The Democrats can sit back and claim that they have no hand in this problem till they are blue in the face, but that still won’t absolve them of their involvement.  There is no doubt that this problem is deeply seeded, going back “at least a decade” as President Bush said in his speech at the end of last week.  Almost everyone has pointed out that the problem has come because of the housing crisis, and the fact that too many people simply cannot pay their mortgages.  The democrats have been vocal, blaming this problem on a lack of oversight in businessess like Freddie Mac and Fannie May.  But, the problem has not been a lack of oversight, but the requirements (imposed by the Carter and Clinton administrations) placed upon them.  You see, the democrats decided that it was not fair that only people who could actually pay for a house should be allowed to buy a house.  So, they forced financial institutions to make high risk loans to people who could not provide proof that they could pay the loan.  Freddie Mac and Fannie May then started buying up these loans to boost their own books, claiming that they held these great assets, when in fact the people paying on those assets weren’t going to be able to pay.

These bad loans are one of the main causes of the problem.  But, the problem has been compounded by the companies granting these loans going just as far as they can go (since they are trusting that they will be bailed out by the government).  There have been far too many loans that have been granted on Adjustible Rate terms that have skyrocked due to the current financial situations.  These companies allowed people to take out more money in loans than they can afford to pay–they buy more house than they can afford.  People have been enticed by “interest only loans”, where they don’t have to pay anything but the interest on a house for several years.  These, along with other poor lending/borrowing practices have ensured taht we end up where we are today.

So, what is the solution?  Let the market correct!  That sounds harsh, I am sure, but those who have been involved in these poor business practices don’t deserve to be bailed out.  The government needs to get out of the market, and let it run itself.  If that had been the case, companies that made decisions like those listed above would simply go out of business (and rightfully so) instead of standing in line to get bailed out by the government.  The government needs to stop placing requirements on lending companies that go against good business practices (like forcing companies to loan to low income families).  Let private investors step in and buy up the same faltering resources that the government will be bying out, and let them make the profit on them instead of the government.  Both parties claim that if this is successful they will see to it that the money gets back to the tax payers…yeah right.  When the markets rebound the government will be holding a huge amount of assets and make a huge amount of money which (if history is any indication with both parties) will simply fund more socialist programs.

Government, get out of our business!

For an interesting take on this bail out nonsense, check out Glenn Beck’s interview with Newt Gingrich from this morning...

I was saved from extensive analysis of the same ol’ same ol’ from Obama by a truly maverick pick for VP from John McCain.  After floating names like Ridge and Lieberman, I was afraid it was going to be a “safe” pick like Romney.  But, I am convinced that he has made the right pick to win in November.  Sarah Palin should secure two major demographics, which McCain may have been a bit weak in:  Women and Conservatives.  Palin seems to sure up the conservative side of the ticket, being staunchly anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, and very family oriented.  And, obviously, she is a woman.  Remember all the women who claimed that they were going to vote for Hillary because they would vote for a woman, regardless of her politics?  I guess we will see.  This pick certainly will appeal to the disgruntled Hillary supporters, who were already toying with the idea of voting for McCain.

Now to the Subject line of this post.  Can you imagine how Hillary is seeing her life pass before her eyes today?  Think about it.  McCain is most likely going to be a one term president (unless he can muster the physical strength of the likes of Ronald Reagan (though he can’t claim the conservative record)).  If they accomplish anything in the next 4 years, then Mrs. Palin will be on the 2012 ticket at the top of the Republican ticket.  Everything that Hillary wanted will be passed over, and fulfilled in another woman!

This pick certainly is an “in your face” pick against Obama.  He refused to pick Hillary, who got 18 MILLION VOTES in the primary.  I guess he thinks he can win without them!  Palin clearly appealed to the Hillary voters in her speech today, and I think the McCain/Palin ticket will certainly draw a substantial amount of the Hillary supporters.

I have not been thrilled with McCain at the top of the Republican ticket, but I am getting more comfortable with him.  It is starting to line up to be an interesting election!

Dear Boss,

I have enjoyed working here these past several years. You have paid me very well, given me benefits beyond belief. I have 3-4 months off per year and a pension plan that will pay my salary till the day I die and a health plan that most people can only dream about.

Despite this I plan to take the next 12-18 months to find a new position.

During this time I will show up for work when it is convenient. In addition I fully expect to draw my full salary and all the other perks associated with my current job.

Oh yeah, if my search for this new job proves fruitless, I will be back with no loss in pay or status. Before you say anything, remember that you have no choice in the matter. I can and will do this.

