Bush called for reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone and Democrats ignored his warnings .

For many years the president and his administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the president's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

The White House has released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:

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

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

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

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

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

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

"The government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that - and Congress is making progress on this - is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

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

July: Congress heeds the president's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government's involvement in lending.

Democrats blocked this reform, too.

More... Not only did democrats not act on these warnings but Barack Obama put one of the major Sub-Prime Slime players on his campaign as finance chairperson.

I believe that if scored by points, as in a boxing match, Biden probably tallied a higher score for jabs and fakes, but never really threw or landed a solid punch. He was all blow with no go. His basic platform and the premises supporting it were 100% fantasy. But, if scored on style and charm, as in figure skating, Palin scored more points for grace, elegance, authenticity, and all around impression. Her basic tone was one of common sense, practical solutions, and an empathetic understanding of the American citizen.

Overall, I’d conclude that neither of them won a victory, Biden suffered defeat through his reassertion that all the lies of the Democrats were true and Republicans are to blame for everyting wrong, and that the Democrats have the only real solutions for America’s woes. Palin did not score a win because, for whatever reason, she did not explain the basic ideological differences between the two parties represented and the different results each political doctrine would produce. She had a perfect chance to paint the democrats as socialists and the republicans as freedom fighters. Instead, the two debaters jabbed, faked, and feigned their way to a non-decisive generality of the same-old-same-old and of a non-seasoned apprenticeship.

Biden claimed that McCain voted not to fund our troops abroad. McCain and a majority of the Senate voted against that funding bill because it mandated a timeline for troop withdrawal. By voting that bill down they forced the Senate to pass a no timeline bill that included 100% of the funds requested for war funding. Palin explained that the timeline was why McCain voted against the bill but did not explain that McCain voted for a second bill with no timeline.

Biden stated that McCain has the same plan for ending the Iraq war as Bush. He claims it is flawed because there is no plan for the withdrawal of troops. Palin did not explain that a timeline would essentially tell the enemy how long he had to resupply, recruit replacements, and how long to wait before they could re-enter Iraq without US resistance. She failed to explain that the plan for withdrawal depends, not on time, but on completion of certain milestones already established. She failed to point out that the commanding general dictates strategy and mission objectives and will dictate when troop strength can be reduced. Biden stated Obama’s plan would have us out of Iraq in 16 months. He did not say whether we would win or lose the war. He did not say how our pull out would effect the people and government of Iraq and neither did Palin.

Biden listed the elements of Obama’s economic plan for America such as health care, college funding, childcare subsidies, subsidies to create green jobs, subsidies to promote development of alternative energy, increased taxes on excessive corporate profit, taxcuts for the middle class, etc., but never mentioned the defense budget. He claimed that ending the war in Iraq would return $10 billion per month to the treasury. He nor Obama see defense as the primary responsibility of the federal government but all the entitlements above and existing as necessary spending. Palin did not attempt to explain that their plan was full of government interference and entitlements nor the fact that defense is the primary reason for the federal government.

Biden claimed that McCain represents more of the same failed Bush policies. Palin did not attempt to explain the few successes of the Bush economic policy, nor did she aatempt to place the blame for the economic woes on the real culprits. She admitted "huge bungling" of the Iraq war and economic plan by Bush and offered a general statement about the McCain policy of putting American’s first and fighting for middle class America.

Biden referred to Palin’s restructuring of royalty payments to Alaska by oil producers as a windfall profit tax imposed by Gov. Palin. Palin did not attempt to explain that these payments by the oil companies are not a tax but are royalties negotiated and agreed upon by the oil companies as payment to Alaska for the oil they remove from the state. Palin renegotiated for a higher selling price and succeeded with no complaints from any oil company executive. There is no tax on oil companies in any state except the state in which they are incorporated.

Palin, to her credit, did dispute a few of Biden’s rebuttals to her account of Biden’s voting record and statements of policy which ran counter to Biden’s claims. Without saying as much, she made a liar of Biden by expressing the historic validity of her claims and saying he held those beliefs right up until he became the VP nominee. But, time after time she failed to take the initiative and offer specific, meaningful conservative solutions in accordance with the Constitution and, instead, whether by a lack of knowledge or by a lack of commitment to conservative ideals, offered only vague, tempting allusions to putting government back into the hands of America, putting government back on the side of the people, and promising major reforms to end corruption in Washington. All of which great conservative concepts, but all very vague, safe generalities too. She did say that they would get government out of the way of the people and lower taxes, but every opportunity to reaffirm details of the why and how behind the conservative beliefs in smaller government, less regulation of the market, and leading from a position of power, or to delineate the why and how of failed liberal social policies was left unexploited to my disappointment. Likewise, the opportunities to press home the real reasons for the present economic situation, the dangers in Obama’s foreign and defense policies, the lack of consistentency in Obama’s position on any subject, Obama’s lack of patriotism, his radical anti-American associates and background, and the socialistic roots of his vision for America were all either forfeited or not recognized as the chances they were.

