Life After Fannie and Freddie

Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end !!
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pres sure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsou nd manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Net windfall . . . $190 million!
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street ?

Mr. Smith (McCain) Goes to Washington

Senator John McCain on Wednesday, suspended his campaign as of Thursday morning so that he could return to Washington to do his job as Senator and try to help the Congress reach an agreement to save the country’s economy.

Naturally, the liberal media is portraying this as a political stunt to try to save a free-falling campaign. There is no thought that McCain considers this crisis to be real and that he’s one of 100 people that are supposed to deal with this crisis. This is understandable, since the press is in the pockets of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and he’s not going to follow suit and return to do his job.

I have one disagreement with McCain’s decision. I don’t think he should have suspended his campaign. I do agree with his decision to return to Washington, but I think he missed an opportunity here.

He could have said he’s returning to Washington to help with the “rescue package” but said that due to his having to honor his duties first, he is instead sending his VP choice (Sarah Palin) to the debates to stand in his place against Senator Obama. This would have shown a couple of things. 1. It would show that he takes the crisis seriously. 2. It would be a presidential move by sending his VP to fill in for him. When the President can’t fulfill his duties, the VP steps in. This would have been a very real example of how he would lead.

Had he done that, Obama would have had several decisions to make. As it is, he’s chosen to continue his campaign and claim that Presidents need to handle more than one thing at a time. Had he stuck by that decision even if Palin was sent to debate him, he’d have had to make another decision. Does he debate McCain’s stand in or does he then agree to postpone it? If he postpones it, he’d have looked like he was afraid of Palin. Had he agreed to show up for the debate, he’d have appeared weak because he was debating the second slot on his opponents ticket against someone that he claims has no experience but who in fact has more experience than Obama does.

If nothing else, this would have been fun to watch. The events that happen, or the debate if it was to take place. It would have been fun to watch the maneuvering.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

President Bush: Right Man at the Right Place at the Right Time

We very nearly suffered through a meltdown that could have made the Depression look like prosperous times. Through a week of bailouts, high CEO payout stories and the dire prediction of the meltdown, something needed to be done. President Bush stepped up.

On Thursday, President Bush called a meeting with SEC Chair Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. They came up with a plan to attempt to stop this country from falling into a precarious financial situation. They developed a plan to stop that in its’ tracks.

While the two Presidential candidates jockeyed for position that would make them look better to voters, the President stood up and grabbed the bull by the horns. If it succeeds, he will be a hero. If it fails, he will be a goat. The success or failure of his efforts now lay in the hands of Congress.

Congress has failed for years. This trouble goes all the way back to the Jimmy Carter Presidency. They’ve put in laws that forced lending institutions to loan money to those that would not otherwise be eligible for loans. They’ve not done the proper oversight as is their charge.

In 2003 President Bush tried to end some of these tactics and laws that would bring about the very situation that we just ran into last week. Congress wouldn’t act. Last Thursday, President Bush had a choice. Call in his people to try to solve the problem or let the problem work itself out.

The President has just four months left in office. He could have put it off to the next President. If you watch the news, he’s already considered a failed administration by the liberal media. He could have done nothing and let it play out. It may have played out and worked itself out. Instead, President Bush didn’t take the chance of the country going down the economic drain. He put the country first and acted. I don't know that the solution is the correct one. I tend to think that it's not. Nationalizing the markets doesn't seem to be a correct answer. That's not the point of this however. The point is that the situation called for someone to stand up and present a plan and President Bush did so.

Now our fate is in the hands of Congress. Congress, who always adds their pet projects to bills that have nothing to do with the bill, are now being asked to deal with this situation and not politicize it with those pet projects. Already it’s begun. Congressman Barney Frank has called for a surtax on the rich blaming them for the situation we’re in.

President Bush had a moment that is similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were on the brink of a disaster and he stepped up to the plate and got the job done. Now it’s in the hands of Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. Not the President. Yet, President Bush stepped up and did Congress’ job which they’ve neglected for years, and now we’re back to hoping that Congress can step up and do as the President has done.

Can they do it? With the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barney Frank who have received deals on their mortgages and are directly and indirectly responsible for this situation, it’s a scary thought. Congressman Rangel, who writes tax law, but didn’t realize he owed taxes on property. Again I ask. Can they do it?

Senator Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who said that they didn’t know what to do so they left on Friday. It doesn’t look promising.

I hope that the people of each district take a very close look at their Representatives and Senators and ask themselves if they really trust the person in office and vote for the proper the person, not based on party, but based on whether they have the wherewithal to do what’s necessary when called upon.

I suspect that this will get taken care of, but then we’ll be subjected to the return to the blame game. The blame lies with Congress. Democrats and Republicans. Some are no longer in Congress. Some have been entrenched there for 20 years or longer. What is needed is a plan to get this money back to the people of this country that are bailing out this problem. The real problem with Congress will be their propensity to create new laws that will make things worse once they have this problem resolved. Assuming that they can put aside their hatred for each other and get this legislation done cleanly.

President Bush stepped up when needed as needed. Now we have to hope that Congress, contrary to their history, can do the same thing.

President Bush was the right man, at the right place as he was on September 11, 2001. Imagine if we had Al Gore as President on September 11, 2001. Now imagine if Barack Hussein Obama was President last Thursday. President Bush was the man to have there in both instances.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Obama Tried His Own October Surprise

Senator Barack Hussein Obama tried his own October surprise in this election asking Iraq not to enter into an agreement for troop withdrawal with the Bush administration but rather to wait until after the elections here in the United States. He then wanted the Iraqi's to negotiate the troop withdrawal with the new incoming administration. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama asked for this delay.

Why would Obama want to leave troops in a war zone where he says the war was illegal? This would delay the troop withdrawal if it were successful.

Once again, we see that Obama's concern is not about the war, the troops or even the success of the war, but his concern is about his potential election.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Democrats Fading Fast, Republicans Rising

I have been very disappointed in the Republicans over the past months. They have not been actively seeking election nor re-election. It was as if they had decided there was no way they could win so why bother campaigning for a seat. Through no effort of their own, that seems to be changing. Recent polls indicate that not only are the Republicans now in a position of regaining control of Congress, but they are leading in that by 5 points.

The Democrats are running from Senator Barack Hussein Obama like rats leaving a sinking ship.

A local race to me was looking like it was going to be the most exciting race in the country this year after the Presidential race. Tim Walberg is being challenged by State Senator Mark Schauer a Democrat. With what the Democrats have done to the state of Michigan the past five years, and Schauers active participation in the states downfall, I’m surprised that any Democrat would even be considered competitive.

With the recent choice of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate, it’s now looking like the man has coat tails where just a month ago people were wondering if he even had a jacket, let alone a coat.

The hope here is that the Republicans don’t start playing defense to protect their lead, but rather that they stay on offense and build on their lead. That means that the Republicans that have been dormant this election season, should star running with vigor in all of their races.

Once they are elected, they’d best remember why they were kicked out two years ago. They were booted because they spent money like Democrats. They now have a second chance at this. They need to jump in with both feet and run their offense.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Experience and Change

Looking at a list of Presidents and Presidential candidates over the years, it really is no wonder about who is more experienced and who represents change from the Washington insiders.

In 2000 and 2004, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Cheney had been a Congressman, but was really out of it when he was named as Bush’s running mate. His opponent in 2004 was John Kerry and John Edwards. John Kerry was definitely part of the Washington entrenchment. In 2000 it was Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a long time Senator, although not as liberal as the rest of the Democrats on some issues. Gore’s dad was a Washington politician and Gore himself had been in the Senate for years.

1996 was Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. Kemp had been away for a number of years. Dole had been there for years. He lost.

1992 was Clinton and Gore and President Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush had been part of Washington for years, and Quayle was fairly new to Washington, but Clinton wasn’t part of Washington, Gore was.

1988. President Bush and Quayle vs. Dukakis and his running mate (I don’t remember who it was. Bush was actually serving Reagan’s third term. Reagan had a successful two terms and Bush benefitted for one term.

1984. Ronald Reagan (governor, never part of Washington) and Bush. Mondale and Ferraro. Two entrenched Washington insiders.

So what do we look at this year. John McCain part of Washington for years, but known as a maverick. He may be part of Washington, but nobody knows on any given issue, which part of Washington. Palin is not part of Washington. Which his part of what the Obama camp is complaining about.

Then there is Obama/Biden. Obama has aimed at Washington and then he arrived he began planning to move his residence down the street to the White House. Biden came into the work force and after two years, joined Washington and stayed ever since.

For all of the Democrats entrenchment in Washington, they haven’t gained any experience to satisfy the people that they would be worthy of being in the White House. Their two forays into the White House in the past 39 years have been disasters. Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter failure and Bill Clinton was filled with 8 years of scandals to the point that he didn’t look at terrorism as anything more than a traffic violation.

