Dear Mr. Obama....

Release The Tape!

The L.A. Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. They claim that it would reveal their source. My question is, if they had to promise not to release it, why was it given to the big boy newspaper to begin with? What's the point? Yes they did print an article about it in April 2008, but they only print the parts of it they want to print. Why not print a complete transcript of the tape?

I personally think that Obama said some things that could jeopardize his campaign, and support his radical associations with the likes of Ayers - who was reportedly at the same event.

It was said by Alan Colmes tonight, that McCain gave several hundred thousand dollars to that group that Khalidi headed up. (It was a wimpy attempt to take the spotlight off of Obama.) If so, show us the tape so we can see what McCain is associated with.

No - if this tape was harmful to McCain in any way, the Times would release it.

I have an idea. Let the Secret Service see it. They are charged with our Executives' safety. They need to know what they are dealing with so they can do their jobs more efficiently.

.

Racism Hypocricy

During this campaign, the Democrat [sic] Party has spared no opportunity to accuse those who differ with Obama's policies as being racist. They play the "race card" quite often. I get really tired of it. I have heard that someone (media? campaign worker? Don't recall.) said if a white man voted for the white man in stead of the black man, he was being racist. Does that also apply to the black man who votes for the black man instead of the white man? Is he racist? Of course not. Neither is the white man who votes for the white man instead of the black man.

Childishness like this from Obama's campaign and others in the Democrat [sic] Party is uncalled for. Call me a racist if you like, but I will not vote for someone whose policies I disagree with so much. I judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

"Dewey Defeats Truman!"

Can it happen again? Can we elect someone who is supposedly trailing in the polls? You bet we can! We can if we don't give up, thinking the polls are the way it's going to be. I don't give polls that much credit - especially the ones the media pushes. It ain't over 'til it's over.

We need to keep in mind that Obama was endorsed by our enemies - terrorist organizations and the leaders of countries that don't much like us. He has long-standing relationships with our "enemies". Ayers is our enemy. Reverend Wright is too, as is ACORN. Why does he have such interest in being positive in the eyes of our enemies? That sends me a vivid message.

He wants to spread the wealth around (but not his own wealth). If you make over $250,000, he will take some of it and spread it around. Why would anybody want to be successful if all they had to look forward to was someone taking their money away from them? Will he donate a chunk of his wealth to the cause? Somehow, I really don't think that would happen. (McCain said he doesn't want to take Obama's wealth and spread it around - or anybody else's.) Obama reported $4.2 million in income in 2007 according to the New York Times. When will he step up and make the first donation? (In 2006, it was even $1 million - four times his $250k "rich" criteria.) Spread some of that wealth my way, Barack Hussein Obama!

Obama says we can be energy independent in 10 years. He says that we only have 3% of the world's oil supply, yet use 25% of it. He won't allow drilling where the oil is. He won't allow nuclear power plants to be built. Something doesn't add up with those numbers considering his "10 years" goal. If his numbers were correct, we can never be energy independent. 25 - 3 = 22. We would still have to ge 22% of our oil from those we depend on, even if we used all of our 3%.

It used to be said that the ideal President would be a moderate, one who isn't at either extreme. Doesn't it stand to reason that one who will buck both parties might fit that criteria?

Let's let Dewey Defeat Truman again. With ACORN registering Mickey Mouse to vote - and so many other fraudulent registrations - we must get out and vote. With Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid at the helm, our Country will be in serious trouble. Let's keep Checks and Balances in place as our forefathers intended.




Obama's Rotten ACORN



.

Bailout Bill, Section 124

Summarizing a section of the bailout bill, cut-n-pasted from the government's PDF:

"Section 124. Hope for Homeowners Amendments.
Strengthens the Hope for Homeowners program to increase eligibility and improve the tools available to prevent foreclosures."

The brilliant idea to "increase eligibility" is exactly what caused all this - and Congress did it. Now they are doing it again. How can a problem be helped by doing the same thing that caused it?



For those who don't think McCain or the Republicans tried to do anything about getting oversight...

In 2003, John McCain was a co-sponsor of an oversight bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was introduced by Chuck Hagel.

***************************

Overview

Sponsor:	Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] Cosponsors [as of 2006-07-09] Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] Sen. Trent Lott [R-MS] Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Bill Text:	Summary | Full Text
Status:	Introduced Jul 31, 2003 Reported by Committee - Voted on in Senate - Voted on in House - Signed by President - This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.

Last Action:

Apr 1, 2004: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

*************************

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs apparently dropped the ball. Guess who was the chairman at the time? Chris Dodd. Where have we heard of him before? And, did you notice? The sponsor and co-sponsors were all Republicans. The bill's summary is as follows (emphasis mine):

******************

7/31/2003--Introduced.

Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003 - Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to establish in the Department of the Treasury the Office of Federal Enterprise Supervision. Transfers to the Director of such Office supervisory and regulatory authority over specified government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Prohibits merger or consolidation of such Office or its functions.

