Obama's Universal Voluntary Public Service

Al Gore spoke recently to the National Youth Scholars in Washington DC during the inauguration festivities for Barack Obama. The audience included 3,000 children - our best and the brightest - including 12 year old fourth graders from across America. His message was frightening. Please tell me this doesn't send a chill up your spine?

Gore: "Parents try to tell their kids the right thing, you know, usually. I do."

Gore: "There are some things about our world that you know that older people don't know."

What do you think Al Gore was talking about? Yes, this was out of context in a lesson he was giving on the Civil Rights movement and his suggestion that while children were being taught to understand how prejudice was wrong, many parents didn't get it until the laws were changed. I could put the whole context here, but those two quotes above accurately express that underlying message he was making to the audience.

Was Gore telling these children to ignore their parents and believe others? Maybe to believe their teachers over their parents? Or perhaps government? Was he saying that their parents can be, and are often wrong? Is he saying that a 12 year old fourth grader, properly taught by our public schools, and correctly informed of crises like Climate Change or the need for redistribution and collectivism principles should stand up to the beliefs, knowledge, reason, and experience of their parents?

Here is how Glenn Beck reacted to it this morning:

Beck: "I'm trying to think where else this has been done. Soviet Russia, Nazi, Germany, Mussolini's Italy. In fact, the Nazis took an extra step. Not only did they indoctrinate the kids and tell them you're probably right, you know but your parents don't; in fact, here's the next step: Why don't you tell us what your parents are telling you. Are we having the new Hitler youth? Is that what this is? The new Hitler youth? I'm sorry, that's so politically incorrect. The new green guard. Man your station, 12-year-olds, your parents just don't know."

Now consider President Obama's calls for a civilian security force in America funded equally to that of the military, and how Gore's urging of children to ignore the reason of their parents would play into that agenda. Is Beck onto something?

At Wesleyan University not too long ago, Obama urged graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others. But to serve who?

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don't. Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition."

Obama then brought it all together. "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

And what would this Obama "security force" do exactly? Something like an ACORN for youth? Promoting the ideals of the left using any methods available?

Last July at the University of Colorado Obama said, "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."

Yes, he said, "we will direct"! That will be direction on the priorities of government - Obama government.

Obama's stated plan is to "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

And what if they refuse to serve? Will this "voluntary" service be a condition for graduation? How many of your children now are already required to perform community service to graduate Junior High or High School? Your kids get to choose today what that service is, but not whether they have to perform it or not, right? What will you do when the type of service is directed by government? What would you do if your government demanded your children to serve in such a way that you objected, but your kids were taught to ignore your objections for some greater good?

First test of Obama voters

So here we are, on the verge of the largest spending bill in the history of the United States. A 647-page list of Democrat pet-projects and handouts that will add a $1.2 trillion directly to the national debt ($825 billion plus life-time interest payments on it) at a time when there will be no increases in revenue to pay of any of it.

It is being called a Stimulus Bill, focused on jump-starting our economy. It has been written by Democrat leaders and the Obama White House, with nothing but an opportunity for Republicans to sit in a room with the president and criticize its myriad of pork-laden social-engineering and hand-outs. Many of you voted for Obama because of hope and change. And while I know your desire for change and hope for improvement of the economy is genuine, I now ask that you consider what is in this bill, and if you conclude that this is not the appropriate use of money intended to stimulate the economy, that you will immediately call on the president, this agent of change away from the earmarks, pork, and wasteful spending of the past, to veto this disaster full of liberal social spending and engineering.

Here is a summary of some of what we know is in this "Stimulus" bill.

* $335 million to prevent Sexually Transmitted Desease
* $4.19 billion for vote fraud organizations like ACORN, the Dems private "turn out the Democrat vote" machine
* $1 billion for the failing Amtrak system that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies
* $50 million for "job creation"??
* $400 million for the National Endowment of the Arts
* $400 million for Global Warming research (I thought this was settled?)
* $2.4 billion for technologies to capture Carbon from the environment
* $650 million for digital TV converter boxes
* $8 billion for renewable energy
* $20 billion in business tax cuts that will likely not be used
* $6 billion for more mass transit
* $600 million for the government to buy new cars
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings
* $150 for the Smithsonian
* $83 billion to people who don't pay any income taxes - those 40% of taxpayers who pay no income tax
* $81 billion for Medicaid - covert expansion of government health care
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $54 billion to government programs that the GAO and Congressional Budget Office classify as "ineffective" or unable to pass financial audits
* $66 billion for education, but earmarked to prohibit its use on private elementary or secondary schools
* Just $30 billion for fixing bridges and other highway projects
* Just $40 billion for worthwhile projects, such as broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects


According to the Wall Street Journal, just $90 billion of the $825 billion bill can actually be considered as stimulus for the economy. But we all know now, don't we, that any stimulus is just coincidental to the real intend of this bill, which is to spend a grotesque amount of money on pet Democrat programs?

Consider this. With $825 billion, every taxpayer in America could get a check for $6,500 to spend however they wish. How would that stimulate the economy? With interest, this bill will cost every American family $10,520 according to the Heritage Foundation.