Governor Palin makes the difference in this election. She is not an insider, yet she has proven her ability to not only work with both sides, but to hold the corrupt accountable.
The biggest problem for McCain/Palin is the results of the next four years. If they don’t actually follow through on their reforms, we could still end up with Hillary for President in 2012. The best thing they have going for them in this regard is that neither is actually a third term of Bush/Cheney. The last time there was a third time was Bush for Reagan. None of Bush’s team is part of the McCain/Palin team, which makes this the greatest possibility of success for a third term.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Oprah Afraid to Have Governor Palin on her Program

The staff of the Oprah show are divided regarding inviting Governor Sarah Palin on her television show, it’s now being reported.

I find this to be another double standard by the extreme liberals. The liberals want the fairness doctrine implemented to try to offset Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and others. This action/problem of Oprah’s shows the liberals have no soul. If they truly believed in the fairness doctrine, they would stand by their beliefs and enact their own form of the fairness doctrine on what they do control. Their own programs.

This puts on display that the fairness doctrine is their only way to shut up some of the conservative talk shows and not necessarily to get their positions out there. They have had liberals that have been out there on the radio to try to compete with Rush Limbaugh and they have failed. Remember Mario Cuomo? He didn’t last. After a few attempts at programs like Mario Cuomo’s that failed, they then decided to create their own network.

That network was Air America. Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and others. Let’s see, Al Franken is gone and now running for the Senate in Minnesota and is finding himself in more and more trouble over there. I’m not sure where Randi Rhodes is these days. Air America is gone.

People don’t want the liberal programs. They get it with the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC and others. They don’t want to listen to them on the radio too. How do I know? Because they keep failing!

Now it’s Oprah’s turn. She backed Obama, and still does, but refuses to ask Sarah Palin onto her program. It makes sense. In one week, Sarah Palin has soared to popularity that even Obama couldn’t do.

I suspect Oprah will give in. After all, it’s not about Oprah, it’s about what people want and ratings. She’ll eventually give in and have Governor Palin on, if the Governor wants to go on a daytime talk show. Personally, I think Palin would be much better off going where the voters are, not where egotists play.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Governor Palin Didn't Say "Economy"

Governor Sarah Palin showed why she was selected to be John McCain’s Vice President last night. Barack Hussein Obama said he hit a home run with his choice of Joe Biden. If that was a home run, then John McCain hit a Grand Slam with his choice of Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin made it a second Grand Slam in the same inning with her speech last night.

Democrats complained following her speech about what she didn’t say. Donna Brazille, Carl Bernstein, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and the rest, including the group that was on Larry King later all said she didn’t mention the economy, didn’t mention health care, and so on.

Look at the speech. First, she talked about how she lowered taxes, lowered spending, balanced the budget and has a surplus in Alaska. Is that not economic speak? She talked about Obama’s plans. Increase income taxes. Increase capital gains taxes, increase death taxes, increase taxes on businesses, small and large.

Perhaps they didn’t notice that she spoke of her sister and sisters husband who have just built and opened a new business and asked about them paying higher taxes under an Obama tax plans.

Do they not recognize economic speak when they hear it? Or were they just fuming too much from when she said that she was only the mayor of a small town that had to balance a budget, cut spending and end corruption which Obama doesn’t seem to consider a community organizer.

Maybe they missed where the speakers last night said that the answer to health care does not lie with big government programs. Or maybe they didn’t understand what it means that when you have to give all to government, you beg for government to give back.

I do have to admit that my favorite part of the night was when Carl Bernstein said that we were suffering through skyrocketing unemployment. Unemployment has been below 5% for the better part of six years and in the past year it’s gone up to 5.5% and then, in July, the exact same time that the minimum wage increased, the unemployment rate increased to 5.7%.

Ok, so that wasn’t my favorite part. Sarah Palin was my favorite part. This woman is amazing. In the past six months, she’s dealt with a new baby that has Down Syndrome, a son that is about to be deployed to Iraq, a daughter that is about to get married and her pregnancy and being selected to become Vice President of the United States.

In the past week, she’s been subjected to liberal blogs accusing her of not having a baby, but that it was actually her grandchild, which we know is untrue. She’s been accused of being part of a party that wants to secede from the United States, also untrue. She’s now being accused of having had an affair. She’s been questioned in the press about whether or not she can be a mother and Vice President. They now are demanding a DNA test on her baby and after her speech last night Senator Harry Reid called her “shrill”. The press is also questioning whether she was adequately vetted.

Poor Joe Biden. He’s not getting any attention. Palin is being compared to Obama. Yet they aren’t running for the same office. While Palin talks about John McCain’s trials and tribulations of being a POW and talking about how he’s stood up to Democrats and Republicans over the years, the liberal Democrats are comparing her to Obama. Not Biden, who would be her counterpart, but to Obama.

Sarah Palin has proven in the past six months and especially in the past six days that she is qualified for the Presidency and those that have proven it are the liberal Democrats. They’ve made the case for her. So the Republicans actually have two Presidential candidates while the Democrats have one candidate who is probably not qualified to be President.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Message to Liberals

Beat that!!



Governor Sarah Palin rocked the house!



Governor Palin is a better man than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden.



You're welcome to comment, but if you disagree, it will fall on deaf ears.



Brett

Best Line of Tuesday Nights Convention Speeches

In my opinion, the best lines of Tuesday nights speeches were both given by former Senator Fred Thompson:

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.
History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

and this one....

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.
They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

Senator Lieberman's Career Ended

Last night at the Republican Convention, Senator Joe Lieberman looked into the camera and said that Barack Hussein Obama is not ready to be President. He made an appeal to Democrats and Independents to vote for the country by voting for McCain.

This has the liberals up in arms. Harry Reid within minutes came out with a statement about Lieberman's comments. Obama's team campaign came out with comments. Donna Brazille on CNN said immediately afterwards that she thought he'd talk about what a wonderful man McCain is, but didn't expect him to play the part of "attack dog".

Senator Joe Lieberman put his career in the Senate, his chairmanship of a committee on the line and he's going to lose it. He claims to be an Independent now but caucuses with Democrats. I believe it's only a matter of time before the liberals punish him by removing him from the committee he chairs and ostracizes him from their party.

Why would Lieberman go this far? For one, I believe that he really believes in John McCain's presidential bid. I think he laid it all on the line with the expectation that McCain/Palin will win the election. He's so close to John McCain that McCain will appoint him to a cabinet position. He'd have to give up his Senate seat if that happens and I think he's banking on that happening.

Lieberman is not a Republican and will never be one. Even if he was to switch parties, he'd still be a Democrat in Republican clothes. He is more liberal than Olympia Snowe. He could become a Republican, but he would be a liberal Republican.

In his assessment of Senator Obama, he is very credible. He is not a liberal lap dog. He truly believes in the Democrat ideology, but he's sensible enough to recognize reason when he sees it.

It will be fun to watch as the Democrats remove him from the fold in the coming weeks.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Are We Defending Teenage Pregnancy?

Earlier today, while listening to a radio program, the discussion was about John McCain’s choice for his Vice President. Naturally, the discussion turned to her qualifications especially since it’s been discovered that her 17 year old daughter is with child. A caller brought up an interesting aspect to this story. He said that we’re now in a position of defending teenage pregnancy. Almost glorifying teenage pregnancy.

I believe he couldn’t be more wrong and I also believe that he couldn’t be more right. Confused? Me too. I’m going to start with how he couldn’t be more right. Teenage pregnancy has the possibility of becoming defendable in certain segments of society.

We now have a Vice Presidential candidate in this position. To the hard partisans of her party, this could be turned to say ‘so what. She’s only done what all teenagers do and her only mistake was not using contraception.’ They will defend the circumstance regardless of what they are, not because of their beliefs, but because it’s “their” candidate. This would be akin to saying “I’m voting for the black man because I’m black.” Or “I’m voting for the ticket that has the woman because I’m a woman.” In cases like that, I believe that caller could be right.

We see this attitude all of the time, on both sides. Liberals will say ‘I’m willing to pay a little extra in taxes to solve the problems that others are having which is causing a drain on the states economy.’ Then they move their investments into tax free investments so that they don’t have to pay those taxes.

However, I believe that the caller couldn’t be more wrong. Teenagers are not mature. They are caught between puberty and adulthood. They still want to be a child and do child things, but not where any adult can see because they want to be able to be seen as an adult. A boy will want to go out and play baseball in the summer, but he’s got this girlfriend that he wants to take out to a movie on the weekend, so he works a little to make money for that while still trying to find time to play some baseball.

