Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout

It is actually very simple how we now find ourselves bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A little history first: As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed $388 billion in high-risk mortgages and was the primary customer of all sub-prime mortgage pools (loans made to high-risk customers). If real estate prices continued to rise, then the high-risk was reduced, but when those prices began to fall, then the risk went off the charts. Both were also enmeshed in accounting scandals on an unimaginable scale. For the first time in history, a reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee in 2005 that would have required both companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets and establish strict regulations. But the bill never made it into law. The Democrats opposed it on a tight party-line vote and would not even allow the Senate to vote on the matter. And so the abuse and the losses continued. Republican presidential candidate John McCain was one of the three sponsors of that historic reform bill that would have averted the mess we now find ourselves in and must pay for through our taxes. And we now know that Democrat Barack Obama opposed the reform bill (as did Hillary Clinton) and that Mr Obama subsequently received $125,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC's of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Clinton received about $75,000. Not surprisingly, Mr McCain received nothing from either PAC. I think the answer as to who is to blame for our current crisis is pretty clear.

Global cooling

Established in 1792, the Old Farmers Almanac is North America's oldest continuously publishing periodical. Boasting nearly 20 million readers, the little yellow magazine still comes with a hole in the corner so it can hang in outhouses. Based on the same time-honored complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac says that a study on solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate indicate a cooler, not warmer, climate for the world for the next 50 years. Meteorologist and climatologist Joe D'Aleo says that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes and that all the indicators are for a cooling off of world temperatures. Global warming has always been a fraudulent premise intended to induce hysteria and ultimately to line the pockets of its proponents. Now, hopefully, the house of cards it is built on can begin to crumble. Mother Earth is much more resilient than the Al Gores of the world would have you believe.

Oil as a political pawn

Did you know that there are 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that accounts for an estimated 22% of the unexplored resources on Earth? Did you know that there is pending legislation in Congress that would open the Arctic Energy Slope to energy exploration and would be limited to a 0.01% development footprint? Did you know that the bill would grant coastal states the authority to keep exploration 100 miles away from their coast, that they would share in the revenues received, and that additional revenues would be invested in long-term alternative energy trust funds to promote renewable and cleaner energy sources? And did you know that there has never been an oil spill or disaster (even through the fiercest ocean storms imaginable) related to offshore drilling? In sum, this legislation would drive down the price of gasoline, enrich the coffers of struggling coastal states, and would actually fund additional development of alternative energy sources. And did you know Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to even allow the House to vote up or down on the legislation before adjourning for a 5-week recess? Remember the strategy of the Democrats: do everything possible to block anything that might boost our economy, talk only of gloom and doom, and hope that the masses will somehow be unaware that the Dems are the ones stifling economic reform and blindly buy into their "hope and change" presidential candidate. They don't care one bit about how their obstructiveness affects the pocket books of Americans. They will do anything to get elected. As Speaker Pelosi begins her 5-week vacation without even allowing a vote on the legislation, many Americans will now have to decide if they can even afford a vacation.

Barack Obama is taking narcissism to new heights. Never has there been a nominee with a wider gap between his evaluation of himself and the sum total of his achievements. He has not produced even one important legislative achievement in his three years in Washington (maybe because for the past 18 months he's been campaigning for the presidency) instead of dealing with the significant issues of our time. As a law professor at Harvard, he never produced a single notable published piece. His best known work is a biography he wrote about, you guessed it, himself. He articulates a Middle East policy without visiting Iraq or Afghanistan, nor meeting with our top military leaders. He wants our children to speak Spanish, but he does not. Recently, he put a quasi-presidential seal on his podium. Because he has no foreign policy experience or credentials, he now is planning to visit Europe, with awe-struck American journalists in tow, so he can "look" presidential. Obama may think that he can dazzle us with rallies and "feel-good" rhetoric, but there is no substance to him. His resume is empty. His long relationships with a race-baiting preacher, unrepentent American terrorists, and convicted felon are proof that he will associate with anyone and say anything that will advance his personal agenda, and then disown them at the drop of a hat. Obama has never done anything that remotely qualifies him to be President. In my lifetime, he is easily the most unprepared and therefore dangerous nominee. I'm not ready to turn my country over to him.