Palin came across as "just one of us plain folks" who knew the everyday worries, hopes, fears, and frustrations that no rich politicians or lawyers will ever know. She is the only one of the four candidates who is not a typical politician or a Washington insider. She is the only one who represents a real, authentic, change in the personality of candidates running for office. She exuded sincerity and authenticity: what you see is what you get.

Overall, in the minds of American’s who know the true political history of the past seventy years, in the minds of true believers in the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land, in the minds of cognizant, intelligent Americans, Biden proved himself to be all that the Democrats espouse to be: lying, cheating, opportunistic elitists who claim to have a better plan for America than the Constitution assures and will do or say anything at anytime to further his chance of succeeding in the socialization of America. Palin did not take advantage of that euphamistic confession by Biden to emphasize the differences in conservative and liberal ideology and the failures of liberal social policies in action. She missed a chance to use Biden’s own words to expose him, the Democratic party, and especially Obama as the Marxist socialist enemies of the Constitution that they are. She missed the chance to embrace the constitutional foundation of America’s greatness and exceptionality in the world and thereby inspire conservatives who have felt, and rightly so, dis-enfranchised by every party. Whether this apparent moderation in her expression of conservatism was planned or was a revelation of less than true conservative values I cannot say, but I was not particularly impressed by her performance in the debate, instead finding myself somewhat disappointed that she didn’t seem to be all that we thought she was five weeks ago, appearing, instead, to be playing it safe.

NOBAMA ! !

At some time in the past 72 hours democrats in the house and senate announced they had an agreement on a bail out plan and all that was needed was to vote and sign the legislation. Several times since then republican house members announced that they knew of no agreement and were not supporting the plan being praised by democrats. Despite the denial by the reps the dems kept saying their plan was agreed upon.

It was at that point, late Sunday night, that Phil Graham called Sec. of the Treasury Poulsen and discussed a Whitehouse meeting with leaders of congress and other key players to iron out their differences and get a plan passed quickly. President Bush agreed to host the meeting and the invitations went out. Obama and McCain were both asked to attend and both agreed. I don’t know anything for certain, but I would bet money that Graham's call to Poulsen was initiated by McCain.

The dems have lied about McCain’s part in the meeting saying everything was proceeding toward their bill passing before McCain injected politics into the discussion. Schumer went so far as to request that the president ban McCain from further participation in this matter and said the president should tell McCain to "get out of town" and to not come back. All McCain had to do with this was to express the opposition by the people and the house reps. He then stated that bi-partisan cooperation would produce a bill all could agree to. But the dems kept up their panic inspired lying by claiming McCain had single-handedly derailed the agreement and had essentially trashed a perfectly good bill. No one, not even the reps who attended the meeting, mentioned the fruitless, irrelevant 30 minutes of attack and insult put forth by Obama. Nor did anyone criticize him for his failure to maintain order and decorum in the meeting. In fact Pelosi praised him for being a talented leader and spokesman for the people by attending the meeting.

The reason the dems are so insistent on passing their proposal without real debate or scrutiny is because of the inclusion of requirements in the bill to sell the bad loans the bill would buy and divert a full 20% of the proceeds of that sale to the controversial and scandal ridden ACORN, a group claiming to be a voter advocate organization with whom Obama is heavily associated. The dem proposal also does not set a minimum price floor for those bad loans which would allow the congressional finance committee leaders (all dems) to practically give them away to lbbbyists and favorite intersts. There is also over $9 billion of earmarks, mostly for dem congress members, attached to the bill.

