on mortgages due to the fixed rates. After all, they were paying 5.5% on savings accounts. And, they didn't want to hold mortgages on their books forever. So, the Fed got rid of the 8.5% ursury law and allowed banks to offer variable interest rates and mortgages with less of a downpayment through Private Mortgage Insurance companies. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy these mortgages from the banks. The banks packaged the loans, sold them and made a small profit on the sale.

At that time, citizens groups, then the government, started to pressure banks to free up more mortgage money for poor neighborhoods. They said banks were intentionally "redlining", or not investing in certain areas. In other words, they were discriminating against minorities and the poor.

Congress and activist groups continued to encourage the banks to lend more freely. The Community Reinvestment Act was born in 1977. As time went on, lending practices became more liberal. If people couldn't qualify for a loan due to income, the percentage of allowable income was increased. If they didn't have any money for a downpayment, then they could have zero downpayment loans. Some mortgages didn't need any income verification. They took your word for it. Bad credit? You could still get a mortgage, just at a higher rate.

The mortgage companies, of course, were in the market of selling mortgages. They had no incentive to properly qualify people. The broker's primary goal was to get the commission and fee from selling the loan and get out.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon, of course. Easy money brings on the sharks. It was a feeding frenzy. People who really didn't have the qualifications to purchase a home because they didn't have the proper income or money were invited to the party. Speculators began to buy properties, fix them up, and turn them around. Some speculators didn't even fix up properties. They just held the property for a little while and sold it when the housing prices would jump.

Like all bubbles, it burst. It was the "perfect storm." People who had bought homes at the height of the frenzy walked away from the home because it was worth less than the mortgage. People who had stupidly taken a mortgage at a "teaser" rate, had the rate change and couldn't pay the mortgage. Speculators had no incentive to hold the house because no one was buying and walked away. There was no reason to fight for the home - they had no money invested in it.

Banks and investment houses who bought up these mortgages, of course, began to see them default. Fannie and Freddie, who were in major trouble anyway, went belly up. Why should the CEO's care? They had made their millions. They had sucked the companies dry.

Congress, who encouraged this fiasco in the first place, now has bailed out Fannie and Freddie and will continue to prop up this market.

The secret, however, is how big the mortgage crisis is. It has toppled Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, possibly Washington Mutual and Morgan Stanley. Who is next? I don't get it.

So, who is really responsible for this mess? Who can we put the blame on? In 1995, the Clinton Administration's revision of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) substantially increased the number and amount of loans to low-and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans containing subprime mortgages. Bear Stearns started the first public securitization of CRA loans in 1997.

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended moving the government's supervision of Freddie and Fannie to a new agency within the Department of the Treasury. This failed to happen as the Democrats opposed it. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed that Fannie and Freddie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis, that people were exaggerating the problems, and the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

Sen. Obama has not escaped his connection from Fannie and Freddie (F & F), however. The top three U.S. senators getting political bucks from F & F were Democrats. Sen. Dodd was first with $165,400 and Sen. Obama was second with $126,349. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

I suppose we should not be surprised. The Dems have been "in bed" with F & F for some time. Clinton's House Budget Director Branklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Justice Department official, worked for Fannie and made $26 million. Jim Johnson, on Obama's VP search committiee, made millions in his Fannie CEO job.

To make matters worse, the CEO's of F & F were cooking the books. They inflated earnings in order to make everything seem just peachy keen.

But, the Republicans are not entirely unscathed by the F & F debacle, either. Since 1989, according to opensecrets.org, F & F contributed a whopping $4.8 million to our politicans - both Democrats and Republicans. Over nineteen years, Sen. McCain received $21,550 from F & F, not good, but quite a bit less than Obama as a first term Senator.

How stupid for Sen. Obama to try to push the stench of the Democrat's connection to F & F onto the Republicans, particularly Sen. McCain. The American public will find out the truth.

In only his first term as Senator, he's already waist deep in you-know-what with the F & F fiasco. I have serious doubts about a man who has almost no track record in federal government, yet has demonstrated a complete lack of common sense and moral judgment by being in bed with one of the most incredible spectacles of greed, deception and corruption of our time.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Truth? You can't handle the truth! A $53 trillion dollar debt.

On a regular basis, Americans are at war with their Congressional representatives. Innocently, we expect them to maintain the standards they are sworn to, to support the Constitution of the United States, and to wisely use their office to serve their constituents.