The truth about oil prices

A vote for a Democrat this year will insure that the price of gasoline, and most other staples too, will never go down in your lifetime. Why? Because the Democrats are beholden to the ultra environmentalists who want to de-industrialize America, the exact opposite course that has lead to our greatness. Democrats, as far back as Bill Clinton, have refused to allow our oil companies to tap the vast seas of oil that sit right under our own land and on the outer continental shelf, insuring our dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats want the price of gasoline to stay right where it is now, believing that maintaining the hardship will rally the suffering public to want "change" and carry their candidate into the White House. The gamble is that the public will not exercise any critical thinking as to the real reasons and the real culprits in this sham. The futures markets will continue to pummel the price of oil because the Democrats' policies insure America of a continued shortage. The price of gasoline has gone from $2.10 to $4.60 in the two short years that the Democrats have controlled Congress. The rising price of oil permeates every sector of our economy, but especially the poor. Do the voters understand that the Democrats want their vote but don't care one bit about the economic havoc they are causing them? Do you really believe that the prices will ever go down if we refuse to bring up the oil that sits right under our feet?

Economic truths

Count on the national media to shun their homework (and the facts) and only report what fits their own agenda. The present state of America's economy is the latest example. The national "talking heads" uniformly trumpet comparisons to the Great Depression of the 1930's, and the unmistakable inference that only political "change" can avoid a repeat of history. Conveniently, actual facts are ignored because they do not fit the game plan of the national press. Firstly, America is not in recession. A recession is defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD ONE QUARTER OF NEGATIVE GROWTH. Secondly, America's steady unemployment rate of 5% (a good historical figure) hardly compares to the 25% rate of the Great Depression. Thirdly, today's stock market value losses of approximately 10% pale compared to the 75% losses of the 1930's. Over 9,000 banks failed in the G.D. and depositors lost over $140 billion. Nothing remotely like that is happening now. Today's economics more closely mirror the 1970's with its inflation problems than the deflation woes of the 1930's. By recklessly using phrases like "the great depression" each evening, the national press can influence the confidence and behavior of people that might aggravate our economic conditions. People might be more inclined to "change" if they think doom is on the horizon. Yes, America is in the midst of a slowing down of its growth; we're continuing to grow albeit at a slower rate. For the national press to glibly fear-monger the public with exaggerated comparisons each evening reflects the disregard of truth and responsibility that it once had, and how it is now powered by its own agenda.

Barack Obama-gasm

The national media has been busy trying to induce an extended Obama-gasm for the electorate with no end in sight. Largely liberal in perspective, Obama is the feature story each day with the national media as he is portrayed as a messiah-like figure ready to right all wrongs using buzz words like "hope" and "change", but usually short on actual details. Obama's lack of legislative experience, campaign gaffes, questionable acquaintances, naive policy positions, and razor thin resume (quick, tell me anything that he has accomplished) are either ignored or glossed over. Obama's appeal is real. His charisma, good looks, and oratory skills are undeniable. But, in the end, those kinds of assets are more Hollywood than Washington DC. His pledge to unite the country is pure drivel. A democracy works best when there are polar feelings. And besides, he can't even unite his own party, fellow Democrat Hillary actually received more popular votes in the primaries. And his seriously lame excuses and standard formula answer that his long friendships with an unrepentant terrorist, a sleazy Chicago felon, and a race-baiting preacher are simply "not the person that I knew" are not believable. Equally, his belief that simply sitting down with rogue dictators who have promised the destruction of America and Israel could some how get them to change their attitudes and actions toward America is downright scary. I guess after Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, Obama would solemnly announce that "Mahmoud isn't the man I knew". Voters, please think past the sweeping, feel-good rhetoric that Obama expertly spouts. Frankly, I'm sure Obama is a terrific person, father, and husband, but the toughest job in the world requires so much more than he brings to the table. These are serious times, and Obama's attributes simply don't translate into the national and international experience that the job demands.