McCain was aware that the people were making their opposition known, he had been there before. He was aware that the house reps were being ignored in the claims of an agreement being made. He also knew exactly what the proposal included, something that Obama only learned 30 minutes before the Whitehouse meeting. So McCain, being that maverick, that aisle-crossing liberal non-conservative guy he’s famous for being, simply made the meeting and Obama aware of the opposition to the dems hastily written, license to steel and said a bipartisan plan would not be nearly as flawed and opposed as the present proposal. For that reason, because Sheriff McCain caught them palming aces and with kings up their sleeves, he is to be lynched from the nearest rotten tree with the nastiest rotten rope, and be left there to rot, if the dems have their way. If the dems persist in the lies, hubris, and disregard for integrity or the will of the people, they will be seen for what they are, criminal participants in organized crime under the color of authority. The people already know the truth, now they will know the truth regarding democrats. Keep it up Reid. Pelosi, Schumer, and Franke, keep it up. PLEASE! You are writing your own plan for self-extinction.

There is a lot of talk about the mortgage crisis and the "bail outs" by the tax payers of several large Wall Street mortgage related institutes. Listening to the politicians you get the idea that a) This is the fault of a lack of regulation by the government over these federally insured institutions b) That if allowed to go on without governmemt intervention it would, or could, drag the entire economy down into recession or depression and c) That this is the most severe economic crisis since the great depression. Of course, as is usual with politicians, none of these claims is correct. So why do these politicians want us to believe these claims? They want us to believe them because that will hide the real cause and congress would not be given the authority over the billions of bail out dollars that will be thrown at the problem.

Let’s examine these claims in order. a) This is the fault of a lack of government regulation over these mortgage companies and their greedy CEOs.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were two results of LBJ’s Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which stated that city’s downtown urban areas needed to be kept alive by continually pumping billions of dollars into them via Community Block Grants and other policies adopted by Housing and Urban Development, also a result of the act in 1968. Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association, was to be a privately owned and operated corporation backed by the government that would buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them as mortgage securities and provide backing to the lenders. The bundled securities would be offered for sale or investment to large financial institutions to raise money for redevelopment, stockholders, and executives of Fannie Mae. The profits were to be used primarily for subsidies to urban developments projects in specified cities. Freddie Mac was the same type of private corporation but their proceeds were to be used for specified communities nationally and not limited to urban areas.

These two corporations were created in 1968 and 1970 respectively, by democrats in Congress and under a democrat president. They were created by passing a law that claimed urban areas and some parts of some communities needed to be supported by outside sources because, if left to nature, they would soon become ghost towns and they just couldn’t see that happening to all those living there. What you have then, essentially, is the federal government going into private practice by buying mortgages from mortgage lenders and reselling them as bundled securities to large financial houses.

So things went fairly well, or so it seemed, until 1998 when the federal reserve chairman and some members of the banking committees in congress found out that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying mortgages that were over-leveraged by the lender. The lenders were lending up to $30.00 for every dollar they actually had. In 1993, Janet Reno, appointed attorney general by Clinton, ordered the two FMs and associated mortgage lenders to stop "red lining" federally backed loans or suffer severe federal repercussions. Red lining was the practice of denying loans to people living in certain areas of blight or economic failure. She subsequently widened her order to include the residents of those areas in her definition of red lining. As a result, the mortgage lenders were required to abandon the age old business rules that established ones ability to repay the loan being applied for or to sell loans they could not actually fund 100%. Predatory loans and lenders were allowed to flourish by selling interest only, adjustable rate, and non-ammortized home loans. Many people who bought homes with these loans ended up losing their home and any money they had invested in them. In 1998 republicans in congress called for reforming the FMs and their policies but Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Barnie Frank, banking committee chairmen, stopped any bill proposed to reform the laws stating, "We can’t push these people out of their homes into the streets," when all the time the home buyers were defaulting on predatory loans anyway. Again in 2003, George W. Bush urged Congress to investigate and reform the policies of the two FMs and, again, Dodd and Frank led the opposition to victory and no reform.

When these bad loans were made, housing demand rose, availibility dropped, and new construction boomed. The prices of homes then soared with the increased demand. This is what constituted the "housing bubble". But when it became apparent that there were a lot of these suspect loans bundled in the two FM’s securities, and there being no way to estimate how many would be paid off, or what their actual value is, the two FMs stopped accepting them for backing and the bubble burst. The lenders almost completely stopped lending for new homes which killed demand, the newly constructed homes sat empty, and prices for homes fell drastically. In a nutshell, it was governmental restrictions and laws implemented to regulate the private mortgage industry that caused the current situation. The two most culpable people are Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barnie Frank.

The second claim b) That this crisis, if left alone, would drag the entire economy down with it.