But seriously, are any of you Obama voters outraged at the "politics as usual" that has returned to pork-laden spending bills in DC? Does anyone believe this is a economic stimulus bill, or is it really a government growth stimulus bill? Shocked at the lie of change that isn't change at all? Will any of you hold Obama accountable when he fails to veto this bill once Democrats ram it through the House and Senate?

The House just passed this right down party lines, with virtually no review or debate on its myriad of pork spending, 244 - 188.

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS DEBACLE. Welcome to "change".

Policies of "change" of the Messiah

Three days into the new administration and the first actual actions by the Messiah are now more than simply words of hope and change.

His first action was to sign an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within 12 months. This decision was made despite a Pentagon briefing that 61 enemy combatants held and released from Guantanamo have reentered the War on Terror against the civilized world, and just as information was made public that Said Ali al-Shihri, suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, is now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch. Al-Shihri was once held and released from Guantanamo into the custody of the Saudi government, under pressure from Democrats and their liberal base to prevent this government from holding enemy combatants. This first action also was made with no plan whatsoever to where the prisoners currently held in Guantanamo will go once this high-security facility outside the United States is closed. Consider the false, but repeated charges against Bush of no exit strategy in Iraq? Bush has won that war, if Obama doesn't screw it up, and exit from Iraq is being calculated in months now, and not the decades that Democrats falsely charged in the campaign. So where is Obama's exit strategy once Guantanamo is closed? Does an exit strategy matter now to his supporters, or is that a standard only applied to Bush?

The next priority of Obama has been apparently to respond to the pro-abortion forces that were among his greatest election allies. Today Obama is to sign another Executive Order that will authorize use of taxpayer money, with our without our consent, to fund training and execution of abortions overseas. In simpler terms, without congressional action, the Messiah has approved the use of my tax dollars and yours to terminate the lives of unborn human beings. No vote. No debate. Just the signature of the new agent of change and hope. I would argue that the killing of unborn children offers those children little hope, unless of course an unborn child can hope to be killed?

So just three days into a new administration we have some real actions that will result in real change. The first real actions anyone can probably cite from Obama? A prison to hold the worst of America's enemies in the War on Terror will be closed with no plan to deal with these terrorists, and pro-abortion advocates are being handed taxpayer money to promote their destruction of life worldwide.

Have pro-life, pro-national security citizens of the United States given Obama sufficient time to "make the change we can believe in"? For this American, these acts alone have ended the honeymoon.

Does your income double every 10 years?

Washington State Government spending is out of control. But that is nothing new for a government that's been dominated by Democrats for decades. I decided I wanted to understand just how quickly Democrats are exploding this government, and while you'd think that this data would be easily found on the web, it wasn't.

So for your consideration is the growth, or bloat, of this state's spending habits back to 1983. In advance I'll tell you it works out to an average biennial increase of 14.3%, or roughly 7.2% growth every year. That means a doubling of government spending every 10 years.

In Washington, the 2008 budget was 5.3 times the size of the budget in 1983. The numbers below reflect total Washington State Spending. The includes operating and capital funds both within the General Fund (unrestricted) and restricted funds the Legislature can't touch.

Biennium	Spending	Increase
	(Billions)
1983-1985	$12.96
1985-1987	15.02	15.90%
1987-1989	17.18	14.38%
1989-1991	21.41	24.62%
1991-1993	23.99	12.05%
1993-1995	29.55	23.18%
1995-1997	34.1	15.40%
1997-1999	39.4	15.54%
1999-2001	44.54	13.05%
2001-2003	49.53	11.20%
2003-2005	53.46	7.93%
2005-2007	60.52	13.21%
2007-2009	69.18	14.31%

Now if spending is doubling every 10 years, what do you think your taxes are doing every 10 years? Is your income keeping pace? Mine isn't.

How does it feel watching your nation implode?

Sorry for another rant, but these are remarkable times.

Liberals destroyed the credit markets and the banking system by undermining them with Fannie and Freddie. Their unions have destroyed Detroit and the auto industry by forcing uncompetitive salaries, benefits and pensions. Uncompetitive CAFE standards from Democrats in Congress have forced Detroit to build inferior cars that people don't want to buy, while Democrats continue to prevent America from pursuing energy independence with domestic drilling bans and pursuit of currently unattainable alternatives, all the while promoting fear and doom with their Climate Change con, even as temperatures cool and normal cyclical patterns are evident, and science dismisses the CO2 scare with known science and historical realities.

Every industry under the sun, and every Democrat government is now lining up at the trough for a handout, including even the porn industry (not to be confused with sick governments that profit selling death-sticks, alcoholic beverages, and from destroying people addicted to gambling schemes reserved for government lotteries and native American casinos).

Bush put moderating the misery of our economic troubles ahead of letting the economy crash and burn completely, by starting up the printing presses and throwing fiscal constraint and free market capitalism to the winds. But not before he was blamed for the liberals' mess and a socialist was elected to the presidency.