I am the father of an 18 year old boy that thinks he’s an adult and wants to be heard, but he’s still not mature enough to know that he could be wrong and the adult might actually know better. I’m forever saying that I wish I was 18 again when I had all of the answers. Now that I’m in my fifties, I know that I didn’t have all of the answers then, and I still don’t have all of the answers.

Teenagers want to experiment. They want to try things that mom and dad have said is not proper. They want to know why it’s not proper. They don’t have the maturity to say no all of the time to things that they shouldn’t do, and they are pressured to say yes.

If a 30 year old woman gets pregnant, she knew in advance what she was getting into and made a choice. She’s mature enough. But a teenager is not mature enough to make those decisions. This shows with each teen that gets pregnant and with each teenage boy that finds himself having to marry, or having to pay child support for the next 18 years. The other options is to come up with a couple of hundred dollars (or go to the school and government and let them pay for it out of our taxes) and end the pregnancy. This is often done so that the parents never knew that there was a pregnancy.

When a teenager makes a wrong choice, is that a reflection on the parents? A little yes. In some cases, it may even be a direct reflection of the values (or lack of values) of the parent. But not always. Teenage pregnancies happen in the poorest of families and in the most well off families.

Nothing is 100%. Teenage pregnancy can be the lack of upbringing by the parents. However it can also be due to teenage experimentation without looking forward to the consequences of their actions. Maturity is then forced on the young teenagers. They must make a major decision. How to tell the parents. Should they tell the parents. Whether to continue the pregnancy. Marry the father/mother of the unborn child. Raise the child alone. Put the baby up for adoption.

Regardless of what is thought about, an accidental pregnancy when it happens to a teenager, it comes from a lack of maturity that gives one the ability or at least the thoughtfulness of looking ahead and saying “if I do this, what could be the repercussions”. Most teens won’t think about the ramifications. It’s the heat of the moment.

Teenage pregnancies are a mistake in judgment on the teens part. It’s not, in most cases, a lack of good parenting. Teaching abstinence doesn’t stop teen pregnancies. Being abstinent stops pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t stop teen pregnancies. It just lessens the chances of pregnancy. Using contraceptives actually says more about parenting than not using them. It says that it’s okay to have sex as a teen. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, permitting the use of them is telling a teen that it’s okay to engage in adult activities. It doesn’t relieve the teens of making a mistake in judgment, it’s advocating putting off the responsible decision making.

So am I defending teenage pregnancy? No. I can’t speak for the VP candidate, but I suspect that she didn’t condone the activity. I can’t think of even one parent that I know that would want to see their teenager pregnant or responsible for a pregnancy. Once the activity has been done and the mistake is magnified with a pregnancy, the decision now has to be made. Parents guidance should become most important at that time.

Once there is a pregnancy though, the situation must be dealt with. Barack Hussein Obama says that he wouldn’t want to force an unwanted child on his daughters. I have yet to hear anyone accuse the VP candidate or anyone in her family say that they are about to have an unwanted child added to the family. Would they have preferred this happened a few years from now, with their daughter married? More than likely. Would their daughter prefer that she be pregnant with a husband rather than have to go through the embarrassment on top of everything else that she would be going through if her mother wasn’t a public figure? I suspect so. That wasn’t to be for her, however.
The liberals, and the liberal media are keeping this in their reporting for their own political purposes. They are making this pregnancy even more difficult for this teenager that is still learning to deal with mature issues that she’s not mature enough to handle alone as yet.

I trust her mother and father to know their daughters ability to deal with being in the spotlight, and to protect her if the spotlight starts affecting her still more. The boyfriend is going to be at the convention tonight, which tells me something about his character. He didn’t run out on the girl. He didn’t hang back and hide while his girlfriend had to go through the national spotlight alone. He’s gone to join her. I’m sure that the press will make a big deal out of his being there and create more pressure for these two teens.

I would never advocate teenage pregnancy, and I would never defend teenage pregnancy, but once the pregnancy is a reality, the situation must be dealt with and from all appearances thus far, these two teens seem to be doing well and I’m quite certain that a lot of that has to do with the parents of both teens and how they are supporting these two.

Should McCain and Palin win this election, which I believe they will, we’ll hear when this daughter has her baby and I believe that we’ll see an outpouring of support for the daughter and the new baby from people all across the country.

It is wrong for the press and the liberals to use a child, and she is still a child. They risk making this pregnancy more difficult than it needs to be. They are walking a dangerous line here if anything goes wrong with this pregnancy due to stress. This teenager has enough to deal with in plotting the rest of her life, she doesn’t need the added stress of the liberals and the liberal media passing moral judgment on her.

Defend teenage pregnancy? Nope. No way, no how. Defend the teen once pregnant? ABSOLUTELY!!!

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Liberals Take the Low Road…Again.

During the past several days, the liberals, through the Daily Kos blog and others have really dipped down into the mud regarding Governor Sarah Palin. They involved her family. Had they gone after her husband, fine. He’s a big boy and can take it. But their going after the Palin’s 17 year old daughter smacks of pedophilia.

First the Daily Kos made the accusation that the Palin’s latest addition to their family was not actually their child, but rather the child of their 17 year old daughter. They claimed that Governor Palin didn’t look pregnant, but that their daughter seemed to have a “baby bump” back in March. Why are they looking at a 17 year old girl? Isn’t a child off limits to adults?

Governor Palin delivered a baby boy back in April of this year. The baby was born with Down Syndrome. Which led to Alan Colmes, of Hannity and Colmes fame, to ask the question on his blog if the baby being born with Down Syndrome might not be the fault of the mother, the Governor, because she may not have taken the proper pre-natal care.

Then came the announcement from Governor Palin to stop the salacious talk of their daughter, that she was pregnant, planned to keep the baby and marry the father. This became the talk on the first day of the convention by the press. They sent an army of “reporters” to Alaska to check on this, discover who the father is and while at it, take a look at the investigation into what the press now calls “troopergate” bringing up memories of Bill Clinton using Arkansas troopers to procure women for himself.

The double standard was employed by Senator Barack Hussein Obama when he brought up the news of teenage pregnancy of Governor Palin by saying that families should be off limits, but then talked about his family, more specifically his mother having had him at the age of 18. The liberal media was fawning all over Obama after these comments. By the way, Obama also said that nobody in his campaign had anything to do with this story or the comments made by the blogs. I don't believe it. Nobody asked where it came from. He offered it. This leads me to believe that he was, or his staff was involved.

Naturally, the talk in the media turned to sex education in the schools and how Governor Palin is against it, and how abstinence obviously doesn’t work. Teenage pregnancy has increased since schools started teaching sex education.

This should have been a private matter within the Palin family. They should have been provided the opportunity to bring this out on their own terms. After all, we went through 8 years of the Clinton’s not permitting any talk of their daughter Chelsea including her use of drugs as she got into her late teens. This privacy wasn’t afforded the Bush twins when George Bush became President. Remember the liberals going after them with their drinking?

The liberals, through the blogs and Alan Colmes didn’t just dip their toes into the muck and mire that they accuse Republicans of all of the time. They plunged right in and made themselves look like pedophiles examining the body of a 17 year old girl.
I welcome your comments.

Brett

Republican Convention: Win/Win or Liberal Media: Lose/Lose

The Republican Convention begins on September 1, 2008. Or will it? President Bush and Vice President Cheney already have decided not to attend due to Hurricane Gustav. There is talk that they may postpone the convention for a few days until the problems of Gustav have passed and people are back to normal.

I believe that this goes against what the Republicans and George Bush have said for the past 8 years. Let's remember September 11, 2001 for a minute. Following the worst attack on our country, the President came out and said that we should continue our lives as normal. If we don't the terrorists win. They will have caused us to be afraid and that is not something that we want to show terrorists.

This should be no different. If they postpone it or even cancel it, they've told the world that natural disasters upset the way the country runs. They aren't going to get any credit from the liberal media regardless of what they do, and they won't get any credit from the liberals in politics regardless of what they do. If the continue the convention, the liberals will act shocked and say "this proves that the Republicans put themselves above the people that were hit by the hurricane." If they delay it or cancel it, the liberals will say "the Republicans are so incompetent that they can't hold their convention and handle a disaster at the same time."

They can however, turn this into a positive. They can hold their convention. Bush and Cheney can still speak via satellite on Monday night as planned. They will be there without actually being there. I don't know their speaker lineup for the week, but if the southeastern governors from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas all stay home due to this hurricane, they can still speak at the convention via satellite.

During the week of the convention, the attendees may make contributions to the victims of this hurricane via the Salvation Army or other groups that take donations to assist the areas affected.

