Another Letter to the Editor

I wrote this Letter to the Editor in response to a letter that was written by a man named Robert in the September 25, 2008 issue of The Chief (my home town newspaper).

Robert wrote, "Did any of the loyal Republicans take notice of the 500-point drop in the DOW the other day? For those who believe that Republican economic policies are good for America, I have to say...WHAT!

Republican economic policies lead to financial disaster. The 'Financial Panic' of 1873, the Great Depression, and the blooming recession of today, are all a direct result of Republican economic policies. Make no doubt about it...

...If you enjoy enjoy inflation and the driving down of the financial markets (DOW, S&P 500, etc.), then you should vote Republican.

If you want to set new record 'highs' in home foreclosures, bankruptcies, and the national debt, then you should vote Republican."

Wow...unbelievable. He had a lot more things to say and they were a lot more absurd. I plan on addressing those issues in next week's Letter to the Editor.

Here is my reponse to his remarks above.

People…please…open your eyes and stop being lead around by your nose. Stop listening to partisan politics and a liberal media that only tells you want they want you to hear and start thinking for yourselves. If you don't, then you're just sheep being led to the slaughter.

The current crisis we are seeing on Wall Street and in the housing market are tied together and it is rather simplistic to attribute such a complex problem to false accusations that it is due to failed Republican economic policies. The actual causes of the crisis are many and can be traced back to decisions made over the past four decades.

First, in 1933, in response to the failure of nearly 9000 banks and massive loan failures during the “Great Depression”, President Roosevelt signed into law the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and separated the operations of commercial banks and investment banks to reduce chances for another stock market bubble.

For thirty years the Glass-Steagall Act remained unmolested. Until the 1960’s when commercial banks began lobbying Congress to allow them to enter the municipal bonds market; followed by brokerage firms in the 1970’s beginning to encroach on commercial banking territory.

Then during late 1986 thru 1987 the Federal government began to ease the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act and began allowing some commercial banks to enter into “a culture of risk which was the securities business”, instead of being confined to “a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking”; thus also allowing them to compete with their foreign counterparts.

Throughout the 1980’s and into the mid-1990’s, Congress tried repeatedly to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act to no avail.

Finally, in October of 1999, after 12 attempts over 25 years, Congress succeeded in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and on November 4 of that year, President Clinton signed the repeal into law.

By repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, the Republican Congress and President Clinton once again allowed for the "merging of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies into huge financial conglomerates", like those that have failed in recent weeks.

Second, the record numbers of home foreclosures are a direct result of failed lending practices created by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed into law by President Carter in 1977.

The CRA bill encouraged mortgage lending through two government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s). One, the Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, enabled mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. While the other, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac, would buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. The CRA also required the Federal Reserve System to implement the CRA through ensuring banks and savings and loans met their CRA obligations.

The CRA was barely enforced until 1995 after President Clinton ordered new regulations which increased access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. Clinton’s new rules took effect on January 31, 1995 and its features included, according to Wikipedia, "requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups (liked ACORN) to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhoods, income groups, and races; and allowing community groups (like ACORN) that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks."

As a result of Clinton’s new regulations, undue pressure was put on lending institutions to provide home loans to low-income and moderate-income families who may or may not be able to afford to pay them back. To avoid Federal prosecution banks gave loans to people without requiring proof that they had an income sufficient to pay back their loans. Although, many of these loans were worthless, they were sold as mortgage-backed securities on the open market over and over again and many investors used them as collateral…worthless collateral.

Third, subprime loans or loans given to people with a bad credit record and which have an interest rate likely to be a lot higher than a regular bank loan, accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage loans during 1996-2004, but increased to 21 percent during 2004-2006. These loans helped boost the level of home ownership to 69 percent of all households in 2005. However, the downside of these subprime loans is that in February of 2008, 24 percent of those loans were either delinquent or in foreclosure.

Fourth, the same people who are crying about the Wall Street and housing market crisis; and the same people we are expecting to fix the mess; are the same people who are partly responsible for the crisis. These are the same people who ignored pleas from President Bush, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and John McCain to increase regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are the same people who buried their proverbial heads in the sand and said the sky wasn’t falling. These are the same Democrats in Congress lead by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer, who are standing in front of the camera and accusing the Bush Administration of not instituting more regulations.

The following time line comes from "Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSE's" (JTF) and a video from FOX News Channel (FNC).