Now the printing presses are being geared up to be put into "trillion here and trillion there" mode so Obama, the socialists and the liberals throughout government can buy the votes to hold onto power until our economy does literally crash and burn. And it's becoming increasingly likely that Obama's new foreign policy strategy of isolation and appeasement to Iran, North Korea, China and Venezuela will get us into a good old-fashioned World War in time to hide the real cause of our total economic collapse that is coming as the direct result of liberal fiscal and foreign policy insanity.

And all the while the Pravda media gushes over the Messiah, ignores and spins the corruption and policy dangers throughout the Democrat Party, and acts as the Democrats' PR machine.

Yeah, it's an interesting time, eerily paralleling the 1930s on the eve of a decade back then of unparalleled loss of life throughout the world.

I hope I'm wrong. But one thing about being conservative is the tendency to put reality, reason, and logic above irrational belief, ignorance and unjustified optimism.

Even in crisis Gregoire can't cut a budget

For the last 4 years, Chris Gregoire and her Democrat allies in Washington have been on a spending spree. Such a spree that the biennial budget for 2007-2008 was $15 billion higher than the biennial budget of 2003-2004 that Gregoire built her first budget on. Yes, $15 billion of growth in 4 years! That is a 29.39% increase in state spending.

Now facing a $5-$7 billion deficit, Gregoire has sharpened her pencil to cut the budget, and she's holding - for now - to her "no tax" election pledge. She's already getting sued by state unions for her "drastic" cuts, and Democrats in the Legislature are already screaming. The curious thing is that Gregoire's proposed budget isn't a dime smaller than the 2007-2008 budget. It actually increases the biennial budget by over $200 million a year.

No doubt most Democrats couldn't care less about fiscal sanity, as long as they get their share of other people's money. But at some point the folks who pay the taxes that Democrats spend are going to say "no more". Then what will Democrats do?

REALITY CHECK: GREED

Liberals like to call the Bush years the Decade of Greed. By their thinking, people getting educated and working to achieve the American Dream makes them greedy if they choose to use their wealth to improve their lives and the lives of their children and family. Generally the result of education, hard work, and taking risks, the opportunity to earn more is the incentive that grows business, creates jobs, generates more taxes, and helps our economy grow. But let's talk about real greed. That would be the greed of the Obama years should he win on November 4.

The definition of the word, "greed" is simply; "the excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves." Consider all the arguments that could be spawned by this definition of greed?

Let's start with the first part; "the excessive desire for more than one needs." Who decides what is more than one needs? Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to decide. Yes, Obama and the socialists in Congress will define what is appropriate or acceptable. And as they do, so they will suppress the incentive that has made the American economy the most productive economy in the world, and America the leader of the world. Barack Obama will know what is too much, and if you dare to pursue something that one of Obama's constituency can't afford, watch out, because Obama will see to it that you can't afford it either, or he'll punish you for the right to spend your money where you wish.

But how about the second part of the definition of greed; "the excessive desire for more than one deserves." Who is going to decide what someone deserves? Yes, Obama and the socialists in Congress again. Barack and the Democrats in Congress will decide whether you deserve the fruits of your own labor, or whether the fruits of your labor should be taken from you and given to that unemployed high school dropout who refuses to seek out additional education or training.

Not to leave all the blame with the socialists in the Democrat Party; who will have given them the power to take from some to give to others? Yes, the people who vote for Obama will be the ultimate cause of the coming age of American socialism. And what is motivating a huge percentage of them? Yes, it is pure greed.

They are the portion of America that already pays little or nothing to make government work. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less then 3% of all the income taxes. Their retirement payroll deductions, often cited by the left as taxes they do pay, doesn't begin to cover the costs of their Social Security or Medicare either. They are the ones buying into Obama's class warfare argument and the socialist promise of sharing the wealth. They are just fine with the idea of being given other people's money. Therefore, it is many of the Obama supporters, that in general, demand more than they need, and certainly more than they deserve.

The left can call the Bush years the decade of greed, but if you really want to label a decade, or a group of Americans as greedy, there can be no more obvious group of Americans than supporters of Obama, or Democrats in general, who couldn't care less about any of Obama's or the Democrat's advertised policies, except one. They are waiting for their check from the government. Yes, that check paid for with other people's money.

For those paying attention, the real Decade of Greed has just begun, coinciding with the Age of Obama Socialism that could be ushered in on November 4. But it doesn't have to happen. Joe Biden tried to tie patriotism to paying more taxes, even though the targeted top 5% of taxpayers already pay more than 60% of all the income taxes. But for those that pay little or no income taxes, wouldn't it be a truly patriotic act to say no to class warfare and income redistribution? Wouldn't the real patriotic act be for those with less to take responsibility for themselves and refuse to bought with other people's money?

Saying a loud "NO" to socialism would be the most patriotic thing any American could do on November 4.

Election day will be the real defining moment for America. On November 4 we will all know whether we are a nation of patriots, or a nation driven by the greed of those at the bottom of our society's income scale.

New video on challenge to Obama's eligibility to be president

Why is Berg trying to obtain the vaulted long-form birth certificate for Barack Obama?