I heard Roland Martin, a liberal talk show host, say that they should hold their nomination the first night, then cancel the rest of the convention. Well sure he would think that. That would be four days that whatever press coverage there would have been would no longer be. This may or may not affect Barack Hussein Obama's chances in the election. It's difficult to gauge because the bounce coming out of the Democrat Convention was for McCain and not Obama. The Zogby Poll has McCain up by two points.

The Republicans should continue their Convention, make adjustments to their lineup and the timing of it to accomodate those that stayed in their states to help with any possible needs of the people of their states. They should be the leaders and start taking up donations to help out the affected areas (although I believe there will be much less loss of life this time), and turn this convention into a positive despite the hurricane.

They have a banner to hang on their ticket now. They should exploit that to the nth degree. John McCain, for all of his faults, had a master stroke by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. I hope that they showcase her, and showcase the Conservatives as much as possible. John McCain made a brilliant move. He proved his judgment is greater than that of Obama's.

I believe that the Republicans will put on a fine program this week. They usually don't go off running and hiding when things go bad (although their advancement of Republican candidates for the House and Senate has been poor at best). Instead, they turn things into a positive and this is a great way to show they are for country and not just out for themselves as Obama has shown in his candidacy.

I look forward to an exciting and eventful week with some surprises from the Republicans. It may not be traditional, but if they are as I think they are, they will lead the way in showing the world that Americans stick together and continue what needs to be done even in the face of natural disasters.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

McCain’s stroke of genius: Governor Sarah Palin

Who is Sarah Palin? Born in Idaho, moved to Alaska as an infant. She was a sports star in school, beauty contest winner and Miss Congeniality in her town of Wasilla and placed second for Miss Alaska. She married her high school sweetheart, who is a snowmobile racing champion, having won the Iron Dog race four times. Together they have five children. The oldest, joined the army on September 11, 2007 and will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008. The youngest was just born in April of this year. Despite tests showing that her baby would have a birth defect, she continued the pregnancy and her son was born with Down Syndrome. In between those two boys, they have three daughters.

Mrs. Palin first joined the PTA, then moved on to the city council. She decided to run against the Mayor to end the wasteful spending and high taxes. She followed through on both.

Governor Murkowski appointed her ethics commissioner of the oil and gas conservation commission. Later she ran against Murkowski for Governor. She defeated him in the primary and then won in the general election against the Democrat former governor, Tony Knowles 48% to 40%. Currently she holds an 80% approval rating in Alaska.

The Democrats have been out en masse trying to discredit Sarah Palin since the announcement this morning. Their first claim is that McCain can no longer accuse Barack Hussein Obama of being inexperienced because she lacks experience. However, they are falling on deaf ears, except within the liberal news media. Palin has been a Governor for two years. Obama has been a United States Senator for two years. He began to run for President within months of winning his election to the Senate. He has no foreign policy experience. He has no legislative experience on the federal level, save his two years in the Senate.

Saying he’s been in the Senate for two years is giving him extra credit. He was only in the Senate for 143 days before beginning his run for President. His major contribution to legislation in the Senate was a resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on their World Series victory.

In Governor Palin’s two years she has done much more. One of her first actions was to sell the plane that Governor Murkawski had. She took a picture, had her staff put it on E-bay and it sold for a nice profit.

When Senator Ted Stevens managed to win the money for Alaska to build the “bridge to nowhere”, she declined the offer saying that if Alaska needed a bridge, they’d build it. She also urged Senator Stevens to come clean with his financial troubles when it was learned that he had them.

Regarding her military experience, they claim she has none. Barack Obama has none. However, Governor Palin does as the Commander in Chief of the National Guard in Alaska. I don’t think that Democrats will dare to claim that is a poor excuse for military experience since former President Bill Clinton used the same argument to claim he had experience with the military.

In fact, of the four candidates running for President and Vice President, there is only one that has military experience. That is Senator John McCain. Senator Obama has none. Senator Biden has none. Governor Palin has had the national guard, and now a son in the army for a year and about to be deployed to Iraq, and we all know of John McCain’s military credentials.

When Senator Obama named Senator Biden his running mate, Senator McCain put out an advertisement congratulating Obama for naming McCain’s friend, Joe Biden. That was just a touch of class on his part. Senator Obama, upon hearing of the naming of Governor Palin immediately talked about Palin’s supposed lack of experience.

The Democrats are also talking about an investigation into abuse of power by the Governor, but when you look at it, she had cause for firing Walter Monegon, and even when she fired him from the position he had, she offered him another position, but he declined. The Democrats in Alaska say they are not issuing subpoena’s because Governor Palin has been cooperating with their investigation.

Governor Palin has been responsible for cleaning up Alaska politics. Not just of her opponents party, but her own party as well. She pulls no punches. She ran on a clean government and she has followed through on it. This is another area that she shines above Obama. He has associated with known terrorists, with convicted donors and questions are coming out on him and whether he participated in activities with Rezko.

Obama has never run a city, nor a state government. He was a community organizer, but you’ll have to look up the information on the apartment buildings that Rezko had and how he managed to donate money to Obama but couldn’t afford to heat the apartments in his rented out apartments.

As a state Senator in Illinois, Obama’s best known words were “present” when voting on various issues. He has had little time to do anything in the United States Senate as mentioned above because he’s only been there for 143 days.

Governor Palin has cut taxes, put more money into her constituents hands and cut spending in her years in offices.

Governor Palin is much more qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency than Joe Biden as well as the Democrats choice for President.

Has Governor Palin been tested? You bet she has. She has, and is raising five children. I know a little about that. I know a couple of people that raised five children and I know it’s not easy to do so. I call those people, ‘mom and dad’. For the Governor to be Governor and raise five children, and one of them to be born during the time she was Governor, and for that child to have some demanding needs, all the while doing her job as Governor is nothing short of amazing.

The Democrats and other various liberal factions are claiming that this is pandering to a constituency. However, it’s also pandering to choose someone as a VP from Delaware, but playing on his birthplace in Pennsylvania because it’s a battleground state. They are crying out because Palin said in her speech this morning that she owed a debt to two women, Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for going before her to be women that have done well in running for VP and then President, respectively. They claim that her being chosen for VP is only a way of trying to get some of those women voters that are upset at Hillary’s loss to come to the Republicans. Even if it were true, my answer to that would be, ‘too bad’.

Barack Obama lost 9 of the last 14 primaries he was in. He’s been in a downward slide since. His trip to Europe where he spoke to the “citizens of the world” was a bust and following his first three days of the convention he was losing ground in the polls.

It’s Barack Obama’s fault that he’s associated himself with Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Father Fleglar (sic), and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. It’s not McCain’s fault. This is supposed to be a cakewalk for Democrats this year. They keep talking about how President Bush has done everything wrong, and yet they cannot get that lead up and even dropped in the polls.

If the Democrats want to whine that McCain made a great pick, I’m good with that. If they want to claim it’s unfair that he pick such a good running mate, that is something that they’ll have to learn to live with.

As for me, I’m thrilled beyond description. Until today, my vote was going to be more against the ultra liberal Obama. Now, I have a reason to vote FOR the Republican ticket. McCain is liberal. I have said it and believe that it’s born out in his history. However, McCain made the perfect move today in naming Sarah Palin his VP mate. My vote will now be FOR McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden is just two names taking up space on the other side of the ballot.

Governor Sarah Palin is a conservative. She’s not perfect in my eyes. I disagree with her environmental position and a couple of other positions, but I don’t vote for those positions as my sole reason for voting. She is fiscally responsible. She is honest and I believe that she’ll not tolerate corruption in the White House, nor in the Senate or the House.

I don’t like Senator John McCain but he has now given me a reason to be excited to go and vote for him. If Palin is as good as I think she is, this could be another opportunity for Republicans to fight for and win seats in the Senate and the House.

I know that some of my friends are not voting because they just can’t vote for McCain. I hope that they see that this pick of Palin for VP is a stroke of genius on McCain’s part and that they will join me in voting for the Republican ticket. Ignore looking at McCain’s name if needs be, and just look at the name Palin and vote for her.

This was a great choice. Another reason for a vote for McCain. He’ proven his judgment is sound and that’s without comparing him to Obama’s lack of experience and lack of judgment.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

McCain's Veep.....Sarah Palin

Several news outlets have confirmed that John McCain has chosen Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as his Vice Presidential choice.

I have only been reading about her the past few days, so I'm not well versed about her at all. However, what I have learned is that she is a woman that isn't afraid to stand up for what she believes in. She also does not tolerate corruption. Her latest foray into the corruption issue was regarding Senator Ted Stevens when she told him to come clean.

She is staunchly pro-life and has a son that has Downs Syndrome. She was told of the problem in the tests prior to giving birth, but chose to continue the pregnancy and after he was born said she saw perfection. She and her husband also have another son, who is reported to be scheduled to deploy to Iraq in September, as well as three other children.

