LET’S AGREE TO VOTE THEM ALL OUT !!

LET’S TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTFUL CONTROL OF AMERICA !!

http://voidnow.org

http://tenurecorrupts.com

No, in my opinion, as a first step in the reconstitution of America as she was established, we conservatives need to retake the Republican Party and not re-brand it, but reaffirm what it has always stood for. The RNC leadership has, in recent times, sought to attract the liberal contingent of the party and, to that end, have accepted many of the premises of the Left and gone soft on the strict, constitutional ideology which made it the political conscience of modern society.

To begin that reaffirmation of conservative values, we need to support a true conservative worthy of leading this party as the RNC Chairman. Michael Steele, in my opinion, is the man for the job. If you haven’t already read his bio here on townhall, do so and also do a bit of research on his beliefs. He IS the best choice available, and would not be a "good enough" or "lesser of evils" choice. He is a strong, die-hard conservative who would do us proud by heading the party. The Democrats hate him, what else need be said.

There are those who say Newt Gingrich should be the one for that job, while others are promoting Newt as the ideal man for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate. I disagree on both counts regarding Newt Gingrich. He has shown a worrisome tendancy to accept the premises of the liberal agenda in areas such as the environment, energy, and even the economy. He also comes with a LOAD of baggage that has burdened his career and given grist to feed the liberal MSM mill. No, Newt is old news, damaged goods, and would have a very slim chance of attracting the voters needed to win an election. All the same reasons apply to why he should not be considered for the RNC leadership position. Newt is a smart, but damaged politician. Not a good candidate for a new, all out assault on the liberals in power now. He would do much more good in the role of campaign director, or similar position, but not as a candidate or party policy maker. With a man like Steele in charge of the RNC, we could have faith in, and count on Republicans who hold to the traditional platform being promoted for election.

Steele believes in the core values set down in the Constitution: limited government, minimal taxation, a strong stance in world affairs, strict immigration law enforcement, and a literal translation of the law by the judiciary. He departs from the conceived conservative viewpoint in his support for affirmative action for ALL who need a place from which to start, regardless of race, and his support for stem cell research where no lives are forfeited. He is as close to the founders as it gets in this world, and we conservatives could support him wholeheartedly with no reservations.

I will, in the near future, post a list of the RNC members who will vote to elect the next chairman. We should, if Steele as chairman is who we want, write to every member urging them to support and vote for Steele.

You can view a video of Steele thanking those who support his bid for chairman at…

http://www.draftmichaelsteele.com/

More on the "Retaking of the Nation" to come soon.

Glenn Flowers

His eloquent orations and polished mannerisms seemed to throw a fog over his suspected character flaws passed over as non-existant by the majority of voters and the news media. His ability to falsely assure those spoiled masses that he had their particular interests at heart shielded them from his admitted inward disgust for an America seen as having fallen short of its potential. With phraseology such as "economic justice" and "social equality" his choice of confrontation and deceptive activism was believed to be a patriotic and honest hard look at what America had become and as a path to be followed to the full realization of his vision for improvement.

For his ability to persuade and beguile the weak in thought, for his persistence in applying the lessons learned from Marx and Alinsky to the modern election campaign, for his inherent honoring of self and demands of respect and fair play by his opponent, and for his diplomatic prowess in enlisting the formidable persuasiveness of the broadcasting industry to a belief in his cause, we find it our responsibility to offer Mr. Obama a hearty slap on the back and a whispered, under the breath utterance of a sincere and profane expression of our feeling for him.

Yes, he’s the one. The one who saw, the who knew, and the one who acted in a fashion designed to seize the growing tide of dissention and then rub it raw.

Let’s be perfectly candid when defining and quantifying his life, his career, and the campaign that has brought us to this point in history.

With what could legally be considered a radically subversive life totally committed to the peaceful overthrow of the US government, Obama has lied about the truth and prideful confessions of his own autobiography to the apparent satisfaction of Americans who once thought of themselves as patriotic and freedom loving Americans. With proven ties and alliances to such radicals and criminals as Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Louis Farakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and various political machine thugs of Chicago, Obama sailed by any serious scrutiny from all but his most dedicated opponents, and those were as dust in the wind. With a confession of having used hard drugs regularly in college and seeking out the most controversial organizations on campus to insure that he was not seen as a sell out, the adoring masses gathered at his feet and swooned. There was no possibility of wrong doing in their dazed perception of "The One We Have Been Waiting For".