The original images posted on the Internet released by the Obama campaign were highly suspicious, pulled, and discredited. Recently, FactCheck.org, which is funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $160 million school reform effort funded by and approved by, among others, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, from 1995 until the end of 2001, posted an article claiming that they had been given access to the "short-form" birth certificate created, issued, and stamped in June 2007 by the Department of Health in Hawaii and held on file with the Obama campaign. That report is here:

It does seem like quite a coincidence that of all the investigative sources across the country, that this website, funded directly by Obama's actions with the Annenberg Foundation, is the one that has obtained, examined, and posted the conclusions related to their investigation. It is also less than comforting that the certificate was physically produced just over a year ago, albeit stamped by a government employee working within a Democrat-run administration. If the certificate is genuine, then it attests to the fact that in June 2007, when it was produced, that the Hawaii database listed Obama as born in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is this glaring shortcoming of the short-form, though, that appears to have led Berg in his lawsuit to request a certified copy of the original "vaulted" "long-form" birth certificate that the state is required by law to have on file. That form would be the original paper form produced immediately after Obama's birth in 1961, and not a newly printed certificate based on data that could easily have been manipulated within the DOH's records database.

This from the FactCheck article:

"The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."

Note that FactCheck doesn't describe the real difference between the short and long-form documents, other than the info in them. But the long-form document is the paper form filled out at the time of birth. It is not created by printing information out of a modern database. FactCheck didn't think its readers needed to really understand the difference.

So why doesn't the Hawaii DOH offer a copy of the long-form birth certificate? Because all the data in the long-form is not included in the database? No. You can't print out a copy of the original long-form from a database unless it was scanned into it and stored in an image document type, like a PDF of JPG. But once you've scanned it, you've opened the door to manipulation of that document. And if there is no long-form document, then you have nothing to scan in the first place. Regardless, you can't store a piece of paper in a digital database. Paper is stored in a physical location. Locked up hopefully where it can exist for decades. Like in a vault.

Anyone who works with databases also knows that data is easily manipulated in a database, and that without the proper protections, Mickey Mouse could be entered into the Hawaii DOH database and given a birth date, and when a short-form certificate is requested, a certified and stamped printout could be obtained without much issue. How and from what source was Obama's birth information entered into that modern digital database? But if someone asked for a copy of the original stored paper copy of the long-form for Mickey from 1961, it would be much more difficult to come up with one if one never existed. Creating a forgery would be a real challenge, in fact.

For an office as important as President of the United States, all Berg seems to be asking is for proof beyond data entered into a modern database that this candidate, was in fact, born in the USA. And given the contradiction between family members when asked the simple question of where Obama was born, Berg's request is not unreasonable. This could all be settled if a copy of that 47 year old long-form document would be provided.

In contrast, John McCain's eligibility to be president was also challenged. Born overseas to two US citizens, McCain immediately released all the relevant information and the issue of his eligibility was put to rest. If Obama was born in Hawaii, why is he seemingly doing everything he can to avoid satisfying this basic Constitutional requirement?

If it exists, would not Barack Obama be able to request such a copy with a simple phone call or signed request if required? If it exists, why is he fighting the request? No one can doubt that the Obama campaign does not understand the difference between the short and long forms. And yet, they are content to leave these questions unanswered and rely on a document printed from a modern database one year ago.

Can a socialist fix an economy with more tax and spend?

The National Debt is today is $10,187,754,347,408.87. Yes, that's $10 trillion dollars.
On September 11, 2001 the National Debt was $5,773,172,068,291.89.

Reality Check: The US economy was in recession in 2000 after the Tech Bubble exploded on Wall Street. We were attacked on 9/11/2001 by terrorists that not only killed 3,000 Americans, but wreaked devastation on the US economic system. In 2002 we went to war in Afghanistan, and in 2003 we went to war in 2003. Military spending has nearly doubled since 9/11, and an American people adequately informed by the national media of this nation's many financial problems knows that the growth in Bush's Military spending is the cause of the huge increase in the debt, and that Bush's failed economic policies have resulted in the rich not paying enough. Right?

Consider this. To receive the necessary 60 votes in the US Senate to bring any spending bill to the floor for a vote (The Cloture Rule), even with Republicans in the majority, Bush had to buy liberal Democrats and Republicans to get his funding for the Military. That means the Bush was forced to sign onto tons and tons of earmarks, pork and other bribes to get the votes to even bring Defense spending bills to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

So I want to make the following charge. Bush did not fail the American people. He did not invite the 9/11 attack and he had no choice to respond in defense of the American people. But I'd like to drive a stake through the heart of the left's lie that Bush created the huge National Debt, just as they pinned the growth of the Debt under Reagan in the 1980's.

Below is a graph derived directly from US Government Historical Budget data. Here is the source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

This data is adjusted for inflation. It is dead-on accurate and the real story of federal spending going back 28 years, from Jimmy Carter's last 2 budgets in 1980 and 1981, through last year 2007.

I ask you to look at 2 things. First, spending on National Defense, even now fighting two wars, is barely more than we were spending near the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. Second, look at Social Spending. After adjusting for inflation, Social Spending has more than doubled in the same period, and if you look at the slope of the curve, is no where near slowing down.