Unfortunately, they continually disappoint us. Like Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men, our Congress has deluded themselves and us. They hide the truth from us, and from themselves, in a vain attempt to make us feel better.

But, we know better. Everyone knows our country is in trouble. Currently the problem is fixable, but like AIG or Lehman Brothers, our country is seriously overdrawn in the checkbook.

Do you ever have that feeling of fear deep in the pit of your stomach when someone tells you the truth? I have. I've had it several times. I had it the day my uncle called me to tell me my mom had died. I had it the day my husband called me at work to tell me he had a tumor the size of his football hidden between his organs. Well, I have that fear right now for our country. Although we are hearing bits and pieces, we are not hearing the whole story.

Life throws us some curves, doesn't it? And right now, life is throwing the United States some curves. The reason people are grasping onto their Presidential candidate like a drowning person to a lifeline is because they know something's wrong. Congress is ignoring their one digit approval rating and going about business as usual. They will not acknowledge that they and their predecessors have been "cooking the books" of the United Sates for some time. Like people with too many credit cards who don't have any money left in their savings accounts, they are charging like crazy. It's easier to deny, deny, deny, than to address it.

This past year, the Fed has been bailing out various large corporations who made bad business decisions due to their stupidity and greed. The obvious ones are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. The Fed has also been lending money to various mortgage brokers, banks and investment houses.

You'd think that everything is right with the world, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. According to agorafinancial.com, on May 22nd, the Federal Reserve handed out $46 billion to U.S. Investment Banks in exchange for unwanted mortgage and asset-backed securities. And some of these big brokerages have dumped around $160 billion of these securities on the Fed since March. Then, the Fed doled out another $75 billion in short-term loans to banks. Before this past week, illiquid collateralized debt obligations totalled in excess of 20% of the collateral backing Federal Reserve Notes.

Then, yesterday, to stem the inevitable, the Fed loaned $80 billion to AIG. Did they check the financial statements of AIG? Did they make sure that AIG could pay back this loan at some future date? Or, did they just keep a lousy, insolvent company in business for a little while longer while the CEO continues to make his millions?

The Fed knows something, or thinks it knows something. It thinks that in order to keep the United States from going belly up it must shore up these corporations. It is doing a dangerous balancing act trying to keep the scales from tipping.

Last night on Glenn Beck, Glenn said the total amount of write-downs announced so far was $200 billion. The entire U.S. economy is $14.1 trillion. The approximate size of our bill for Social Security and Medicare is $53 trillion (that's according to the General Accounting Office of the U.S.). Imagine. This doesn't include any other part of government and already we are way out of our league in debt.

From 2000 to 2005, the federal debt went from $20 trillion to $46 trillion and is increasing exponentially. Glenn goes on to state, "former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker tries a different tactic. He writes that our unfunded promises translate into "an IOU of around $455,000 per American household."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

Pardon me. I don't know about you, but I don't have the kind of money on me. Check your pockets, please. You got some change for the Fed?

In the meantime, it's business as usual in Washington. Our representatives are walking around with their heads in the clouds and blaming each other for who knows what. Presidential hopeful Senator Obama wants universal health care, a tax decrease for 95% of us, and a civilian work force greater than the military. Candidates are arguing about absurdness rather than speaking responsibly about our greatest threat; the demise of the United State of America if we don't address our debt immediately.

To get us back on track is going to take a lot of work on the part of the American people. We need to force this issue. We need to write to our Congressman, Senators and the Presidential candidates. In order to keep our country going, to maintain our way of life, our ideals, our hopes and dreams, we need to address this issue now, not later. Now!

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Gosh, darn it all! I am proud to be a Christian!

I am not one to throw my religious beliefs on others. In fact, I am highly personal about my beliefs. I am a Methodist. Methodists are rather stodgy, reserved, and quiet. You will not see them shouting hallelujahs at the minister or dancing in the aisles. It's hard enough to get them to clap after a rousing gospel from the choir, or to shake hands with someone seated next to them in the pew.

No. We are not the type of Christian who pushes their beliefs down your throat, although I know our leaders would like us to be more outgoing about inviting people to church.

One thing I really like about being a Methodist is, they don't judge. They allow you to have your view. They don't condemn anything. In fact, it's been brought up in bible study that perhaps all religions have one God, and when the day comes, we will all be part of God's new world. I have to admit, though, that's not my belief, but I could be wrong.