Barack Obama was uniquely qualified to lead the spineless of America from their comfortable life of pursuing happiness into the tyranny and cruelty of an imposed socialist oligarchy, all the while being praised and adored by those he would lead to ruin. Yes indeed, Mr. Obama has to be given his just rewards for his intellect, for his ability to deceive, for his cunning allure, for his stealthy lethality. He has, in less than 24 months, accomplished what the Soviet Union, in all its might and splendor, failed to acieve in fifty years of devious effort. He has, by himself, brainwashed the mentally vulnerable in American society and the leaders of a major political party to allow him to fundamentally rebuild the American government, economy, and mindset from one of Constitutional rule by law and the ideal of individual liberty, to the tried and failed, oppressive criminalities of narcissistic sociopathy espoused by some of the most brutal and murderous maniacs in human history.

Following in the boot prints of the National Socialist Party of Germany (NAZIS) and the original creator of modern fascism, (Mussolini) Obama is set to impose, with the help of like minded Democratic congressmaen, a destructive and demoralizing set of policies that are fully capable of rendering the sole super power on Earth as weak and vulnerable as any third world anarchy. And this to the delight and cheers of those who were once considered to be among the most blessed and envied people on the planet.

Congratulations are not appropriate. Any claim of admiration or respect is not to be found here. What is offered here to Mr. Obama is the promise of no quarter for him and his cronies from those of us who, with the full blessing and admonition of the supreme law of the land, will dog his life incessantly as long as he pursues his evil vision for our nation. We offer him only our most zealous opposition, violently if required, to his twisted and selfish plans. We have nothing but disdain and contempt for his actions and their vomitous inspirations.

To those Americans who have proven weak of spirit and mind in their lemming like sleep walk to Obama’s beckon call, we offer our most heartfelt sympathy at being fooled by the most foolish of all in that you chose such as they promised above the God inspired and humanly expensive paradise of liberty and opportunity of America. We understand such as you but deny any likeness in ourselves, having escaped and thrown off all dealings with such as you centuries past. We wash our hands of your weak ways and offer no consideration of forgivness for any future change of heart. You have what you begged him to give you, and we can no longer tolerate such a luke warm allegiance.

The battlefield has been cleared of non-combatant waste, and it is our opportunity, no, our purpose to plan and execute a withering counter strike of dedication and confidence in the faith and loyalty of the majority of Americans in their inheritance of the promise of the Constitution We, the Conservative Patriots of America, stand together in the righteous pursuit of American values, and the annihilation of all enemies and traitors from the soil and remembrance of America. So help us God.

Glenn Flowers

In 2004 a man named Bill Walker filed a lawsuit against every member of Congress in federal court charging them with failure to abide by the Constitution, Article V, and call for a convention for the states to propose ammendments to the Constitution. It was dismissed with prejudice that the court had no jurisdiction to rule on the charges.,This allowed it to be appealed.

In the appeal the charges were more clearly defined as being one felony count of violating the law of the Constitution, Art. V, and one felony count of violating their sworn Oath of Office. The case was assigned to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in May, 2006, the court ruled, again, with prejudice that they had no jurisdiction over Congress, which automatically sent the suit to the US Supreme Court. During this appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ attorney representing congress made official statements and decisions required by law that set the stage for the ruling that would eventually be made by the Supreme Court.

These statements and decisions were in regard to a) the DOJ being replaced by the Solicitor General as attorney of record for members of Congress, and that each member of Congress had to submit a written request to join in the mutual defense of Congress and be represented by the SG. This was done by all 534 representitves and senators. And b) that they would waive privelage of Congress and answer all subpeonas and abide by the court’s rulings. This waiver was agreed to unanimously.

In August, 2006, the Supreme Court issued an order for a writ of certiorari to be submitted by the plaintiff outlining the charges and the basis of those charges and the plaintiff's legal reasoning for bringing the charges against the defendants. The court would use the writ as an aid in determining whether or not to take the appeal to trial. The court had no immediate objection to the plaintiff’s writ and then noted the defendant’s right to submit a response to the writ stating why the assertions of the plaintiff were not true and the law used as the basis of the suit had not been violated. If the defendant’s attorney waives the right to submit a response to that writ it is a formal and official acknowledgement that the charges in the writ of certiorari from the plaintiff are correct and true. The Solicitor General, with the approval of all 534 members of Congress, decided to waive any challenge to the plaintiff’s writ, thereby entering a confession by all 534 defendants to being guilty of two federal felonies per the charges.

The court dismissed the suit, but not before establishing the fact and entering into the court and public record that all charges against the defendants had been found to be true and correct as to the law and fact and admitted to by all defendants, individually before the judge. They were all guilty by admission, and that guilt was a matter of record.

The dismissal had the virtual affect of endorsing the "right" by Congress to ignore the Constitution, but did not exempt them from prosecution for doing so.

Ironically, the court refused to try the case, but then entered the admission of every member Congress to being guilty of the charges into the official record allowing any future court accepting jurisdiction to bypass a trial and immediately sentence the defendants per their confessions already on record.