Conclusion. If you think the most liberal member of the United States Senate, along with a liberal majority of both the House and the Senate chomping at the bit to adopt his tax and spend policies is going to fix this economy, I've got some Default Credit Swaps to sell you at a bargain.

Is Obama eligible to be president?

Is Barack Obama a US Citizen? Is he a "natural born" citizen, which is required under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, before a person is eligible to run for the highest elected office on the planet? Seems this would be an easy question for Obama to lay to rest. But given that he's fighting a challenge for basic citizenship documents in the US District Court in Pennsylvania, what should we think?

Less than 2 weeks ago a motion was filed by Obama and the DNC in the case, Berg v. Obame et al, to dismiss the case. Why argue to dismiss a challenge if simple documentation would end the case? Even more curious, did Obama and the DNC argue for dismissal on the merits of the case? No. They argued that an American citizen, who is also a member of the Democrat Party, did not have legal standing to ask Obama for proof of his presidential eligibility.

Many critical questions have been asked by Mr. Berg in his challenge. Was Obama born in Hawaii, or in Kenya? His birth has been "registered" in both countries, and Obama has refused to provide a certified birth certificate. His family is all over the map on the place of his birth, with some family members stating one hospital in Hawaii, with others alleging a different hospital. In Kenya, Obama's family, including his grandmother, are alleged to have stated that he was born in Kenya.

But place of birth isn't enough to lay this issue to rest. Even if Obama was a natural born American at birth, he was taken to Indonesia at age 5 by his mother, and in Indonesia, appears to have taken Indonesian citizen to get into Indonesian schools. His mother would have been required to renounce her citizenship before marrying an Indonesian national, and young Barry appears to have been declared an Indonesian citizen, and Muslim, to attend Indonesian school. Obama has denied ever being a Muslim.

If Obama became an Indonesian citizen, and documents in Indonesia are alleged to affirm this, then in a country that does not allow dual citizenship, Obama was no longer a US citizen. And upon his return to the United States years later, if no efforts were made on his behalf to apply to become a naturalized citizen, then Obama would, legally speaking, not even be a US citizen today.

To throw more gasoline on the fire, Obama visited Pakistan in 1981 at the age of 20. At the time, Pakistan was on the US State Department's travel ban list. Non-Muslims were not even welcomed into Pakistan without the person's embassy's support on official business. Obama certainly was not traveling on government official business for the US, Indonesia, or Kenya. So how did Obama get into Pakistan? Was he using an Indonesian passport? Did it identify him has a "non-US" Indonesian citizen and did it declare his religion to be Muslim?

To a growing number of left-leaning Americans, the US Constitution seems little more than an old document to be rewritten to satisfy the "progressive" view of the world. But today it is a document that, I hope, the majority of Americans still hold as the foundation of this nation, and one of its most basic provisions is the requirement of citizenship and natural born status before any candidate is eligible to hold the office of president.

Mr. Obama, it is not an unreasonable request, and in fact, an absolutely essential duty of any candidate for president to provide whatever documentation is necessary to verify the candidate's right to hold the office of president. Why are you fighting it? What do you have to hide? The longer you refuse to prove your eligibility to be president, the more citizens of this nation will wonder whether we're about to elect an illegal alien to the highest office of president.

Here is the legal brief filed by Mr. Berg in the case just a week ago. The case is now pending a ruling by the judge in the case. The unsigned order is not the ruling, but the plaintiff's request for relief in this case. I know that Obama supporters will think this crazy, and frankly, not important. But if this is not important, then what is?

And how ironic would this be for a candidate who has used technicalities in the past to force opponents off the ballot? But if this nation is still a constitutional republic, isn't it vital that the US Constitution be respected?

S. 190 - “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005”

The history of S. 190 - “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005” is at the heart of our current crisis. If you're reading this you found it by searching any of the keywords within it. I can tell you that filtering through all the bull to get to this was a challenge, but if we don't learn from this situation, we'll certainly be destined to repeat it again, and again, and again.

Proposed during the 109th Congress, the bill could have reigned in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored lending institutions for the poor, before they had led the entire lending industry to ruin. And while Senator Barack Obama is benefiting in the polls from a public perception that Republicans are the villains, facts show the real actions that led to this debacle are almost exclusively owned by Democrats, who are now leading efforts to repair what they helped to ruin.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the heart of this crisis. As government-sponsored lending institutions, the Clinton administration turned a Carter program in 1995 into a program to buy votes by giving homes to Americans who otherwise couldn’t afford them. With these loans pouring into the competitive private lending market, other private lenders fought to compete with the giveaways, with the more greedy and unscrupulous leaders of these lenders even eclipsing Fannie and Freddie in risky loans. And while the government used Fannie and Freddie to buy up this risky debt to keep the “vote buying” dollars flowing to more and more Americans who could never repay it, the time bomb was ticking to a lending meltdown.