Sincerely, Every Senator or Congressman running for President.

——————————————————————————

Try that at your job and tell me how it works out.

The advertisement really summarizes some points that many on the right have been criticizing the Senator for lately. In recent weeks, Senator Obama has appeared to “flip-flop” positions on several occasions, leading to the criticisms from the right.

This particular advertisement focuses on a few key issues for voters:

• Gun control
• Campaign finance
• Free trade
• Withdrawal from Iraq

You can visit the organization’s website at http://www.bothwaysbarack.com and view their documentation for their claims.

These are important issues to Americans, and the voting public has the right to know what the Senator actually believes. I believe we had enough of Democratic flip-flopping with John Kerry, but it appears we’re going to get the same thing now with Senator Obama.

I know that gun control is a sensitive issue and highly important to most Americans. The Senator had made statements various times supporting the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; he also had other statements that he believed local/state governments should be allowed to make gun control decisions on their own. After the Supreme Court decision that ruled that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, Senator Obama said that he supported the decision. Which way is it Senator? Do you believe gun ownership can be suppressed? Or do you support the Second Amendment? We have a right to know!

The sources behind the other claims can be found on the aforementioned website. Feel free to check them out, and demand that Senator Obama tell us what he really believes before he is elected, or we may well be terrified to find out the truth after he is in office!

Rasmussen is now reporting that the approval rating of congress is in single digits at 9%.  That is a decline of 2 points since last month.  We are being assured that things are going to get so much better when Obama is elected, but when given the opportunity to do something with the power that they have, the democrats do absolutely nothing.  They constantly blame the president for standing in their way, but the truth is they have been miserable failures.  Nancy Pelosi has been atrocious in her leadership position, and Harry Reid is not much better!  Even the democrats rate the congress low!  That should tell them something.  They have certainly not done anything to deserve another term, but they will get it none the less.  I guess we will see just how low their approval rating goes.

I believe this all goes back to gas prices.  Paying over $4 per gallon for gas will make anyone get angry at the government.  Most people are blaming the Bush administration.  After all, he is a “big oil” guy, and that makes him pander to his oil cronies, right?  Wrong.  In 2000, when Bush took office, gasoline was about $1.52 per gallon.  4 years later, the average was $1.73 per gallon.  In 2006, when the democrats took over congress, the average price was $2.28.  However, after just a few months of the democrat policy change, the price of gas rose to $3.02.  That is a $.74 increase in a matter of months.  Under the republican congress and Bush administration, the price only rose $.76 in 6 YEARS!  Now, after 2 years of the Democrat led congress, the price is up to an average of $4.10.  That is an increase of $1.82 since the Dems took office in 2006.  I am amazed that so many people find a way to blame Bush when the factor that changed at the time that gas prices began to spike was the leadership and majority in the congress!

The extreme left can continue with the mantra that this is all Bush’s fault, but in the end the truth is being made known by the American people.  If they really thought it was all Bush’s fault, then Congress would not have a 9% approval rating!

First, the article points out that the oil industry has 90 million acres of leases in the gulf of Mexico.  Of that some 70 million acres are not producing oil.  The article also points out that the US produces about 8 million barrels of oil per day, and then consumes 21 million.  Now, I was never real good at math in school, but doing some quick calculations, I find that they have some 20 million acres of leases producing something less than 8 million barrels of oil per day.  I am also not in the oil industry, but I’m thinking that isn’t a real good production record.  So, the democrats want the oil companies to be forced to drill the remaining 90 million acres of leases at the same pitiful rate before letting them explore the possibilities more productive sites like ANWAR and the Atlantic coast.  Just to illustrate the socialistic viewpoint of the article, rather than the proper free market attitude, consider this quote:

Oil companies “should finish what’s on their plate before they go back in line,” said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

The same man, later in the article, agreed that oil companies were not just sitting on leases.  So, if they are not just “sitting on leases” and they are wanting more land, there must be a good reason.  The reason is that what they have under lease is not productive enough to drill at the current cost of equipment and laying pipelines.  The equipment itself is in high demand right now because of the high cost of oil–oil is being taken from everywhere it can be found and harvested.  That makes it economically infeasible to try to harvest from the deep water areas of the Gulf, where production has been average at best.  However, if the companies could drill closer to shore, along the Atlantic coast (you know, the same oil that the Chinese are going after!) then they would be able to produce more oil at more reasonable cost.