She is against gay marriage, but says she has several gay friends and does not like descrimination against gays.

She appears to be a person that says what she means and means what she says. She's an avid hunter, fisherwoman and apparently loves "mooseburgers". I'd only heard of them once before from a relative that lives in Alaska and never really thought much about it. I suspect, we'll all learn plenty about mooseburgers very shortly.

She used to work with oil companies and I'm sure one of her advantages to McCain is the oil aspect. She's also reduced taxes by 60% as a Mayor in the past and cut her pay as she promised when she won that position. This one little fact will drive the liberals nuts. Sarah Palin fought the so-called "bridge to nowhere" and lead in it being eliminated saying that she wanted Alaska to be self-sufficient.

I have considered McCain a liberal and still do, but from all initial appearances, he has chosen a very strong Conservative. A no nonsense Conservative.

She has actively fought corruption in government in Alaska and is noted for going after corrupt Republicans as well as Democrats. She's taken on the odds in Alaska and she's come out on top.

It will be interesting to see how she works as VP in Washington with all of the corrupt politicians running around that town.

If the things about Barack Hussein Obama that are currently popping up, with Rezko, his birth and/or citizenship, have any basis in fact, it will be interesting to see how she handles that and her comments regarding his shady dealings in the past.

Tough on corruption. A true tax cutter, not just an empty promise as Obama was last night, and a person with high integrity.

I'm looking forward to learning much more about her, but my initial review about her leads me to believe that she is a very strong choice, which would also show McCain's judgement, something sorely lacking in the Obama campaign.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Federal Court Looking to Serve Obama with papers

Item:
A Federal Court in Philadelphia has ordered that Senator Barack Hussein Obama be served before a temporary restraining order to be placed.

Item:
Tony Rezko convicted on 16 counts and now thought to be talking to Feds. Suspicion is that he's talking about the Illinois Governor and Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Didn't we go through similar things in the 90's? SCANDALS. Do we really want to have another President with scandals hanging over his head on a daily basis?

Look up the items above. Philadelphia papers.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

The Economy Rebounds while Obama Complains

Economic figures out today show that the economy grew at 3.3% during the second quarter. It's the largest growth since the third quarter of 2007 when it grew at 4.8%.

This is good news in many ways. The Democrats have been saying how bad it is for everyone. That people can't afford to buy what they need. Well, another piece of good news is that consumer confidence rose and spending grew.

Some of this growth is due to the stimulus package that was passed earlier this year. The checks were mailed beginning in April and this helped the economy. Another reason that the economy grew, according to analysts, is the weakening economies in Europe.

I'm not going to predict any numbers for economic growth for the balance of the year, but it wouldn't surprise me if the growth rate stays at nor near where it was for the second quarter. It may go up, and it may come down, but I believe we can expect growth based on the words of various economists.

While Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden are out talking about people huddling around the kitchen table panicking about where their next meal is going to come from, with this news, we now know that what people are waiting on at the kitchen table is for the micro wave to beep so that they can eat their dinner.

It's nowhere near as bad as Obama and his cronies have been saying. It's not a robust economy, but we're not in dire straits as they'd have us believe.

This tactic is very similar to what Bill Clinton did in 1992 when running for the Presidency. He claimed it was the worst economy in 50 years. He said it over and over. Their slogan hung on their wall was "It's the economy stupid". Well, they were wrong then. They hoodwinked 43% of the people. After that election, just about the time of the inaugural, the fourth quarter figures came out and the economy had grown at 4.6% during the 4th quarter of 1992. It turned out to be the first of many lies of the Clinton administration.

Now we're hearing it again, from Senator Obama. However, as these numbers come out, we're learning that Obama/Biden don't know the economy and apparently don't realize that people are actually using their kitchen tables at night, after the children are in bed, to cards.

The more they ask if we really want four more years of Bush, the more my answer is "McCain isn't Bush, but if he was, the answer would be a resounding YES." The Bush economy has been the best in 25 years despite the worst terrorist attack in history where the economy nearly fell apart for four months following September 11, 2001. The resilience of Americans and the economy has been on display for nearly eight years and even in a slowdown period, it still continues to be resilient.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Do These People Really Represent America?

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emerged from an old train station to protestors shouting “Drill here, Drill now.” Pelosi then asked the group, “Right here?”

Then she followed with another question. “Can we drill your brains?” She referred to the protestors who were chanting as “handmaidens of Big Oil” saying that offshore drilling would only reduce gas prices by only a couple of pennies a decade from now, then referred to the demonstrators as the “2 cents in 10 years crowd.”
House majority leader, Steny Hoyer also said that “sophomoric chanting” won’t solve the energy crisis and that “all THINKING Americans know that America doesn’t have a quarter of the worlds fossil fuels yet uses a quarter of the worlds energy.

Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. She has a duty to not only her constituents California but by virtue of her position in the House, she has a duty to show respect for and listen to all sides of an argument as well as to respect differing opinions. She doesn’t show that respect, however. Instead, what she is showing is that she is very biased against those of differing opinions. The same, although in abit lesser way, goes for Rep. Steny Hoyer. He is after all the Majority Leader in the House.

More than 70% of the people in this country believe that we should be drilling for oil here rather than depending on foreign oil. When Pelosi and Hoyer were put into their current positions in 2006, the reason that they gave for the Democrats winning back the House and Senate was due to the American people saying that they wanted something different.

The American people are speaking again, Madame Speaker. You complain about jobs being sent overseas, yet you don’t seem to mind that we go overseas to buy our oil. Isn’t this a double standard?

What these actions by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the House tell me is that they are more interested in party than they are about the American people. They are there to represent us, not to offer to drill the brains of a segment of society.

I hope that these liberals keep this tactic up. With these tactics, they could give the House and Senate back to the Republicans this fall despite the Republicans not even trying to win back these seats.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Rep. Tim Walberg Press Release 08-25-08

OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN TIM WALBERGFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MATT LAHRAUGUST 25, 2008

(202) 225-6276

Walberg Kicks Off Harley Tour Across South-Central Michigan Congressman To Spend Week Making 27 Scheduled Stops via Motorcycle in all 7 Counties of 7th District

WASHINGTON D.C. — Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) today kicked off a “Harley Tour” across Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District. The Congressman is riding his Harley-Davidson motorcycle across south-central Michigan this week to highlight how high gas prices are affecting local communities. He will also make stops to meet with local residents and community leaders. With gas prices so high, the Congressman wanted to travel across the district in a fuel efficient manner. During the tour, the Congressman will make 27 scheduled stops, tour 11 communities, meet with dozens of local officials and community leaders, tour 8 businesses, meet with 5 local clubs/organizations/governments and pump gas at 3 different gas stations. Throughout the tour, the Congressman will highlight his efforts to pass a comprehensive, “all of the above” energy plan that includes more oil drilling, more alternatives and more conservation.

“I am really looking forward to this week,” Walberg said. “I love riding my Harley and greatly enjoy meeting with my constituents. We need to do something to bring down gas prices, and I look forward to sharing my ideas and hearing from the people of south-central Michigan.”Walberg will make stops in Manchester, Chelsea, Dexter, Saline, Tecumseh, Adrian and Blissfield today.###----

Matt LahrPress SecretaryOffice of Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-07)202-225-6276Join Congressman Walberg's weekly email newsletter network to stay informed on his work in Congress and on behalf of south-central Michigan at http://walberg.houseenews.net/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=profile

Liberals Using Abortion Again

The liberals are again using abortion as one of the ways that they claim a Republican administration is dangerous for America. The news media has been asking if people think McCain (Pro-Life) is going to be hurt by choosing for a VP candidate someone that is Anti-Life, such as Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.

Roe v Wade was settled in the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. Every four years, it becomes one of the topics in the Presidential race. Since 1973, we’ve had 3 years of Republican (Nixon then Ford), 4 years of Democrat (Jimmy Carter), 12 years of Republican (Reagan then Bush 41), 8 years of Democrat (Bill Clinton), and 8 years of Republican (Bush 43). That’s 23 years of Republicans and 12 years of Democrats.

In all of those 23 years of Republicans in the White House, nothing has changed regarding Roe v Wade.

What this tells me is that the Democrats complaining about what will happen under Republican rule is an emotional scare that never comes true. The Republicans have been in the White House nearly two times longer than the Democrats and nothing has changed. Yet the liberal media and the liberals themselves keep trying to use this as a scare tactic.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Is Obama eligible to be President?

There is a story going around that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to run for President due to either his birth, or his adoption by his stepfather. An attorney has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia to stop Obama’s candidacy. This attorney claims to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. He claims he’s doing this because if he doesn’t, the Republicans will do this after Obama is nominated next week.