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

On April 12, 2007, Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation (S. 1100) to improve oversight of GSE’s. The major reforms in their bill were included in final legislation passed the Senate on July 26, 2008 and was signed into law on July 30, 2008. But it was too late, with the lending industry already beginning to fall, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

McCain's specific comments, on May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Let's here Democrats refute the words and actions of Democrats here:

Imagine a nation where the media reports the facts

Be ready with the pause button, and look at who got America into this mess. Also note who tried to get us out, and then ask yourself, how in the hell can we rely on congressmen who made this mess to fix it? Oh, and ask yourself how Obama and his campaign can have such gall to blame everyone except Democrats for this crisis?

If you're like me, it should make you furious!



UPDATE
Well, YouTube has killed the first video again, but here are a couple more videos.

Campaign of lies

And I'm not referring to Obama's campaign, even though it is growing daily in desperate falsehoods. The campaign of lies I'm referring to is the campaign being run by the old media in this nation to help Obama con his way to victory. Only in America could the media portray a socialist as a savior and make it even close.

But today's New York Times hit-piece on McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is just the latest. Not the worst. Not the first. But just the latest. Oh, and a complete and total lie.

Liberal propaganda rags like the New York Times, or the Seattle Times and Seattle PI, simply hope that the majority of Americans will hear the lies, but never read the truth. Whether through manipulation of polls, or outright fraud in journalism, the old media in America is the real villain. More so than the liberal Democrats who thwart reforms and blame other for crises, or root for defeat and surrender in Iraq. No, the national media is what forms perception within the majority of the electorate, and it is the force that is leading Americans to support and vote for the vary people who would destroy America for a little bit of power.

Democrats love disasters they can exploit

Michael Moore: Hurricane Coming During GOP Convention 'Proof There Is a God in Heaven'

Controversial filmmaker admits he's delighted to see a natural disaster potentially interfere with the Republican event.

Moore's statement and glee over the hardship about to befall thousands of Americans giving Demcorats another crisis to exploit speaks for itself and requires no further comment.

Then just recently I heard Congresswoman Rosa DeLora (D-CT) on Fox highlighting Democrats' prayers and efforts to help the region where Gustav is about to hit. If only I and others believed it. The sorry reality is that the translation of her statement more likely reads, we're here and ready to exploit another natural disaster for political gain. In fact, it was during the Democrat Convention that many Democrats and liberals in the media started laying the groundwork for the suspension of the Republican Convention, because of the pending hurricane.

Then she started in on the old, tired attacks on Bush and Cheney for their efforts during and after Katrina. And again, this Democrat distorted the fact that Bush and Cheney were powerless until the governor of Louisiana, a Demcorat, asked for help. She didn't ask. New Orleans mayor Nagin, a Democrat, also didn't ask for help until late into the disaster. And as defined by law, Bush had to wait until the governor and mayor had made a debacle out of the disaster. But the Democrats and media didn't hesitate to start the blame of the federal government for their slow response, while ignoring the dereliction of duty by their governor and mayor.

There may be a higher being helping the Democrats, but it sure the heck isn't God. I tend to believe their ally comes from a considerably warmer climate to the south.

If Obama's words mean nothing, what's left?

Since the only thing Obama supporters appear to hear are the words of their candidate Barrack Obama, here are his words on the incredibly important issue of last year's Iraq surge. How Obama followers will react to the clear contradictions in his words is predictable. But with nothing but words to justify their loyalty to him, it's not surprising that even Obama's words are ignored when they become inconvenient.

Obama on January 7th, 2007 defending his opposition to the surge:
"We can send 15 thousand more troops, 20 thousand more troops, 30 thousand more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately who believes that is going to make a substantial difference in the situation on the ground."

Obama to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Jan. 10, 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal."

Obama on March 19th, 2007 to Larry King that the surge won't work:
"But here's the thing Larry, even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20 thousand, 30 thousand, or 40 thousand more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are (not) going to make a long term difference."

Obama on Meet the Press on November 11th, 2007 following the party spin that the surge is failing:
"…not only had we not seen improvements, but we are actually witnessing a worsening of the situation there."

Obama on January 5th, 2008 beginning to rewrite history:
"Now I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform that we would see an improvement in the situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

The following statement is a particularly troubling statement, given that Obama appears to admit that political posturing is more important than success in Iraq, or even the lives of thousands of people, both American and Iraqi.

Obama on Nightline on July 20th, 2008 asked, "if you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama's response:
"No, because, keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

Obama to Brian Williams on July 24th 2008 stating that the surge was destined to have a positive impact:
"What I said at the time, even at the time of the debate in the surge was that when you put 30,000 American troops in of course its going to have an impact, there's no doubt about that."

Obama after his recent visit to Iraq:
"You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there’s been an enormous improvement."

If Barrack Obama was president in 2007, and his response to the deaths and mayhem in Iraq was to pull American forces out, what would be the situation today in Iraq? How many tens of thousands of Iraqis would be dead today? How much higher would the price of gasoline be? Would he now be preparing to send troops back to Iraq under greater threats as he promised last year.