Methodists are also tolerant. They don't denounce people because of their downfalls. In fact, our minister's daughter had a child out of wedlock. Our minister handled it with grace and wisdom, much like Gov. Palin. The congregation didn't throw them out into the street. We all have our crosses to bear, right? And, our previous minister admitted to having an affair, and was accepted by the church anyway. Like it says in the bible, judge not lest ye be judged. And, love thy neighbor as you love yourself. If only all Christians would follow Christ's words, his instructions to us.

But, that's not why I'm writing tonight. I'm writing because there's a disturbing trend in this country to write off people with Christian beliefs. More and more the media treats Christians as crazy loons, as clowns. Since Gov. Palin has come to the forefront, we have seen some nasty things said about her relating to her beliefs. The funny thing is, these people don't know what she believes, they just assume.

Matt Damon, whom I will now forever boycott, said, "I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, that's an important...I want to know that. I really do. Because she's going to have the nuclear codes. I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. Or if she banned books or tried to ban books. We can't have that."

And, then there is ABC's Charles Gibson's interview with Palin as he misquotes and misinterprets her as she speaks to fellow members of her old church.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1

The current hatred towards Christians is scary, and also irritating. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is the moral compass with which we have led this great nation. And, now, it is become something to mock and denounce.

Funny, I would never think to denounce Shirley McClain, or Oprah Winfrey, or Tom Cruise, or Madonna, or the other myriad "stars" for their beliefs. Or, to spew hatred for their preferred candidate into their ear. There are an estimated 224 million Christians in the United States. I wonder how many are offended as me at the media's disrepect for our right to our religious beliefs.

I hope they will show it at the polls...
I

Earmarks, Earmarks, Earmarks. Oink, Oink, Oink!


Perhaps the easiest way to identify the politician for CHANGE is to view his stance on earmarks, or as we affectionately say between our tightly gritted teeth, pork barrel spending. We know, that in recent years, politicians have been lining their pockets with our money in ever expanding billions. If they were in private industry, it would be considered embezzlement.

While the country is in financial difficulty, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to put a moratorium on earmarks? But, no, it hasn't stopped some of our politicians from spending. Instead, they have become blatant in their total disregard for our deficit troubles, or for their ethics, as they rape our federal government into bankruptcy.

This problem is not strictly Republican or Democrat. We all know that. It is a problem of both parties and it continues to escalate. When McCain said this government is in trouble he is speaking from knowledge and experience. He has tried to stem this gross abuse of power by the Senate.

What is absolutely mind blowing, is our elected officials attempts to keep these earmarks secret. Obviously, they know that spending the peoples' money on frivolous pork is wrong, yet they continue to do it and will stop at nothing to hide their bad habit, as if addicted to it.

According to CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste), Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), has recently attempted to give earmarks contained in committee reports the force of law, even though President Bush specifically directed Congress against this.

"On January 29, 2008, President Bush issued an Executive Order instructing government agencies not to fund any earmarks contained in report language, or based on any non-statutory source, such as phone calls from members of Congress."

"In a brazen attempt to gut the executive order, Sen. Levin inserted a provision (Section 1002) into the defense reauthorization bill that would incorporate the earmarks listed in the committee report into the statute itself, making the earmarks “a requirement in law. The earmarks would be “binding on agency heads in the same manner and to the same extent” as if they were written into the bill. "

What does this mean? That earmarks will be easier to hide and will be difficult to eliminate. "It will prevent open debate and votes on earmarks and reduce transparency and accountability. The “incorporation” language sets a precedent for other fiscal year 2009 legislation. If it is not removed from the bill, it would demonstrate that the Democratic leadership of Congress has no intent of ever getting earmarks under control."

"The earmarks in S. 3001 total $5.9 billion, and include the following: $6.5 million for expandable light air mobility shelters, $5 million for a hydrokinetic power, and $2 million for thin film amorphous solar arrays. While earmarks generally are a waste of tax dollars, they are most outrageous when included in a bill that is intended to defend the national security of the United States."
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11600

So, let's put the record straight. According to the CAGW, for 2008, John McCain has ZERO, yes, that's zero, zip, nada, niente, NO EARMARKS.