The attorney is claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. His parents had gone their prior to his birth, but wasn’t allowed to travel back because she was so close to giving birth. He also claims that there is a birth certificate in Kenya and that the one in Hawaii was falsified. The most interesting part of his reasoning for filing the lawsuit as he states it is because he knows the Republicans will do it. How does he know this? Are we now capable of predicting what others will do and then laying the blame at the feet of the other person based on what the first person ‘thinks’ the other will do?

He’s also claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, because he was adopted by his step-father in India, that Obama is ineligible to run for President. So what we have is a Hillary Clinton supporter filing a lawsuit to stop Obama’s nomination one week following an interview of Bill Clinton where he said that Obama will be the nominee provided he’s constitutionally eligible. Does something sound fishy to you? Maybe a collusion between the supporter of Hillary and maybe the Hillary camp? I’m not sure if they are conspiracy theorists for doing this, or if I’m a conspiracy theorist for thinking that this may be a coordinated effort between the attorney and the Clinton camp.

I find it interesting to take it a step further, however. Let’s assume that the court finds that Obama is not eligible to run for President. Can we predict the next argument to come up in the Democrat Party? I’ll try. Will Joe Biden claim that he’s rightful heir to the nomination because he was named as the VP candidate? Will Hillary Clinton step and say she should be the nominee because she received votes at the convention (assuming that she does).

We already know that the DNC rules don’t matter after their debacle in Michigan and Florida. First they stripped the delegates. Then they cut the delegates in half and distributed them between Obama and Clinton regardless of the vote total. Now they are trying to get 100% of the delegates to be able to vote because the decision is made on how they’ll be doled out. All of this messing around with votes reminds me of Al Gore choosing only certain counties to count the votes in during the 2000 election. Perhaps the Democrats could make the bald guy with the large eyes and the glasses on his head holding the ballot up to the light to decide if it was a pregnant chad, hanging chad, or dimpled chad, for their poster boy.

Whatever the truth, and whatever the outcome of the lawsuit it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats consider these elections as being about the Democrats and not about the American people. I’m believing more and more that the next President will be the liberal John McCain and not the ultra liberal Barack Hussein Obama/Joe Biden/Hillary Clinton or whomever else they dust off to throw into place. I guess it could be weirder only if somehow John Edwards was to run and win. We’d be back to the Clinton years in a heartbeat with a first lady, first mistress and possibly more children.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Obama Turns Veepstakes into a Circus

With much fanfare, Barack Hussein Obama announced that he had chosen someone to be his Vice Presidential candidate. However, he wouldn’t say who it was. First, he wanted to let those on the short list that weren’t chosen that they weren’t chosen.
That move was a good move. It showed respect for those that knew they were in the running.

Then the press was in a frenzy. The afternoon anchor on CNN said to Wolf Blitzer when she interviewed him that she hoped that the information would come during her show. On the Situation Room, which lasts for three hours they kept teasing that they were expecting Obama at any minute. Then they interviewed their favorite people, including themselves, asking them if they knew anything, or heard anything.

Then the news came out during the day on Friday that Hillary Clinton wasn’t even vetted. This surprised the news media who have been speculating of the “dream ticket” for months.

The nightly news on the network stations were hoping the news would come out before their broadcast, then during their broadcast. On CNN, each program following the Situation Room were hoping it would come out on their hour. Finally, near the end of Anderson Cooper it was announced that the news wouldn’t go out until tomorrow morning.

All of this hype was silly. The games they played will make the actual announcement a disappointment. This is another example of Obama’s inexperience and lack of judgment. He didn’t judge the height of the news, nor the news cycles. He played a game and is stretching it out to the point that the news now will be anti-climatic.

The choice will probably be Joe Biden. If it was someone exciting or completely unexpected, it might be a good news story, but there just aren’t that many people in the Democrat Party that justifies Obama’s coy games. The liberal media will try to build it up for him, but they missed the big news day. Now it’s going to happen on the weekend when few are watching.

I wonder who will be fired for this farce. Maybe Obama will come out and say ‘I had to fire the PR guy for doing this. He’s just not the guy that I’ve always known, so I had to let him go.’

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Representative Tim Walberg-Up and Coming Leader?

I believe that one of the most important and exciting House of Representatives races is going to be between Representative Tim Walberg and State Senator Mark Schauer.

Tim Walberg ran against Representative Joe Schwarz in 2006 for the Republican seat. Joe Schwarz ran as a conservative but legislated as a liberal. Many in his district were upset by his voting and positions that he took which were in contrast to why they voted for him. In the primary of 2006, Tim Walberg ran as a Conservative against Schwarz who again claimed to be a Conservative.

During the 2006 primary season, there were two incumbent Representatives that lost their seats. One was Cynthia McKinney in Georgia (she of the slap a capitol cop fame) and Joe Schwarz. Tim Walberg was successful in ousting Shwarz! Schwarz has since left the Republican party.

During the past two years, Tim Walberg has stood up for Conservative positions and seems to have not backed down from his promises nor his Conservative beliefs. He has been strong in attempting to have drilling started in this country to lower our dependence on foreign oil.

He is running to retain his seat in his district in Michigan. His opponent is State Senator Mark Schauer. Schauer was a leader in getting the taxes increased in Michigan. Michigan is in a one state recession and it's getting worse since the taxes have been increased.

Tim Walberg has proven himself to me to be principled. He has worked for the people and I have seen no evidence of him working for his own self interests. Schauer is extremely liberal. If he was elected, he would be in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the liberals.

I believe that Walberg could very well be in a leadership position for the Republican Party and if he continues as he has the past two years, he would still be working for the betterment of the country as well as his district. I don't like the "it's his turn" order that the two parties seem to follow in their little clique. Tim Walberg is one that has not been sitting around doing nothing. He's been working. He could be one of those that brings the Conservatives back.

Having said all of this, I have decided to include Walberg's blog on the side panel of this blog site. I hope to keep his blogs running on the side.

The district he represents is a Conservative district. I hope that he retains his seat following this election and believe he will. When his new term starts in January, I hope to be one that holds his feet to the fire for the next two years.

I welcome your comments

Brett

The Veepstakes (Yawn) Has Begun

The Veepstakes has begun. The media is going nuts trying to figure out who the VP choice is going to be for Barack Hussein Obama. Will it be Tim Kaine or Joe Biden or Evan Bayh? Then there’s the hardliners like Wolf Blitzer that is still hoping for the so-called “dreamticket” of Hillary Clinton as VP.

The choice has been made. Obama will wait until he can get the most news out of it. The liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS (do they still have a news department?), PBS, MSNBC will continue to speculate right up until the announcement. This keeps Obama in the news so he’ll hold off until there is some bad news and he wants to drown it out with news of his VP or to get the most news over the weekend leading up to the convention next week so he gets more than a full week of him being the top news story.

In an attempt to be fair with their coverage, they speculate on McCain’s choice as well. Their speculation is also geared to the left. Will McCain pick Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman and how good that would be to try to make inroads into the left base. When McCain does pick a conservative such as Romney, or Jindahl, they will then say that McCain is pandering to the Conservatives to try to shore up that base that he so desperately needs because the Conservatives hate McCain.

They’ve already started this in one way by making Rush Limbaugh the news when he said that if McCain picks an anti life VP or a Democrat (Lieberman) that the Republican Party will be split or even destroyed. You can almost read hope in their eyes as they report it this way.

In the meantime, Obama is out there whining and demanding that McCain recognize him publicly as a Patriotic American. Remember when Nixon said “I am not a crook”? Everyone knew right then that he was a crook. Remember when Clinton pointed his finger at us and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”? Everyone knew then that he did fool around with that young girl.

Now Obama is speaking before veterans forcefully telling them that he is a proud American and demanding that McCain recognize him as a Patriot. This can only make one wonder what he’s trying to hide, ala Nixon and Clinton.

As it stands now, I believe that McCain is going to win this election. Regardless of who he chooses for VP, regardless of who Obama chooses as VP, McCain is looking solid. When Russia moved troops into Georgia (no liberals, Valdosta and Atlanta are not burning), it was McCain that said the right things. Obama hemmed and hawed.

In the “conversation” at Saddleback over the weekend, it was McCain that came off as firm and Presidential while Obama came off as wishy washy. Obama was losing ground to Hillary in the Primaries the last six weeks but he’d built up a large enough lead without Michigan and Florida that Hillary fell just short by the end of the season. Obama has continued that slide that he started in late April, early May, right into this campaign season.

The Veepstakes will be the topic this weekend until Obama announces, and then the convention will give him a bit of a bounce, but immediately following the Democrat convention comes the Republican convention that will wipe out Obama’s bounce and give McCain a bounce making September and October very nasty between the two candidates.