Congress came away with the arrogant attitude that they were not penalized for choosing to violate the Constitution and were therefore able to ignore it anytime they chose. Actually, they only escaped prison sentences because the court decided it had no jurisdiction over Congress. If Mr. Walker, or anyone else continues to pursue this case, there might be a judge somewhere in Washington who believes he does have the right to pass binding judgement on Congress, and that would trigger the arrest and incarceration of every senator and representitive who held office in August, 2006.

Let us pray for a judge with an attitude to find this case on his dockett.

Glenn Flowers

I have written here some thoughts I’ve had recently which, individually do not deserve a post of their own, but all together seem to coalesce into a common thread. So, here they are.

1. George Soros, a major contributor to Obama’s campaign, an avid radical socialist and power hungry elitist, decided to hedge his bet by …

1. Eliminating all possibly successful opposition to Obama by threat or bribes.
2. Attempting to coerce McCain into supporting Soros’ ideology if he were to win
3. Show McCain a sample of what could be done to destroy him by accusing him of eroneous mis-doings, and then allowing them to die, a shot across the bow, if you will.

The news report was the show of force or shot across the bow. The desired result was McCain was suddenly the only GOP candidate in the race, having been the least funded and least popular of all the GOP hopefuls. How does that happen? Collusion is the word.

I could be persuaded to believe that this is the reason that McCain, although claiming to be a conservative, has embraced some very leftist premises such as climate change, bio-fuels, no drilling in ANWAR, etc. He has, possibly, been compromised and is in the pocket, at least partially, of George Soros. If Obama loses Soros would still have a partial victory on some of his pet projects through a McCain administration. Soros had been rejected by all the GOP candidates, except one. That one is still in the race, while the best of the conservatives and most funded are all just memories of who could have beaten Obama at his own game, eloquence.

The most telling and recent example of their audacious arrogance is the answer Obama gave to Joe the plumber admitting that those who have more will be forced to share the fruits of their labor with those who have less, because that is fair, get used to it and dream about what might have been. The Dems believe they have made their case with the middle class and claim a mandate to produce economic justice.

What we dared not believe true, what seemed to be an impossibility in this nation of the free, has reared its ugly mug and is spitting in our face, while chowing down on the Constitution as just a pre-dinner hours de’ouvre before devouring our liberties and inalienable rights.

If McCain is not elected, and the majority in Congress is consolidated, our American history of freedom and liberty is not just doomed, but is destroyed.

Our only hope, in that situation, is the Joint Chiefs of Staff stepping up and eliminating the threat to the Constitution as they have sworn to do, in a counter coup and reinstatement of real patriots and the elimination of leftists completely. How much will you wager on that happening? It would be a real possibility if it were the Marine Corp and Rangers "Leading the Way". Without that stalwart and unstoppable show of allegiance and patriotism, the worst that we have never imagined will be the new America. It is our final ray of hope we might want to believe in.

First, McCain proposing tax cuts for businesses and big oil is OK with me. I have no objection to a tax cut for anyone. At least he isn’t proposing an increase on me.

Second, Obama is not going to raise taxes on 95% of working families. I’m OK with that too, but what is not said but implied is, he WILL raise taxes on others. I’m not OK with that. There is too much taxation in general for my liking.

So, according to Obama’s ad, McCain WILL cut taxes somewhere and does not propose any increase. Obama will not raise taxes for some and DOES propose huge increases for the rest. And, the ad states that McCain will not give one cent in cuts to the middle class, but Obama will give three times that much to them. Hmmm… Three times not one cent is…. Not one cent.

Spin, deception, lies, pandering, socialist economy, radical anti-Americanism, redistribution of wealth, all proven aspects of the Obama campaign. Change we can depend on.

Well, we’re still here and conservative to the gills. We are proud nephews of Uncle Sam and staunch believers in and defenders of our Constitution. We still don’t appreciate being asked who we will vote for by political whiz jerks trying to appear as geniuses with their prophetic poll results. In fact, we will go WAY out of our way to avoid anyone with a clipboard acosting people. We are, still, the one "category" of voters whose votes are the yay or nay in any election, as proven by so many post election analysts. And, to this day, the MSM refuses to account for or even recognize our existence, influence, or stubborn conservativism. But, we always determine the outcome, when we choose to do so. This is, I am certain, one of those times when we will cause the calculated, precise with error margin, best guess poll results to be so, so wrong. And it will be fun.

Barack Obama’s conversation with Joe the plumber earlier this week has stirred the minds of many Americans, and not in a way helpful to Obama. There have been signs at subsequent McCain rallies saying, "Lucy the Inspector – Joe the Bricklayer" or "Why Joe’s money and not Obama’s". But it didn’t have to go that way. No, if Obama was truly an economic wizard, or, say, just had a working knowledge of a W-2 form, he could have answered Joe the plumber in a completely different and more accurate way that would not have made Obama appears as the socialist he is.