Essentially, the crisis at hand is not an economy wide problem, it is a mortgage credit problem. And really, the only problem is with the sub-prime loans that are held by the two FMs or by lenders who were counting on offloading their own loans to the FMs. The underwriters, those who actually provide the capital funds for loans, have stopped investing in the affected mortgage companies essentially putting them out of business. They are left with their assets of viable, valuable loans and those loans whose futures are suspect and whose values are inestimable. To remain in business they must somehow liquidate the suspect loans for as high a price as possible or convert them to loans whose value is set.

If left alone, ie no bail outs by the tax payers, the lenders whose liquid assets are not enough to carry their non-liquid government mandated loans would fail. The two FMs would then own these loans and would either back them and hope for the best or foreclose and write them off. Either way the underwriters would not recover their investments 100%.

If the bail out of the lenders is approved, the two government FMs wll buy those sub-prime, questionable loans at a set rate eliminating them from the assets of the lender and allowing them to stay in business. The bail outs of the two FMs will do the same thing for them that doing nothing would. The two FMs will own the non-liquid loans bought with taxpayer money. The two FMs can then foreclose and recover mere pennies on the dollar or honor the loans and gamble on the unqualified borrower paying them and write off the losses from those who default . But wait, those are the same options the FMs would have if they weren’t bailed out. What’s the reason for bailing out the two FMs? Congress gets involved in the bail out and will regulate and oversee the funds provided for the rescue. That is why congress is scurrying around trying to quickly pass a resolution to provide 700 billion for the bail out. They will then skim off millions for earmarks, pork barrel projects, and generally do what congress does with huge sums of cash. Spend it and line their pockets.

But, people who have traditional, fixed rate, fully amortized mortgages based on their income and ability to pay need not worry. And those with the capability to pay loan payments and qualify for a traditional mortgage will find this an excellent opportunity to buy a home as prices are down and they can buy a home of higher value than they could otherwise.

The mortgage crisis has arisen from government imposing itself into a privately owned and operated industry. Now, those who caused the crisis are screaming that government should have been more involved and more regulation should be implemented. The proverbial fox is in the henhouse and is now wanting written permission from the farmer to slaughter his hens at will and to provide the charcoal and BBQ sauce as well.

As for culpability, at the very least, Sen. Dodd and Rep Frank should be forced to resign and forfeit their pensions. Janet Reno should be prosecuted for malfeasance. There are a few others who deserve such action also. The two FMs should either be made totally private without undue government regulations or be dissolved and the loans they backed and owned should be foreclosed upon.

This crisis is not a threat to the overall economy, but democratic demands for more government involvement in rescuing failed communities and subsidizing inner city urban areas when people choose to move elsewhere, or imposing fly-by-night requirements and restrictions on privately owned, thriving industry, or taxing industry because of resounding successes and soaring profit are all severe and imminent threats to the economy.

Vote them ALL out of congress. Demand term limits for members of congress. Demand that congress recognize their duty to call for a convention for ammending the Constitution as required in Article Five. If they don’t respond to our demands, vote THEM out. Vote for McCain even if he isn’t the epitome of conservative values. A vote any other way will only hasten the fall of our great nation.

• No valid birth certificate has been provided by Obama.
• Obama traveled abroad at age twenty with an Indonesian passport which requires Indonesian citizenship. Dual citizenship is not legal in the US.
• A federal law suit citing over 20 allegations is pending seeking his disqualification from becoming president.

Obama claims he is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

• In Audacity of Hope Obama states that he doesn’t really hold any profound religious belief but that he joined the church for street creds.
• Obama’s environment from birth to his move to Hawaii at age ten WAS Muslim. His instruction, family life, allegiance, and pride was in and of being Muslim. He once stated that the Islamic evening call to prayer was the most beautiful sound he’s ever heard and if necessary he would side with the Muslims.
• Obama has never been baptized as a Christian. To do so would brand him as an apostate in the world of Islam.
• Obama does not believe in the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the only means for salvation, as taught in the Bible. He has professed the belief that there are many avenues for achieving spiritual atonement. Even his church of two decades does not teach biblical Christanity.