Naive foreign policy

Approximately 50% of all American soldier deaths in Iraq can be traced back to the arming and training of foreign fighters from Iran. Its President denies that the Holocaust ever took place, and regularly threatens to "wipe Israel off the map". It has an aggressive nuclear program that very soon will be weapons grade ready. Syria is a state sponsor of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah whose stated purpose is the elimination of Israel and who are active every day in that pursuit. Syria was in the final stages of a nuclear facility (one they continually denied every even existed) until it was recently bombed by Israel. North Korea was/is the primary nuclear vendor to Syria and has arguably the world's worst human rights record as its people literally starve. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has stated, but rival Hillary Clinton has not, that he would meet with these nations' leaders "without preconditions". This is naive foreign policy. Meeting with these terrorists, and yes they are unabashed terrorists, would only boost their domestic stature and political stability. And exactly what would we be negotiating? That they would reverse their stated goals, stop their targeting of innocent civilians (and the killing of their own suicide terrorists) and live peacefully beside a suddenly recognized Israel? That is Alice in Wonderland thinking and dangerous to its core. It's great sounding domestic rhetoric, but naive foreign policy. Economic sanctions, the withholding of foreign investments, and diplomatic isolation are the best tools to employ against these rogue nations. Negotiating with them without preconditions is unproductive appeasement. On this specific point, President Bush is spot on.

Judicial Activism

The recent underwhelming 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to reinterpret the centuries-old meaning of marriage was a frightening example of judicial activism and callous disregard for the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. This activism could have been applied to any issue, not just marriage, and that's the dangerous precedence. The ruling flew in the face of the most basic premise of the people's right to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves. In my view, the Court overstepped its role in substituting its own social views, contrary to the people's will and age-old global societal norms, by concluding that our Constitution suddenly demanded a redefinition of marriage. How pompous and arrogant that four robed justices, with no accountability at all as to the repercussions of its ruling, could force its will on all of us and invalidate the citizen's standing as the ultimate lawgiver in a free society. This was a shameful abuse of power by a tiny few who thumbed their noses at centuries of established societal order.

Mortgage bailouts

Politicians are the worst problem solvers, they always just look to taxpayers as the answer. Case in point: the home mortgage "crisis". Various Democrats blame "predatory lending" while absolving borrowers who took out loans they could not afford. HOGWASH. The truth is that rising home prices led lenders to offer creative loans to allow borrowers who would not normally qualify to purchase homes at top-of-the-market prices. The borrowers were betting that continued rising home values would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. No one put a gun to their heads to sign, and lenders disclosed the exact terms of the loans. When home prices began declining, as surely as they will rise again in the cyclical world of home values, borrowers found themselves with loans for more than their homes were worth and facing higher resetting interest rates. The borrowers had gambled and lost. With little or no equity, they simply walked away. The Democrats "solutions" are laughable. Obama wants to pay lenders a cash fee to refinance troubled loans through FHA at lower interest rates, which would put us taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of the riskiest loans. Clinton wants to freeze the rates on ARMs for five years, effectively voiding original loan terms, sticking it to the lenders (in many cases investors in mortgage-backed securities) and rewarding the irresponsible borrowing of the defaulting home buyer. Both of these approaches force taxpayers to pick up the bills and makes fools of us responsible home buyers who acted more prudently. To his credit, McCain has not offered a specific solution yet, only declaring himself open to "all proposals based on their costs and benefits".

Hillary's lies

When our men and women volunteer to serve in our armed forces, it is with the clear understanding that they may be put in harms way in defense of our country. That is why is takes great courage to put on that uniform. And that is why Senator Hillary Clinton's recent lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia ten years ago are so insulting to our military, and, by extension, all Americans. Her lies demean those who actually demonstrate real courage everyday. Her retraction, days later by the way, that she had "misspoken" continued the insult. The notion that our First Lady and First Daughter would be allowed to come under sniper fire is preposterous. It would never happen. We have real soldiers getting shot at by real enemies with real bullets and bombs everyday. Ms Clinton's memory was not faulty nor did she "misspeak". She calculatedly concocted a wild lie in the hope that it would make her appear courageous and ready for the presidency. My respect goes to our truly courageous soldiers, not a lying opportunistic politician.