In April of 2001, President Bush warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) (JTF)

In May of 2002, "President Bush called for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) (JTF)

In 2003, President Bush warned Congress that financial troubles of the GSE’s were a “systemic risk” and “could spread beyond the housing sector.” (FNC)

In the fall of 2003, the Bush Administration was pushing Congress to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the GSE’s. Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explained that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03) (JTF)

How did ranking House Member Barney Frank respond? He said, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.” He also said that, “the Federal government should be encouraging Fannie and Freddie to do more to get low-income families into homes.” (FNC)

Frank added that he thought too many people had a “sky is falling” mentality by saying, “The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury; which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem the Federal government doesn’t bail them out. But the more pressure there is there then the less I think we see in affordable housing.” (FNC)

Congress blocked the legislation the Bush Administration was asking for.

In February 2004, President Bush again highlighted "the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSE’s and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator by saying, 'The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSE’s lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.'" (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83) (JTF)

In June 2004, Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman "spotlighted the risk posed by the GSE’s and called for reform, by saying, 'We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSE’s), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSE’s serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSE’s: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.'" (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04) (JFT)

In February 2005, after Fannie leaders admitted to major accounting errors, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, “…Enabling these institutions to increase in size, and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes, we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” (FNC)

Later, in April of 2005, at another hearing Greenspan added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis." (FNC)

How did Charles Schumer respond? He said, “…I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done a good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world…if you look over the past 20 or whatever years, they’ve done a very, very good job.” (FNC)

In May 2006, Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. In a speech he gave on the Senate floor, he said, “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market…the GSE’s need to be reformed without delay.”

Senator McCain continued by saying, “To underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

The legislation was never made into law and was cleared from the books at the end of the Legislative session.

In August 2007, President Bush called on Congress to "pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying 'first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.'" (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07) (JTF)

In December 2007, President Bush again warned Congress "of the need to pass legislation reforming GSE’s, saying 'These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSE’s – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.'" (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07) (JTF)

I’m not sure what else the Bush Administration could have done short of locking up every member of Congress until they pulled their heads out of the sand and took care of the problem before it reached the magnitude that it has.

This crisis has more to do with corporate and individual greed, failed lending policies and irresponsible legislators; and both political parties, past and present, share in the blame.

Paying Taxes is Patriotic?

Finally, Senator Joe Biden admitted to what most conservatives believed was the real Obama tax plan. In an interview with Katie Couric he said that he and Barack Obama...if elected in November...will, "take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."

Yes, he actually said that they will TAKE money from the wealthy and give it to the rest of us. So, if Obama and Biden are elected we will all be transorted to Sherwood Forest and Robin Hood will take care of us...I can't wait...can you?

Another amazing statement that Biden made in his Couric interview was that, "it's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Since when is it patriotic to pay taxes? Patriotism is a love of and loyalty to one's country. A patriot is someone who loves, supports, and is prepared to serve their country.

Taxes, according to a definition on Wikipedia, are a "financial charge or levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state", as well as city, county and national governments. Taxes are not a choice and the last time I checked no one asked us if we wanted to pay taxes to show our patriotism.

Biden makes paying taxes sound like fun...it's time to jump in? He makes it sound like tax payers are all going to a pool party. I can just hear the wealthy celebrating their higher taxes under the Obama plan already...like I celebrate the flu.

Are we in for a reincarnation of the "New Deal"? Only this time we'll have a government run health care to go along with the government run retirement program from the last "New Deal". We all know how that has turned out...don't we?

Just how much will the wealthy have to pay to get America out of the "rut"? With Obama proposing nearly one trillion in new government spending for all of his new programs, there are not enough wealthy Americans to foot that bill...let alone get us out of the "rut" we're already in.

It's great to have dreams. Dreams are what built this great nation. Dreams are what brought my ancestors here. Dreams are what America is all about. However, anyone who is dreaming that Robin Hood will swoop in, hand them free money (at the expense of the wealthy) and free health care will soon find their dreams have become nightmares.

A Very Interesting Question!

Following is a very interesting question posed by Josh_Painter on the conservative web site RedState.com in his diary entitled, "Is This Young Governor Qualified to be VP?". Enjoy!!!!

"How qualified to be vice president of the United States could a Republican be who:

Is young - under 45 years old?

Speaks in favor of economic development of Alaska?

Advocates and engages in exercise for personal fitness?

Has lived in the wilds of the American Northwest?

Fishes, hunts, and loves the great outdoors?

Has a reputation, not as an environmentalist, but as a conservationist?

Has at least five children?

Is a moralist for whom every issue is a struggle between good and evil?

Is a reformer who has taken on the GOP's "good old boy network"?

Believes corporations should be controlled, but not strangled?

Said, "These fools on Wall Street think they can go on forever. They can't"?