Obama claims to love America and to be proud of being an American

• Obama has studied and believes in the teachings and beliefs of F. M. Davis, Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farakhan, and Vladimir Lenin.
• Obama refuses to pay tribute to the American flag or the National Anthem. He calls a flag lapel pin "that pin".
• Obama’s typical public address is a few minutes of thanks and greetings followed by a laundry list of what is wrong with America, how it treats its people badly, and how he, alone, can bring about the change needed and establish economic justice for all. This is classic Alinkyism "rubbing raw their feeling of dissent".
• Obama has toured the world apologizing for the evil America has wrought on the world and promising to make America a global citizen. More Alinskyisms.
• Obama has changed his politics as needed to maintain his poll ratings. This is in strict adherence to the Alinsky tactic of obtaining power in any way possible, regardless of the means. The end justifies whatever is necessary because without power you can do nothing to bring about socialism, Alinsky’s ultimate goal.
• His own campaign boldly states that de-regulation of industry and a capitalistic market are failed, antiquated policies. Obama believes that major, sweeping reform of American society, including the elimination of the middle class through redistribution of wealth (economic justice) is what America needs, and that is the change he believes in and is working for.

To understand who and what Obama is and what his vision for America entails one need only list his known associates, his self proclaimed influences, his reversals of policies during the campaign, his public anti-American behavior, his wife’s public statements and her reversals of demeanor, his use of euphamisms straight from Alinsky’s writings, and his promises made and then broken to not run for president and be the best senator he can for Illinois.

Barack Obama is a dangerous, anti-American socialist who means to dismantle American society as we know it and reform it into a Marxist dictatorship. He will do anything, say anything, and change colors like a chameleon to get the power necessary to do so. To him, the end justifies the means. If you add all this up, Obama’s words and actions become logical and revealing. He wants to bring America down. That is the change we should ALL believe he believes in.

The past couple of weeks have seemed like an eternity in some ways. It was just ten days ago that Sarah Palin accepted the nomination of VP candidate of the Republican party. It has been less than 72 hours since FreddieMac and FannieMay were bailed out by American taxpayers. What with all the attacks on the Palin family, the Obama interview by Bill O’Reilly, McCain’s new policy to change America’s direction, it hardly seems like it’s only been a handful of days. And in that few days there have been many claims made that need to be factualized and the truth be told.

There is a pattern to be recognized here. Democrats tend to deception and a lack of responsibility in order to gain power. Admiitedly the Republican party is not without blame too, but as a matter of policy is realistic, more effective at providing a solution for America’s needs, and generally supports American traditions and values.

This presidential campaign has made the idea of change a political vaguery open to speculation and imagination. The Democratic candidate has made it his mantra and it has eagerly been supported by throngs of idolizers who are able, due to Obama’s lack of specificity, to fill in their own idea of what that change may be. But if the facts of the past few years show anything at all they show that Obama’s promise to change the direction of our country is a pledge that he will, more fervently, continue the policies that have been in effect since the last congressional election and that the only change will be away from the constitution and toward a socialist elite ruling class at a more rapid pace.

In the past two years we have seen the shameful despotic control of Congress by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Their shortsighted, unrealistic, egotistical demands that the policy of no drilling for additional oil sources will be continued, that the mortgage industry relax their qualifications to make home ownership available to lower income earners, their all out war against the Patriot Act, our uniformed forces and their mission, and every aspect of this nation’s defense policies, their perverted demand for windfall profit taxes on the petroleum industry, and many other socialist policies have brought this nation to the place where we stand today. Despite their anti-American efforts and the apparent desire to see all Americans depleated of their savings and way of life, the economy, the military, the president, and the people are still alive and kicking.

But things could and will change drastically if the Democrats win the Whitehouse and maintain a majority in Congress. They will change by staying the same in the underlying scheme of the liberals. They will gain the power to actually do some major reconstruction on the American way of life and subvert the Constitution to that end. The path will be the same, but the speed down the path will greatly increase. That is the change Obama promises whether he specifies it as such or not.

So when McCain says he is for change in Washington we can be sure he means a real change in direction back to the basics this country was founded on. We can know this by his history of pro-American activities and voting record. The facts of the recent past show his to be the real, authentic claim to change the direction of America. When Obama talks change he intends to accelerate us along the route set by Commrades Pelosi and Reid, Schumer and Kennedy, and the rest of the radical, left wing Soviet wannabees. We can be sure of this by examining his past and present associates, his word for word repitition of socialist euphamisms such as "economic justice" and the absence of any reference to adherance to the Constitution, and his obvious disdain for this nation and his continued criticism of its way of life and world stature.

So, which of the two definitions of change are American voters going to choose? Forget all the unimportant details and zoom out to the big picture: America becoming a socialist dictatorship or oligarchy, or America clinging to the Constitution and individual liberty. These are the two basic choices. As another astute townhall blogger has repeatedly, and correctly put it, "Conservatism sells". Let’s all hope so. For the sake of America and her great people, let’s all vote to make it so. SAY NO TO OBAMA!!