The same principle holds true in ANWAR.  They can get in and get the oil from a relatively small parcel of land, and produce up to 2 million barrels per day.  So, 8 million (or less) barrels per day from 20 million acres, or 2 million barrels per day from a couple of thousand acres.  Which sounds like the better plan to you?

This article also quotes “one democrat staffer” as a source.  I don’t know about you, but that is who I want to take my information from.  This “staffer” claimed that if the oil companies would drill the remaining 70 million acres that they have in lease, they would produce an additional 5 million barrels per day.  70 million acres, 5 million barrels.  That is even more pitiful production than what they already have.  So, they should spend all the money necessary to drill, and pipe that oil from the gulf of Mexico, and end up with a lower production rate than when they started.  Sounds like a brilliant strategy to me.  Sounds like a democrat strategy to me!  By the way, the oil companies have said that the estimates of this “staffer” are way too high.  So, it would be even worse than the projections above.

I am glad to hear that John McCain has come out in favor of lifting the bans on offshore drilling.  That will help to alleviate some of the problem if companies are actually allowed to go in there and get the oil.  That remains to be seen.  It is time for McCain to wise up and change his stance on ANWAR too.  He keeps claiming he is a rebel…now he has a chance to prove it.  After all, every other candidate continues to cower before the environmental lobbies.  He could buck the system and do the right thing for a change!

i support obama…..i also understand where you’re comming from feeling worried about the whole “right to bear arms” situation…..but really, IS that the most important thing right now? yes, it’s our right as americans, and some would say that gun control policies would only lead to the government then slashing away at other rights, but i don’t believe that would happen….when politicians support gun control, it’s because they believe it’s a way to make our country a safer place….their intentions aren’t those of oppression. and as i stated before, we have much bigger problems facing this country…not voting for someone who otherwise has very good policies, just because of their stance on one issue is illogical.

What this person does not seem to understand is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.  That means that politicians are not allowed to come along and decide that they “can make our nation a safer place” by getting rid of this right.  Could the same politician decide that taking away the freedom of speech (1st amendment) could make our country safer, and therefore get rid of it?  I think not, there would be wide spread outrage over such a move.  However, much of the country is satisfied with taking away the 2nd amendment on a whim.

I am amazed that someone would ever think that BO’s policies are good other than this.  I for one, find very little (if anything) that I can agree with BO on.  His policies for the future of this country will certainly bring change, but that change will not be good.  His idea is to turn as much over to government as humanly possible, after all the government knows better what is good for you than you do.  I for one don’t need the government taking over my health care, or taking more money from my paycheck to pay for all the entitlement programs that are on the democratic agenda.  We have far too many people wanting handouts rather than a hand up in this society, and BO and his policies will only exasperate the situation.

This person obviously has only swallowed the BO and democrat kool-aid.  Never has taking away guns made a society safer.  We can take the handgun ban in Washington D.C. as one example.  Only one time since the institution of the ban has the murder rate been lower than when it was instituted.  Seems to me that makes the plan a failure, as it was put in place to help cut the murder rate in the city.  And yet, proponents of the ban insist that it remain.  So, there is a whole city whose citizens cannot purchase a handgun to protect themselves–the whole point of the 2nd amendment!

Liberals will so easily allow the government to take away my rights, but they want to make sure that those detainees in Guantanamo Bay have their rights.   What seems to be the problem here?  I am a US citizen, and as such I have a right to keep and bear arms…I don’t think BO has the right to decide for me whether that is safe or not.  I will most definitely vote against candidates that campaign on taking away constitutional rights.  If you vote for them, then you had better start practicing keeping your mouth shut…your right to free speech just might be next!

Enter Senator McCain. Senator McCain publicly offered to accompany Senator Obama to Iraq to examine whether things were really as bad off as Senator Obama was saying.

That offer amounted to Senator McCain calling Senator Obama’s bluff. Senator Obama has not been to Iraq in more than two years, and yet he continues to talk about how unsuccessful the Bush policies have been. Senator McCain wanted to show Senator Obama that progress is indeed being made. Senator Obama refused.

In a speech Tuesday night, Senator Obama wanted to abandon talking about Iraq entirely. When he had free reign to spout off about a subject he actually knows little about, he was bold to challenge Republicans. When confronted by someone who is more than able to debate him on the issue (Senator McCain-a veteran), Senator Obama said that Senator McCain needs to spend more time talking about domestic issues and less time talking about Iraq.