Change we can believe in? This evolution and attempt to rewrite his own position is exactly why record, experience, and honesty is so vitally important for a Commander in Chief. And it also demonstrates a clear example of his inexperience and arrogance related to a critical foreign policy issue with several nations and millions of people at risk. In this instance, he was clearly on the wrong side of an otherwise very successful outcome. An outcome that his party has worked to undermine since 2003.

Gravity and Global Climate

This guy's either full of bull, or he may be on to something. If his correlation is as he claims, wouldn't it be funny if climate change was driven by the moon?

Climate similar to the 1800s within the next 15 years

More Oil Facts

US "Domestic" Oil Production today is roughly 5.7 million barrels a day. The US uses roughly 20.7 million barrels a day. World consumption is roughly 82.2 million barrels per day. We import the difference between that 20.7 million needed and 5.7 million domestically produced. Why? Because the cost of domestic production on lands currently available to the oil industry is too high when compared to the costs to import cheaper oil from foreign sources.

To increase the US Domestic Oil Production, we need to develop fields where the volume and rate of production will justify the costs. Fields like those in Anwar or on the Continental Shelf will support those rates and volumes.

For example, the Thunder Horse platform in the Gulf of Mexico, built and owned by BP, cost $1 billion to construct. That one single platform could reach 250,000 barrels of oils a day and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas at peak production. One platform like that built by the US would increase our domestic production by 4.5%. And that is just one such platform.

Barrack Obama wants to spend $150 billion over 10 years on his plan to subsidize alternatives and subsidize the purchase of gas by Americans. With $15 billion a year, and Nancy Pelosi's support in lifting the ban imposed by Congress, we could fund up to 15 of these platforms a year for a decade, with the potential to more than eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. But honestly, we'd probably only have to build a couple before world markets and speculation would recognize that supply is not being threatened by leftist supply side barriers.

So why aren't we drilling more on the OCS? Why is there not a single proposal from the left for a lifting of the offshore drilling ban? The answer is simple. Democrats do not want to give up the energy issue. They do not want to upset their environmental base. And most importantly, they want to drive Americans into government-operated mass transit systems and out of their private automobiles.

Just one more bit of info. The US Strategic Oil Reserve is not some big tank that can last us for years. The reserve currently holds 700 million barrels of oil. That's roughly 35 days at our current rate of consumption. So Democrat proposals to tap the reserve is not a solution, but only a dangerous ploy to deceive Americans into the belief that the oil companies and the Bush Administration are sitting some vast reservoir that could be tapped to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The reserve is there to help our economy in a real emergency, not a crisis created by Democrats who are refusing to let America contribute to the supply side of the global energy equation.

Tire Inflation and Tune-Ups to save America

McCain stated recently, referring to Obama's suggestion that off-shore drilling for oil could be offset with proper tire inflation and tune-ups:

"I totally agree that tire inflation will help the higher gas prices"

Some are calling McCain's statement a flip-flop, but this look at the issue a little more closely.

Here is Obama's words, “We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.”

So let's put some facts to this statement. One oil drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico can produce 200,000 barrels of oil per day. That equates to nearly 75 million barrels a year from just one platform.

At 20 million barrels per day, the US uses nearly 7.5 billion barrels of oil a year. That means that for each new off-shore drilling platform, 1% of US domestic oil use would be satisfied. If we built 70 such platforms, we could be energy independent. Obama calls that a "gimmick"?? How about 20? Would 10 new platforms, or 2 million new barrels a day, be a gimmick?

So how much oil does Obama assume from drilling to be offset by tire inflation and tune-ups? Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf today is roughly 1.25 million barrels a day, or just over 6% of US domestic oil use.

But here is the flaw in Obama's numbers. His claim only is valid if every car in America is out of tune, using the wrong oil, in need of a new air filter, and on the road with 4 under-inflated tires. That simply is not correct. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics do not back up these assumptions. If only 25% of cars have under-inflated, and less than half the cars out there need tune-ups, oil changes or air filters, the savings from 100% US car efficiency doesn't come close to the 1.25 million barrels currently being produced from the OCS. More importantly, it doesn't begin to solve the supply side problems we face with growing world demand, or argue against new production on the OCS as McCain is now proposing.

Remember, 70 new offshore platforms and we could halt all foreign importing of oil.

But taking Obama's words at face value, what would be Obama's plan to enforce tire inflation and tune-ups? Would we spend billions on law enforcement to pull people over for tire inflation checks? Would they write tickets for out-of-tune vehicles? Would he build a national network of free tune-up centers, at taxpayer expense, to require regular tune-ups, or require quarterly tune-ups, paid for by the car owner, to guarantee that cars are always working at optimum efficiency?

The point is that as solutions go, this one is nonsense. Cars will always have under-inflated or over-inflated tires. There will always be cars in need of tune-ups. If you want more stupid solutions, mandate that no vehicles out there can get less than 50 MPH. Make SUVs illegal. Require people to live no further than 5 miles from their job. Reduce road congestion that wastes significant amounts of fuel. Or maybe ban vacations. In other words, say goodbye to America.