Barack Obama has $97.4 million and Biden has $119.7 million.

How funny (ha ha), and woefully ignorant, that the media is bringing up the "Bridge to Nowhere." It appears Obama's and Biden's earmarks for 2008 total $217.1 million, or pretty close to the $223 million for the bridge.

Yes, this "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark has again sparked controversy. Although it was granted to Gov. Palin's home state of Alaska, she had nothing to do with it. According to the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge."

On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

“Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,” said Schatz (CCAGW President Tom Schatz). The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.”
(http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/24/cochran-pork/)

So, there we have it. CHANGE. We need to elect someone who has a proven track record of change in government.

Which one of the candidates doesn't play by the rules of the "good ole boys"? Which one will work to alter the irresponsible spending and curb the abuse of power going on in Congress? There is only one guy that I know who is committed to change, who has a track record of change, and I hope you know, too.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Reason Why Women Hate Sarah

For the life of me, I was having a difficult time with the utter hatred spewing from the mouths of some of these women about Sarah Palin. Even Gloria Steinem got into the act, and last night the media showed Pamela Anderson saying something they bleeped out, but essentially was "She can suck it!" Of course, some of these people can be immediately discounted. I mean, who can take anything Pamela Anderson says seriously. She's not exactly the smartest fox in the bush. She's had at least five boob jobs and must like to get abused as she has married and divorced three incredibly disfunctional and screwed up men.

So, let's get back to Gloria. Speaking to Clinton supporters, Steinem wrote: "To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs." WHAT? Steinem's lost it. Next, "This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me." So, I guess Gloria has told us. If we don't believe what she says, we are wrong. God has sent down Gloria to tell us what is right and wrong, folks. She must be the angel for Messiah Obama.

But, really, can you imagine any of this coming from the right side? I don't think so. They accepted that Clinton was a serious candidate who needed to be taken seriously. I don't remember anyone in the conservative media spewing hatred about her. No. This hatred smacks of jealousy, enraged jealousy, by the left. Perhaps all those women who were in those nasty, little cliches in high school have grown up into little carbon copies of Steinem.

So, suck it, Steinem. The girls on the right have won out over the girls on the left. You are enraged with the green monster of jealousy and you can't take it. Yes, that's what it is. We're better than you! We've won! YOU have the chauvinist pigs on your side, Steinem. NOT US!! Nyah. Nyah. Nyah!

Friday, September 12, 2008

Can we become energy independent in ten years?

It still amazes me that the Democrats and other so called "environmentalists" are resisting drilling for oil. I keep hearing "let them eat cake" when I think of it! No one is bucking alternative energy sources. Yes, we need to become energy independent. We all agree on that. However, there are 67 million cars that run on gas in the United States. Now, include every other gas powered vehicle, machine, ship, motor, etc. Does anyone really expect that we can become oil independent in ten years? They are sadly fooling themselves. We are many years from becoming independent on gas. Unfortunately, Congress' refusal to drill on American soil will end up hurting the very same people the Democrats/Liberals constantly insist they are helping. Many Americans cannot afford to spend $10,000, let alone $40,000 or more for a new car that will use hydrogen (which is currently made from fossil fuel), or batteries. They may keep their cars for fifteen, twenty years, or longer. What happens to these people as gas prices continue to rise over the next few years? You see, these are wonderful ideals that we all aspire to, to become independent on oil, but at this point it is not feasible for millions of Americans. We have to drill for oil to maintain the price of gas, to lower our dependence, and increase our security in a hostile world. Next, we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that weans us from our dependence on oil, and lastly, we can then faze out gas powered vehicles, motors, etc. We are in the "baby" stages. Let's do it right, and responsibly, and not hurt our fellow Americans in the process.

Can We Trust Obama?

After years of listening to politicians promise a wide variety of things which fail to materialize, I am very skeptical of Mr. Obama's new opinions on military strength. What a shock to hear Obama go on and on during his acceptance speech about military strength, our commitment to a successful Iraq and Afghanastan, the addition of more military personnel, his promise to fund weapons technology. First, these new views are in direct opposition to his actual views on the military. Obama hates the military. He doesn't believe in extra military personnel or funding weapons technology. Only months ago, he was in direct opposition to the war in Iraq and vowed to immediately withdraw troops when he became President. See his YouTube video if you have any doubts on his opinion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

This smacks vaguely of his twenty years of dedication to a racist church. As the media continued to press, Obama turned around and denied his minister, someone he greatly admired. Going to church about twice a month (as he said on Bill O'Reilly's interview with a smile on his lips), he never, ever heard Rev. Wright say anything derogatory about white people or the United States. Yeah. Sure.