Requires: (1) the Director to ensure that the enterprises operate in a financially safe manner and remain adequately capitalized; and (2) that each enterprise have prior approval of the Director before implementing a new program.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Director, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; and (7) reporting.

Sets forth certain retained authorities of the Secretary.

Abolishes the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Sets forth related transfer of personnel and facility and property provisions.

*************************

Methinks there is something rotten in Denmark, and it's not the McCain or the Republicans. Research it yourself if you like. Go to official Congressional records, not the blogs or MSNBC.

Economic Crisis

Do you know what caused it? This video will show you the history of it, and who is to blame. You can't correct anything until you know the root cause. Let's correct this and keep it from happening again.

Watch the Video Here

.

Election Madness, etc.

For a long time, I was not overly excited about our elections. I had thought that I would go to the polls while holding my nose. Things changed very quickly when Sarah Palin came on scene. The Democrat Party got a good dose of fear and panic. The media joined them.

I always thought McCain was too liberal for my tastes, but Obama is much more so. While many things bother me about McCain, there is so much more that scares me about Obama. In my opinion, an Obama nation would be an abomination.

None of our candidates have any interest in taking control of our borders. Far too many illegals come across undetected or ignored. Truck loads of Mexicans cross our borders through tunnels and through remote parts of our border states. Have you ever wondered how many wacko extremists come in those trucks? If it's so easy for us to turn a blind eye to people in trucks, what's to keep them from transporting certain "things" in those trucks instead - "things" that can do us harm by themselves or can be assebled into bigger, more catastrophic "things"? Somebody better start paying attention. We need to control our borders. It is imperative. Chances are, we will be hit again some day. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. That 's the complacency mindset that caused us to be hit before. Why make it easy for them?

There are a lot of things that bother me about Obama. There are many unanswered quetions out there. We don't know who he is. His past and loyalties are very cloudy at best. Associating with the miscreants and terrorists he has is of major concern, especially considering his reluctance to distance himself from them. Still, why did he keep alliances with them?

The one thing that bothers me most about Obama is that our enemies (and those that don't really like us) have all endorsed him. That, my friends, is where the rubber meets the road. That is the key to who I am going to vote for. If those who want to see us harmed want a given candidate as our leader, that is cause for great concern. I will not vote for anybody that our enemies want in office - particularly in this case. A newcomer with a cloudy past, an associate of and friend to the likes of Ayers and Wright, plus our enemies endorsing him for President of The United States is more than enough for me to vote against him.

I applaud McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. That is when the Democrat Party and media started to really blow their fuses. It's not enough that she is a renegade like McCain, but she's a .....*gasp*......woman! A smart, successful woman - someone the Democrats would love to have on their side. Unfortunately for them, she is a Republican.

In their frenzy, they are doing their best to dig up anything they can on Palin. They sent an army of "investigators" to the tiny, insignificant town of Wasilla to do so. (That's that tiny town she was mayor of.) They dig into her husband, they use Palin's daughter as a pawn in their attempts. They attack her values when she makes the choice to not kill her son with Downs Syndrome. And yet, they are ignoring or trivializing all the serious questions we have about Obama? No bias there.

I know who I will vote for. I know "who" he is. I don't like everything about who he is, but I know what to expect with him. Nobody seems to know who Obama is - except our enemies. They know him well enough to endorse him. Think about that. Our enemies know Obama well enough to endorse him. Me? I took an oath many years ago to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...", and I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama and still honor that oath. That oath did not have a time limit on it.

I don't particularly like renegades, but I do agree with Obama. We need change. Maybe getting two renegades in office is the change we need. I'm game.

I know where the rubber meets the road. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------

The financial crisis we are facing is another concern. It was caused by people buying things they can't afford. There have always been "special deals" and incentives to encourage people to buy cars and houses they wouldn't otherwise purchase. Low- and zero-interest rates are not uncommon. However, when the government demands that lending institutions make money available to people who have little or no means to repay those loans - that's asking for trouble, and exactly what caused the big boys to fail. Those damn Republicans! No, both sides caused this. The Democrats prevented oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush wanted oversight in 2003, and McCain warned of this in 2005. Bush's oversight bill was shot down on party lines. Republicans voted for oversight and Democrats voted for none. This is the result. Oh, did I mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed more money to the campaigns of Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and Obama than any other candidate? They are all Democrat senators. And two were/are candidates for our highest office. I wonder if that's why the Democrats shot down oversight? More questions. Why isn't the media digging into it like they are Palin's life?

What seems foolish to me is that the government caused this by bending to people who couldn't afford houses, allowing them to get them when they couldn't afford it. Now the government thinks it is the one to fix it? In his address about the matter, Bush even said the bail out funds can be used to help people buy homes? Hellooooooo!!!! This is exactly what caused it in the first place!!!

This is what happens when the government tries to run a business. They did it to social security, and now they are going to do it to our financial sector? I don't think so. They won't cure anything. The only way lenders or any business can act responsibly is if they are allowed to fail. They were irresponsible in their lending practices because the government told them to, and they were not afraid of failure. They knew the government would save them.