What led me to this point of view? The final straw was saddleback. On the abortion question Obama said “blah, blah, blah, above my pay grade, blah, blah, blah.” McCain’s answer to the abortion question was “At conception.”

In answer to the question on evil Obama said “Yes, there is evil in the world including on the streets in America, blah, blah, blah.” McCain’s answer was “Yes there is evil and the solution is to end it.”

The Veepstakes goes on, but the trend seems to be clear. Either way, the stories are always given a caveat of "the VP becomes what the President wants". McCain is the adult and will win. Obama is an empty suit struggling with getting the peach fuzz off of his chin.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Universities Want Drinking Age Lowered

College Presidents from nearly 100 universities including Ohio State, Duke and Dartmouth are asking lawmakers to lower the drinking age from the current 21 to 18. Their argument is that lowering the drinking age will lower the problem of binge drinking, not to mention underage drinking.

That last part is true for colleges. They won’t have as much underage drinking. After all, most college students are 18 or older. This will eliminate one of their problems. They won’t have the bad stories at their universities any longer of illegal drinking. It can’t be illegal binge drinking if drinking at age 18 is legal.

We could solve a lot of our crime problems by using this approach. For instance, if we raised the speed limit to 200 mph we’d no longer have speeders on our highways. We don’t have cars that go that fast, so nobody could break the speed limit.

We could tell people that they are no longer permitted to lock their doors and windows in their homes. This will eliminate the need for a breaking and entering law.

We could eliminate truancy laws. There are too many children skipping school. If we no longer have truancy laws, kids won’t be skipping school any longer.

We gave amnesty to the illegal aliens in the 80’s. That stopped people from coming across our borders illegally didn’t it?

We can stop spousal abuse if we just eliminate the laws on assault and battery.

I wonder why we didn’t think of these things before. When a crime is committed, eliminate the law and there is no more crime. Our prisons won’t be overflowing any longer. Our costs for housing prisoners and for even having prisons take up space on our lands would be eliminated.

With all of this in mind are we really going to continue to call our colleges and universities institutions of higher learning when they come up with reasoning like this?

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Should we Apologize to Black Americans?

There has been a position put out in recent years to apologize to Americans that are black. The apology is supposedly for the years that they spent in slavery. The time for this apology has long since passed. There are no former slaves left alive. President Lincoln emancipated the slaves during the civil war. That was over 140 years ago.

If symbolism is what they want to do, then we ought to be honoring the slaves all the way back to the founding of this country. The slaves from the onset of our country unwillingly gave up their right to the freedoms that our forefathers were fighting. It was decided during the debating of whether or not our forefathers would sign the newly created Declaration of Independence. Items were stripped, wording was changed in the Declaration before it was passed and signed.

The largest debate was regarding slavery. The Southern colonies would not sign the Declaration of Independence if the slaves were freed. It was already decided that for the Declaration of Independence to mean anything, that there was to be no colonies voting against the Declaration. It had to be unanimous. Compromise had to be made regarding the slaves. The one item that would hold it up was slavery. To create this new country, despite many arguments against slavery, slavery had to be kept alive to have the southern colonies agree to it.

During the war, slaves fought for and against the British. The ones that fought for the British were voting for life to continue as is. Those that fought against the British for the Patriots of the new country were in some way voting for the hope of freedom one day.

None of those slaves, nor the ones following the revolution, nor the ones that were alive during the Civil War are alive any longer. An apology really has no meaning because they aren’t here to accept or decline the apology.

However, those slaves may be honored. A way of saying thank you for their sacrifice in forming this country. Without their contribution of slavery (despite their not having a say in that sacrifice) this country would not have been formed.

There were many black Americans that made contributions to this country. In battle as well as in other ways, but they all made a sacrifice for the freedoms we now enjoy as Americans. For that, we should be honoring them. The role they played made them founding fathers as well as John Hancock, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the rest.

We should be proud that we corrected the slavery problem by President Lincoln and Americans of the 1860’s freeing the slaves. Men, women and children all sacrificed for this country by their enslavement. Americans corrected the mistake of slavery by setting them free and we should be proud of that. Honoring the slaves for the sacrifices they made to this country makes more sense than trying to apologize to people that have been dead for so many years. By honoring their sacrifice, we are giving them a huge THANK YOU for their sacrifice that went for another near 90 years following the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Their contribution was as great in deed and greater in labor and we should thank them by honoring their memory.

I welcome your comments.


Brett

Democrats refuse to debate and turn the lights off on Republicans

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, adjourned the US House of Representatives. The Republicans opposed the adjournment. So after the adjournment, the Republicans kept talking about the how the Democrats are hurting the economy by not allowing debate on offshore oil drilling. Speaker Pelosi refuses to allow debate on offshore oil drilling.

The Democrats then shut off the lights and turned off the microphones. C-Span stopped broadcasting, but the Republicans refused to leave and continued to speak in the dark without microphones.

There were approximately 6 Republicans and aides still on the floor and the Republicans were still speaking. Other Republicans have started to come back to participate.

Representative Thadeus McCotter of Michigan said “This is the people house, not Pelosi’s politburo.”

Democrat aides were very upset with the Republicans and another aide asked the press if they were covering this. An Aide called the Republicans morons.

Apparently, the Democrats don’t want this covered because Capital Police were called to empty the press gallery, but stopped when Rep. Roy Blunt started answering questions from reporters in the gallery.

The lights came on when a Representative was playing with the keypad randomly and actually hit the password to get the lights and microphones back on. The Democrats turned the lights out again this time to cheers from the Republicans and they continue to speak.

The Republican leadership is now looking for a bullhorn to speak with in the House.

This could very well be a gift from the Democrats and make the Republicans competitive again this fall, if it continues and if the liberal media actually covers the event.

The reason for the adjournment? Democrats wanted to start their 5 week vacation. I wonder if they will complain about Bush’s vacation this year.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Obama could be the Sixth Black President

In light of the recent dustup where Senator John McCain said that Senator Barack Hussein Obama is using the race card, I decided to look and see if there were any other Presidential candidates that were of African descent that came close to being President. As this is something I had never considered in the past, the information surprised me.

Under our current Constitution we’ve had 43 Presidents. Of those, there are five that seem to have been black. If we go back further, we’ve actually had seven other Presidents and the first, John Hanson, is said to be a black man. For the purpose of this writing, I’m going to stick to the Presidents we’ve had under our current Constitution.

Several studies have been done. Dr. Leroy Vaughn, Joel A. Rogers and Dr. Auset Bakhufu all have written on this subject. Following are the five taken from the three historians listed.

President Thomas Jefferson: 3rd President of the United States. In 1867, Thomas Hazard wrote a book called “The Johnny Cake Papers”. In it, he quotes someone that was present during the 1796 campaign who said that a speaker said that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.” Samuel Sloan in his book “The Slave of Thomas Jefferson”, said that when Jane Randolph Jefferson died in 1776, Jefferson destroyed all papers, portraits, and personal effects of his mother. He states that Jefferson even went so far as to write to everyone that his mother had written to and requested that all letters written by his mother be returned to him. This is odd when you consider that Jefferson saved over 18,000 of his own letters and other papers for future references.

President Andrew Jackson: 7th President of the United States. According to the Virginia Magazine of History volume 29, said Jackson was the son of a white woman who married a negro following the death of her husband, which was long before Andrew Jackson was born. There is also information gathered by Joel Rogers that said Andrew had an older brother who was sold into slavery. Rogers says that when Jackson’s father died, his mother went to live on Crawford Farm which had negro slaves and one of them fathered the future President. In the book “Ordeal of the Presidency” by David Coyle, there is another account of Jackson’s brother being sold into slavery.

President Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States. William Herndon was Lincoln’s law partner. In his book, “The Hidden Lincoln” he says that Lincoln’s father Thomas Lincoln, couldn’t be his father because as a child, he had mumps rendering him sterile and he was castrated. Herndon claimed earlier that Lincoln’s mother was of Ethiopian descent and that Lincoln had dark skin and coarse hair. Lincoln’s opponents in the Presidential race nicknamed him Abraham Africanus the First. J.A. Rogers quotes Nancy Hanks, the Presidents mother saying her son Abraham was the illegitimate son of an African man.

President Warren G. Harding: 29th President of the United States. President Harding is probably the best case for having a black heritage. Harding never denied it. He was called on by Republican leaders to deny the “Negro” history. However, President Harding said “How should I know whether or not one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence?” A white Professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio by the name of William Chancellor wrote on the Harding family history and discovered black ancestors on both of the Presidents parents sides of the family. It’s said that Justice Department agents bought and destroyed all copies of the book. Chancellor also said that the Presidents academic credentials included education at Iberia College. Iberia College was founded to educate fugitive slaves.