If we can believe that history repeats itself, then we can expect that Obama's true motives will win out. He will hurriedly get us out of Iraq at the expense of the Iraqi people's safety. He will cut military funding to pay for some of his socialistic ideas such as a "civilian security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. He will dismantle nuclear weapons and "negotiate" with Russia for peace. He will cut funding for weapons that could secure our safety. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Listening to the people cheering and clapping for Obama as he promises a civilian security force will bring chills down your spine. No wonder some people compare him to Hitler. Listen up, everyone. We are heading down a slippery slope. How stupid can we get?

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Stop knocking Sarah

I read an article recently, "What was McCain thinking?" by Froma Harrop, Syndicated Columnist. I was in disbelief. First, because it was such a shoddy piece of journalism and second, because she is so out of touch. How ironic that the "liberal" side of the media is seething with obvious jealousy and drooling with vindictiveness because the Republicans were the first to elect a woman for Vice President. I have only seen this kind of catty, vicious, hatred spewed in the halls of high school from girls who love to put down and harrass others to hide their own shortcomings.

But, it doesn’t stop there. Instead, the media has been reduced to slandering Palin’s daughter because she is pregnant. Shame on Harrop for dragging a young woman through the mud; calling her "defiant and stupid while she held mom’s fifth baby." I sure didn’t see it that way. I saw a seventeen year old who held her head up to support her mother. I saw her lovingly hold her brother, who has down’s syndrome. Harrop’s friend asks, "Don’t they have birth control up in Alaska?" Give me a break. Do you really think she didn’t know about birth control? She would have to be locked in a cellar not to know about birth control. Don’t be stupid, Ms. Harrop. Amazingly, kids tell other kids. Parents tell kids. Television tells kids. The word gets out. Weren’t you a teenager once, Harrop? Sex and birth control are about as secret as your political leanings. People make mistakes.

Harrop then goes on about Terri Schiavo and the disgusting people who actually wanted to make sure that, indeed, Terri was in a vegetative state. If I remember, her husband was living with another woman with whom he had a child. Maybe he needed the insurance money. Wouldn’t you want someone to make sure before they pulled the plug?

And, Harrop brought up evolutionary science. As far as I’m concerned, my ancestors are not monkeys, however, yours may be, Harrop. And, until there’s definitive proof, I’m going to keep my options open until they can prove, unequivocally, that I came from a primordial soup. Harrop says "we (conservatives?) are a small slice of the electorate" and "while some religious conservatives may be ‘energized’ by the Palin pick, most everyone else is revolted." I think poor Ms. Harrop will be unpleasantly surprised when they do the final count on election eve.

Americans are smart, although reading Harrop’s article would lead you to believe otherwise. They don’t care about Palin’s daughter, they care about the person and the issues. They want a strong Vice President. They want someone who will change the corruption in Congress. They want someone who will lead the fight to amend lobby, fundraising, and earmark laws. They want someone who has shown a record of taking on self-interested, corrupt politicians and bloated federal bureaucracy. They want someone who will drill for oil while other alternative methods are produced and put together a comprehensive energy plan. They want someone who will fight to lower health care expenses without adding more people to an incompetent medicare system that pays out billions each year in fraudulent claims.

Harrop mentions that Palin reeled in $27 million in federal pork (she hasn’t pursued pork in eight years.) In the meantime, in 2007, Pelosi herself sponsored a $25 million earmark for a waterfront redevelopment project near several properties her husband owned. Now, that’s an ethics issue in itself.

And, in 2008, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, the Democratic-led Congress, the sponsors of "change", "enacted 106 bills; 89% were to name government buildings or lands, extend or make technical corrections to existing laws, or passed by unanimous consent or with less than 10 dissenting votes." Essentially, they did almost nothing.

Change? Show me someone who has sponsored change. I seem to recall that John McCain is one and Sarah Palin is another. Ask the American people again why they want Sarah Palin. She is someone who has proven, through experience and action, not just words, that she will fight to make a change in Washington. And, I hope against hope, with these two, that it will finally happen.