How convenient, Senator Obama. Once again you’ve proved, despite your insufferable protests to the contrary, that you are just like every other politician. How dare Senator McCain actually challenge you??

Let’s take Obama for example. He bragged about how he was a Christian, and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Then the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright came to light. Turns out that Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s preacher for about 20 years, is incredibly racist. Obama is out claiming that he is the one who can unite not only the Democratic Party, but the whole country. And yet, he sat at the feet of a racist preacher for 20 years, listening to him spew his black power speech. Obama, in the meantime, claims that he didn’t know that Wright (his religious mentor earlier in the campaign) held these extremist beliefs.

Wright was forced, by the media publicity, to resign his post at the church. In steps a young new preacher, who Obama speaks highly of. In fact, he stated that he was only staying there because he liked the new, energetic preacher. The question then becomes, is he any better than Wright? And the answer is obviously a resounding, “No!” In his “Easter” sermon, almost immediately following Wright’s resignation, Otis Moss III preached a sermon entitled, “How to Handle a Public Lynching.” In the “sermon” (and I use that term very lightly) Moss compared the attacks on Wright to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That shows that either he has no real concept of the sacrifice of Christ, or else that he has no respect for it, or real religion in general.

As if all of this was not enough, just recently another religious mentor and friend of Barak Obama preached a “sermon” at Trinity United Church of Christ in which he ridiculed Hillary Clinton by name. Michael Pfleger, Roman Catholic priest, blasted Clinton as being racist, and thinking herself entitled to have the Democratic nomination. Here is a quote, as taken from Fox News:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’” he said.

“And then out of nowhere came, hey, I’m Barack Obama. And she said, ‘Oh ****, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.’” Those remarks were mockingly performed in a falsetto, and drew a standing ovation.

This is a man that is known as an activist in the Chicago area. Being an activist is not necessarily a bad thing, but this man has fraternized with others that are obviously divisive, rather than uniting. Consider this from CBS News:

Pfleger, known locally as a community activist and organizer, was arrested in June 2007 with the Rev. Jesse Jackson during a protest outside of a south suburban Chicago gun shop. The criminal trespass charges were later dropped.

He also has hosted Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, at St. Sabina and has called him “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”

There is something wrong with a man who calls Louis Farrakhan, a “gift from God”! How can we ever believe that this type of man could be a good influence on Obama?

It seems like Obama has now had his 3 strikes. He can continue to act as if he is oblivious to the beliefs and teachings of all of these men, but it is just not believable. Obama has associated with these men for years, and has most certainly accepted the “Christianity” that they are proclaiming. Again, I use that word very loosely, as the doctrine they teach has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a message of divisiveness, and hatred. That is exactly the kind of presidency that we will get out of Obama!

There cannot be two more drastic positions for how to deal with the Iraq War than the two expressed by McCain and Obama. McCain is convinced that we can actually win the war, and Obama is convinced that there isn’t anything in the world that we can do to win the war. He used to say that he, if elected, would begin pulling the troops out immediately. Of course, he was extremely naive when he was saying that, and has changed his position to say that he would start working toward getting the troops home. The bottom line is that he is ready to give up on Iraq, and pull out as soon as possible, regardless of what happens in the region when he pulls out.

McCain, on the other hand, actually believes that the military can win the war, given the proper resources. He will work more diligently to make sure that the troops have all that they need to be able to finish the objectives laid out for them.

We can argue all day about whether we should be in Iraq or not. That is a debate that has been going on since we went into Iraq in the first place. But, what we really need to realize is that we are there now…the time for that debate is over. How can we get out victoriously? It certainly is not going to be accomplished by pulling out before the work is done.

So, why won’t Barak visit Iraq, especially with McCain? Because he would see that there is progress being made, and that McCain is right about what needs to be done in Iraq. Obama has only been in Iraq one time, and that was 2 years ago, before the surge (which has been successful). What exactly might he be afraid of finding out? He might be afraid of finding out that McCain really can teach him a thing or two when it comes to military conflicts!

I have already made it clear in previous posts that I am not thrilled about McCain as a president, but I think when it comes to national security, and specifically the war in Iraq, he will do a much better job than Obama. Obama wants to sit down and talk with the dictators of the world “without preconditions”, but he will first cut the military down to an incredible low (something like when Bill Clinton was president). He wants to throw out the name of Ronald Reagan, like his policy is similar to Reagan’s, when in fact it could not be more different. Obama is not ready to deal with the issues that are looming on the horizon in the area of national security. He is far too inexperienced to be able to be successful in these areas!