A plan is something that addresses demand and supply. Democrats are focused solely on demand, and only on demand in the US. But in a world where energy use is growing due to foreign growth in demand, we can either do something on the supply side, or we can let world demand drive the price up and let it destroy our economy and productivity. At a minimum, it is way too important an issue to let it be used for politicians' personal political gains.

As for the claim that McCain flip-flopped, what he stated was simply that proper tire inflation and tune-ups would save gasoline. He did not endorse Obama's claim of the amount of savings, and he has not endorsed it as a viable strategy to solve our energy problem.

Another one of the left's energy frauds

I saw an interesting story on the local news last night. Not anything really new, but it highlighted for me the media's continuing efforts to promote the anti-fossil fuel agenda. Full of optimism and hope, the story was aimed at making anything appear possible. But in reality, it was just another anti-fossil fuels story based on false assumptions and ignorance of basic science.

Arnold Schwartzneger signed a bill sometime back to build hydrogen stations across California to support Hydrogen fuel cells for cars that would run electric motors. Great idea, huh? Good for the environment and will help our energy problems. Right? Wrong!

Only briefly did the story point out that the refueling stations, including proposed refueling stations that could be built at private homes, required Natural Gas to create the electricity to power the electrolysis to separate the Hydrogen from water. Laws of physics demand "at least" as much energy to produce the Hydrogen as will be returned from the Hydrogen when used in electric cars or to provide electricity to the home. So this added step doesn't help our energy problem at all, and in fact, this extra step and losses due to inefficiency actually would make our energy problems worse. Oh, and as for pollution, how does burning fossil fuels to power the electrolysis change anything for the environment, except of course having to burn more for the extra electrolysis step? Nuclear Power? Would take decades to build the plants sufficient to be effective.

I thought, why is this nation doing this? If we have to burn more Natural Gas, Diesel, Coal, or build nuclear power plants to provide the electricity to support the electrolysis to create the hydrogen, and the process of going from fossil fuels/nuclear to electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity is nowhere near 100% efficient, how crazy is this plan? The only conclusion is that it is all being driven by politics.

In a perfect universe, the availability of cheap and clean energy would be wonderful. But this universe isn't perfect. The miracle of fossil fuels is about as close as humanity could hope for, at least until science and technology progress to the point where we can harness some form of energy at lower cost and better for the environment. But contrary to what environmentalists would admit, advancements in environmental technologies are cleaning up the environment from industrialization's early years across this nation. For example, anyone who visits Southern California knows that the air is far better now than 10-20 years ago. The environmental problems in the US are not getting worse, but getting better. The goal should be to get newer industrialized countries to implement those technologies so they can grow and improve life there with minimal impacts on the environment, instead of providing this distraction, driven by the lie of man-made Global Warming, that some miracle energy source is just around the corner that will save the planet, while they continue their grotesquely polluting ways until that happens. We'll soon see how well China covers up its huge pollution problems during the Olympics that began today.

But that is what exposes the real drive by the environmentalists and their political allies on the left, in that they show little concern with countries around the world that are polluting the planet, but focus all their attention on driving Americans out of their cars and into government transportation systems that give those same politicians even more power and control over our lives. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that this nation can abandon fossil fuels in our lifetimes needs to stop getting their science from the evening news or politicians, and check into reality.

Here is a great column describing some of the hurdles in Barrack Obama's plans for energy independence:

The Green Hornet

Change we can believe in

Definition: Barrack Obama’s ability to change his positions

Obama has insisted that he wants a phased withdrawal from Iraq, with all soldiers home in 16 months.

Now Obama has changed his mind. Before going to Iraq he said, “I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there. When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” Obama has changed is position again, hasn’t he? Pullout within 16 months is now “will continue to refine my policies.”

Less than a year ago, Obama was winning praises from the left for opposing legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the US Government in terrorist surveillance. He promised to filibuster any bill that included immunity.

Today Obama will support legislation that includes immunity for companies helping in terrorist surveillance.

Barrack Obama was a huge supporter of Campaign Finance Reform. It was a point of many speeches on TV and in interviews.

Once he started raising big bucks, though, he found that he would be able to raise as much as three times the money without public financing and the associated spending limits. Obama has abandoned the limits defined under that campaign finance reform, and is the first presidential nominee since Watergate, of either party, to reject those campaign spending limits.

Sen. Obama was a strong supporter of gun control. He strongly supported the handgun ban in Washington DC. Then last month the Supreme Court struck down the Washington DC ban, stating that Americans have a right to own a firearm.

Obama suddenly claimed that his position was basically the same as the Supreme Court’s.

Obama has stated that while he supports civil unions for same-sex couples, he believed that legal marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Just last week, in a letter to a gay rights organization, Obama stated that he opposed the California ballot measure that would overturn that state’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage. Obama called the initiative “discriminatory and divisive.”

Despite out of control gas and fuel prices, Obama has opposed new drilling, new refining, new mining, and construction of nuclear power plants.

With the shifting this week of more and more Democrat’s to favoring more oil drilling, perhaps we’ve been misunderstanding the Obama campaign’s promise of “change we can believe in”? Perhaps it is only a matter of time before Obama will change his mind on oil drilling too.