Joe stated that he wanted to buy a company doing about $250,000 to $280,000 a year, and he believed that, under Obama’s policy he would have his taxes raised because he was over $250,000. Obama answered that yes, he would be subject to higher taxes but only as high as under Clinton. He also told Joe that as a small business he would get a credit for half of the cost of healthcare for his employees. But he then stated to Joe that his tax increase was not a penalty for success, and suggested that Joe think about what could have been if Obama was president ten years ago. He then, in a moment of perceived brilliance, told Joe that he would get a tax break if Joe grew his business from $250,000 a year to $500,000 a year because Obama was going to abolish the capital gains tax and, therefore, he wouldn’t have to pay tax on the growth.

Where to begin pointing out Obama’s ignorance on the economy and present tax code? .

First, a company doing $250,000 of business a year does not have that much profit. Businesses naturally get to exclude the money they pay in wages, insurance of all types, vehicle purchases and their upkeep, their rent or mortgage on their property, building maintenance, loss of value for buildings and other capital properties, legal fees, uniforms, and all other business costs. These exemptions would most definitely lower the taxable net income, or profit, and take Joe’s company right out of the increase bracket. That would have been an answer Joe would have liked, it would have made Obama appear knowledgeable, and Americans everywhere might have sighed a bit in relief. At least those whose net income is lower than the Obama baseline of $250,000.

Second, Obama ended up by telling Joe about the capital gains tax being eliminated and Joe wouldn’t be taxed if he grew his company over the $250,000 limit. Again, Obama didn’t know, or had forgotten the fact that the growth he was talking about was, again, total worth of all business, or gross income. Growing from $250,000 to $500,000 is not a capital gain but a growth in total proceeds and, if there were enough exemptions paid out to drop that amount to less than $250,000 there would be no tax increase. But, if there were insufficient exemptions and Joe’s company’s net income was above the baseline, then the excess would be taxable. He recommended to Joe that he think about the past and what could have been, if only.....

It is conceivable that with such a growth in business Joe would have needed a bigger building, more vehicles, a larger post-process-inhibitor (?) or other expensive long term equipment. These costs for the more expensive, longlife items that hold their value over decades are capital expenditures. The purchase of these and the growth in businees they allow are all part of growth, bur only the capital assets owned by the company are subject to capital gains tax and only that amount would made non-taxable by Obama.

Obama showed his true self in that little talk with Joe. He said that Joe would have to pay a little more so that some other Joe the unemployed could have the chance Joe had. As if to say that Joe had an undue advantage by being a hard working, visionary plumber who knew how to save and manage a budget. You could almost smell the angst of Joe when Obama told him to just think of it as if he was doing a special favor for the little guy and to be happy it is finally happening, and blame the republicans and greedy whomevers that it didn’t happen ten years ago.

Folks, Obama is wrong in almost everything he says needs changing. We do need to change America’s political workings, but that change would be AWAY from leftist socialistic policies of Obama and those already in place and TOWARD the re-implementation of Constitutional restraint on governmental power, responsibility, and funding. The change we need is AWAY from the failed economic policies of the past two decades, implemented largely by Democrats in congress and in the Whitehouse, and back TOWARD the successful economic policy of a minimally regulated, open market and the cause/effect of bad business equals failure and good business equals success. No other form of economy has ever produced the fantastic and incalculable wealth of every kind in history such as the world feeding, space exploring, atom splitting, superior military, and overall giant of production that the USA has been and still is. DeToqueville stated that it is trite to say a man or person "made" this amount of money per day, or "made" a wage less than he deserved, because, for the most part, those people actually produced nothing of tangible value. He said, though, that the term "making money" was the ideal phrase to describe the economy and results of the hard working people of America because from America flowed an abundance of all things needed for mankind to live a leisurely but productive life whwerever in the world he lived. Admiral Yamamoto, the commander of theJapanese Pearl Harbor attack force and a graduate of Harvard (I think it was Harvard) also saw the reality of the American people and the economic system they worked in and stated, in regard to the effect of their attack on Dec. 7, "I am convinced we have done what we planned. But I am also fearful that what we have really accomplished is the waking of a sleeping giant".

Obama wants to, narcissistically impose his own idea of greatness. He believes we could do much more for the world if we were forced to do so. I believe that his plan will have the opposite effect he desires on America and the world, and thereby, render the USA incapable of the glorious feats that have made it the greatest and most generous nation in history, bar none.

NOBAMA !!

Glenn Flowers

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 ! !

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.