President Calvin Coolidge: 30th President of the United States. Coolidge admitted his mother was dark because of mixed Indian heritage. Dr. Bakhufu said that the New England Indian had mixed so often with blacks by 1800 that they weren’t pure Indians. The Presidents mothers maiden name was “Moor”. As “Negro” was used in America to identify black people, “Moor” was the term used in Europe for their identification.

While some of the information seems pretty thin evidence of our former President’s heritage, other seems pretty well informed and descriptive. First hand descriptions and research on family history seems more credible to me than why someone destroyed papers.

So while the liberal media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS) all drool over Barack Hussein Obama being the first black President in history and doing all they can to get him elected, I’m convinced that there have been at least five other Presidents in our history that have been black.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska, Indicted

Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted. 7 counts in all relating to his renovations on his vacation home and apparently lying to investigators.



Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator from Alaska. He's 84 or 86 years old, depending on whether you believe the headling on Drudge or the story Drudge gives the link.



I don't know, and we don't know if Stevens is guilty or not. We'll find out after his trial. This brings me to the character of those serving in elected offices throughout the country.



There have always been people of unsavory character in our elected offices. Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, Councilmembers and probably even a dogcatcher or two.



We also have elected officials that are consorting with unsavory characters and while they may or may not be guilty of participating with their friends, the people we associate ourselves with ought to be considered when we are running for office.



It seems, that we have more in the past 20 years than we've had in our entire history. I suspect that is because we always focus on the ones in our time rather than those that are long since dead and gone.



It is, however, incumbent on us to question all of our candidates regardless of whether the press will do it or not. Senator Barack Hussein Obama should be called on the carpet for his associations, his sweetheart deal on his home, his stance on schools when his own children are in private schools and so on. Senator John McCain should also be questioned hard on his immigration stance, his association with the Keating Five, his near change to the Democrat Party and so on.



We should also question the length of time these representatives of ours represent us. Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator. That's 42 years when he completes his term, if he completes his term. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia should also be scrutinized.



I am not in favor of term limits. Unless those limits are placed on our elected representatives by a vote of the people. However, I am in favor of truth in advertising from these candidates.



In the past twenty years we've had Bill Clinton impeached, guilty of perjury which cost him his law license, and 80 plus members of his administration found to be corrupt in one fashion or another. We've had Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana indicted. Still on the job. Senator Larry Craig plead guilty. Still on the job.



A man or woman is elected to public office to represent the people. They are lent the public trust. When they abuse that trust, whatever charge they receive for events done in office, the penalty should be double that of American citizens for the same crime.



Ted Stevens may be innocent of the charges. However, if he's found guilty, he should be given the full measure of the punishment. I don't concern myself with the punishments of liberals that are found guilty. I expect liberals to be guilty of breaking a law.

Timetables

Several days ago, the Prime Minister of Iraq said that he would like to see a timetable of 16 months to begin for the removal of United States troops. The news media is playing this as saying that Senator Barack Hussein Obama was correct and that Maliki is backing Obama.

President Bush has said all along that timetables were not appropriate because it would signal to the enemy that they should sit back and wait for us to leave and then begin anew, their attacks on Iraq.

Things have changed, however. The war is nearly over. Victory has nearly been achieved (although I believe that victory has been achieved). There is very little al queda left in Iraq any longer. Those that haven’t been killed or taken captive, have been fleeing Iraq in droves. Iraq has taken over 10 of the 18 provinces and there is almost no threat of al queda left in Iraq. What is left, the Iraq security forces can take care of with limited support from the American military.

Wasn’t that the goal? Weren’t we supposed to stay there until the Iraqi security forces could control their own country? That’s what we trained them to do.

To call for a timetable now, or time horizons, seems to me to be appropriate. The Bush administration has always said that we’re there as guests of the Iraqi’s and that we’d leave when they said they could take care of themselves. That time seems to have come. This was inevitable. The only ones that seriously thought that they war couldn’t be won were the terrorists, al queda and the liberals. Newsflash: We’ve won!! It hasn’t been announced yet, but we’ve won.

So why would it be wrong to start planning for the withdrawal of American troops? It is easy for Obama to say ‘my time frame and calling for a timetable was correct.’ The dynamics have changed. He called for this timetable as the troop surge was beginning, which he said had no hope of succeeding. Now the surge has proven to be even better than predicted and certainly better than Obama said would happen.

There will likely be some setbacks as we withdraw. The insurgents, terrorists or whomever is still lurking will try a resurgence as we leave, but the point is that the Iraqi’s can now handle their own. There is no civil war. There is no quagmire. This is not Vietnam and never has been.

The United States should declare shortly that the war in Iraq is won and over and troops will begin coming home or being redeployed to Afghanistan. If Obama is going to play the game of “I was right, Bush was wrong” then President Bush should come out on national television and announce that victory has been achieved in Iraq; al queda is on the run and headed to Afghanistan and our troops will be following them into Afghanistan to put an end to the al queda infrastructure.

I welcome your comments.

Brett

Oil Drilling will commence....after the election

Oil drilling in this country will begin soon. Not soon enough to solve the problems today, but soon.

It’s widely stated that the Democrats will win the House, Senate and White House in November. I don’t entirely agree with that, but let’s assume the prognosticators are actually right for once .

One real problem that we have in this country is the skyrocketing cost of oil. This causes some problems for Democrats. First, former President Bill Clinton vetoed oil drilling in ANWAR in 1996. The claim was the environment and that it would take ten years for the oil to get to the gas pumps, so it was vetoed and drilling didn’t take place.

However, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina drove oil prices up and gas prices at the pump followed in 2006. That is ten years after Bill Clinton’s veto.

Second , the Democrats ran on two things in 2006 to take over the House and Senate majorities. First they ran against the Iraq war saying they’d end it. Second, they ran saying they’d solve the oil problem and bring prices down at the pump. On October 20, 2006, the price per barrel of oil was $58.42. It’s now over $137.00 per barrel. They obviously didn’t solve the oil problem. Of course, they didn’t end the war in Iraq either as promised. One short note here. I believe that the reason the Democrats took over Congress in the last election was because of the Republicans spending habits. They acted more like Democrats than Democrats did and it cost them their jobs.

The Democrats are continuing to say that oil drilling is not what this country needs. They are locked into that position for now. However, it’s becoming more and more apparent that oil drilling is going to have to start to bring the price of oil down and with Iran ratcheting up their rhetoric and now testing their missiles showing they can hit Tel Aviv, it’s going to become more necessary for us to drill oil. Not to mention the increased demand brought on by India and China which will only increase.

The Democrats, if they win in the fall, will then shortly after taking office in January, change their position and start drilling oil. This will be done to save their jobs for the next election. They will then be able to say that they passed the oil drilling proposal and run on that for the next few elections.

In other words, the Democrats are hoping that nothing happens between now and election day that will force them to pass oil drilling legislation in the next three months. Before the election, it will be seen as a Republican pressure victory for oil drilling. After the election, it will be reported as the Democrats saving America from the evil middle east.

Politics drives the Democrats. Not what’s right or wrong, but politics. It’s always this way, but this seems to be one of the most blatant examples in many years. There is one way to assure we get more oil to the market. Elect Conservatives. Then hold their feet to the fire.

I welcome your comments.

Victory in Iraq is in sight. Where are the Democrats?

Over the weekend, it was announced that 15 of 18 of the benchmarks have been reached by the Iraqi government. Where are the Democrats?

During the past five years, we’ve heard how the Iraq war was a failure. A quagmire. Even Senator Harry Reid said that the Iraq war was lost. Then President Bush implement General Petraeus’ plan for the surge. The turnaround was nearly instantaneous. Leading up to the surge, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Petraeus’ recommendation of the surge stretched the imagination and that it wasn’t believable.

As it became apparent that the surge was not just working but more successful than even predicted, the Democrats, including Senator Carl Levin came out and said that the Iraq war couldn’t be won by the military, that there had to be a political solution and that the Iraqi government was failing and we should set time tables and get out.

I submit that there wasn’t much reason for the government to begin hitting it’s goals because the military hadn’t eliminated Al Queda from Iraq. The military success must come first, then the government has reason to hope that they would be successful and have a government that had the ability to last.

Now that the surge has produced such terrific results and al queda is on the run, the government has stepped up and met 15 of the 18 benchmarks. So where are the Democrats with their excuses as to why the surge worked and the benchmarks are being met?

Where is CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC asking them about the successes that Democrats said wouldn’t come?

We’ve almost won the war in Iraq. I’m really hoping that we can declare victory before the end of summer and President Bush can begin bringing troops home. Not on any artificial timetable, but on what President Bush said from the beginning. We’ll leave when we’ve achieved victory. We’ve almost achieved victory. It won’t be long now.

I welcome your comments

Brett