Iraq five years later

The American news media is featuring "look-back" pieces this week to mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. But as I read and listen, the focus seems to stay on the war as a singular event and not connected to the larger context of the Middle East and America. Tunnel vision is a common human tendency but one must unfold the big picture to determine what has and has not been accomplished. Iraq is but one battle in the global war on terrorism, it just seems like more. Al Qaeda and its satellite cells are and will continue to wage war in other countries regardless of the Iraq outcome. Leaving Iraq tomorrow with it hypothetically secure and flourishing would not be the end of the war against militant Islamism. Iraq is experiencing a slow, but steady, flushing out of al Qaeda by its own populace who have grown weary of relying on militant Islamism as a solution. They have banded together because they have seen firsthand that al Qaeda can brutalize and kill, but it can't provide jobs, education, housing, healthcare, or any meaningful future for them. Remember, al Qaeda funds itself primarily through the heroin trade. Some future. In the big picture, 2007 has been a better year for Iraqis as they slowly struggle to reform and grow economically into the largest democracy in the Middle East. Our goal should be to leave Iraq as an example to other countries across the globe who want to shed their repressive regimes and leave a brighter future to their children. Al Qaeda can only live in an atmosphere of fear and despair. Offering struggling countries a blueprint for hope and a future can go a long way in defeating radical Islamism.

Obama

I watched Obama's speech this morning. He talked about America's racist past and our racist present. He did not agree with, but understood, the anger and anti-American diatribes of his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He did not disavow Rev Wright, but condemned his hate speech. Left unsaid, however, was that Obama has sat in Rev Wright's pews for over 20 years, listening to these types of sermons, in an environment that indisputably would be uncomfortable for most whites (including Obama's own white mother), but never openly challenged the Reverend's teachings or ultimately changed churches. What does that say about Obama? And left unaddressed by Obama was why he dropped Rev Wright from his advisory committee so quickly when Rev Wright's rhetoric reached a broad audience via the internet. Although he claims that his race is a liability, it actually is an advantage that is unavailable to a white man (McCain) or a white woman (Hillary). How else to explain his appeal to whites? His popularity can't be the product of his ideas. He has never actually explained what he means by "change" or "hope". Exactly how would he bring Americans together? He is long on sweeping abstracts but short on actual details. He frames the presidential race in a way that leaves whites with the false choice of "change" now (vote for a black man) or forever be mired in the "past" (vote for McCain or Hillary). Without a doubt, Obama has himself made his run for the presidency about race. That approach does not work for me and one's race and/or wispy visions do not impress me. My vote is for sale to the best plans and ideas offered by anyone from any affiliation.

Pelosi's stunts

For the second recent time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the Senate on vacation for two weeks without permitting a vote on a bill that would restore critical surveillance authority to US intelligence agencies. The Senate bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and would have easily passed the House if she would have allowed the vote. Obviously stung by criticism the first time she pulled this stunt, she attempted to camouflage her dereliction of duty this time by offering an alternative proposal that was so deeply flawed that it would have been D.O.A. in the Senate. Her alternate bill denies US telecommunications companies the liability protection they need, perefectly in step with the interest of the trial lawyers, lavish supporters of the Democrats. In Pelosi's world, if an overseas terrorist calls another terrorist to coordinate an operation against US troops, our intelligence agencies should not be permitted to monitor their conversations unless a judge in Washington is convinced the courtroom standard of "probable cause" has been met. No matter that FISA was specifically designed to permit the monitoring of non-Americans overseas without restrictions, Pelosi has decided that aliens have Fourth Amendment rights (like all Americans) and they need worldwide privacy protections against eavesdropping. By tying the hands of our intelligence agencies, she weakens our country's defenses and makes us more vulnerable to attack. Her loyalties lie with protecting the interests of the trial lawyer lobby. How many more days will she delay the vote and allow terrorists to plot, plan, and organize without fear of detection?

No Common Sense in Berkeley

The Berkeley City Council recently passed several measures targeting the only Marine recruitment office in town. Instead of defending the recruiters' property rights after they were subjected to defacement (bloody handprints and misspelled signs slapped on their windows) and aggressive picketing and nonstop bullhorn harrassment by the radical anti-war group Code Pink, the city fathers voted to sabotage the center further by granting the protesters special parking privileges in front of the center to facilitate their protests and offered them a free sound permit for six months. In a way that you might treat a porn shop, the council members decided that the protesters needed special license to impede the work of the recruiters, apparently oblivious to federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. Shamelessly, the council maintained that they were not against our troops, but only against our government's (read Bush's) policies. Give me a break. This vote was political and partisan. Let's be clear. Code Pink has a right to protest. But the council has no right to grant special rights to one group at the expense of another, and especially not to flaunt federal law. This council acted like a special interest group, not a governing body. Shame on their stupidity, and shame on the message that they are sending their and our children. Seriously, where is their common sense?