Has made some powerful enemies?

Believes the military needs to be expanded?

Has shown a brilliant sense of political symbolism and timing?

Believes the people, not the courts, should determine their own policies?

Is not a lawyer?

Has never been elected to national office?

Is on the GOP ticket for VP with less than two years in the governor's office?

Pretty well qualified, as it turns out.

The year is 1900, and the candidate for vice president is Theodore Roosevelt."

Amazing, huh? And you probably thought, like I did, that he was talking about Sarah Palin. Isn't it amazing, though, how much like Teddy, Sarah is?

Here's some biographical information about Theodore Roosevelt from "The White House - History and Tours - Past Presidents":

"With the assassination of President McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, not quite 43, became the youngest President in the Nation's history. He brought new excitement and power to the Presidency, as he vigorously led Congress and the American public toward progressive reforms and a strong foreign policy.

He took the view that the President as a 'steward of the people' should take whatever action necessary for the public good unless expressly forbidden by law or the Constitution. 'I did not usurp power,' he wrote, 'but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.'...

As President, Roosevelt held the ideal that the Government should be the great arbiter of the conflicting economic forces in the Nation, especially between capital and labor, guaranteeing justice to each and dispensing favors to none.

Roosevelt emerged spectacularly as a 'trust buster' by forcing the dissolution of a great railroad combination in the Northwest. Other antitrust suits under the Sherman Act followed.

Roosevelt steered the United States more actively into world politics. He liked to quote a favorite proverb, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick...'

Aware of the strategic need for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific, Roosevelt ensured the construction of the Panama Canal. His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States.

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, reached a Gentleman's Agreement on immigration with Japan, and sent the Great White Fleet on a goodwill tour of the world.

Some of Theodore Roosevelt's most effective achievements were in conservation. He added enormously to the national forests in the West, reserved lands for public use, and fostered great irrigation projects.

He crusaded endlessly on matters big and small, exciting audiences with his high-pitched voice, jutting jaw, and pounding fist. 'The life of strenuous endeavor' was a must for those around him, as he romped with his five younger children and led ambassadors on hikes through Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C."

In my humble opinion, Sarah Palin has the potential to be the type of leader that Teddy Roosevelt was. Let's hope she becomes our next vice president and then makes a successful run for the White House in 2012.

Will He or Won't He?

There has been a lot of speculation over the past few weeks, especially since McCain added Sarah Palin to his ticket, as to whether or not Biden will remain on the Obama ticket and if he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton to counter the Palin effect.

If anyone has been paying attention to Biden lately, they would scratch their heads and wonder if he was trying to look incompetent so that Obama would have a good reason to ask him to leave the ticket. I mean this man is one major gaffe machine. The biggest gaffe of all was on September 10th when he told a crowd of supporters in New Hamphire,

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of Amercia - let's get that straight. She is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. I mean that sincerely, she is first- rate."

At this late date, if Obama were to ask Biden to leave the ticket and then add Hillary, Obama would look weak and indecisive. But is that really anything new? Somehow I don't think Obama or the Democrats would allow such political suicide. However, if Biden were to leave the ticket citing health reasons, the door would be open for Obama to replace him with no questions asked.

Currently, there is a rumor circulating around the Internet and through e-mails stipulating this exact scenario. I am not in the habit of writing blogs based on rumor, but this one might actually be a scenario that the Democrats could use to put Hillary on the ticket...to rectify an error that they feel Obama made...without making him look weak and indecisive. Here's how the scenario is supposed to play out:

"On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing health problems...an anueurysm, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur after the Vice President debate on October 2nd."

Ever since Biden made that statement about Hillary being more qualified than himself, I have felt that it was just a matter of time before the Democrats would find a way to replace Biden with Hillary. This rumor seems very plausible. If this scenario comes to fruition, then we will all know the real truth...we all knew it before they did it and we will all have dated entries to prove it.

Did Obama Commit Treason?

While Barack Obama was on his "magical mystery" tour overseas in July, he held a closed door meeting with Iraqi leaders. During this meeting he evidently tried to persuade the Iraqi leadership to delay making any agreements with the current US administration regarding troop withdrawals.

A New York Post article entitled, "Obama Tried to Stall GIS' Iraq Withdrawal" by Amir Taheri stated,

"According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

'He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,' Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its 'state of weakness and political confusion.'

'However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.' Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is 'illegal,' he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the 'weakened Bush administration,' Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a 'realistic withdrawal date.' They declined."

After this information was brough to light the Obama campaign came out swinging...or did they? According to the Associated Press, in an attempt to deny the charges made by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Obama's national security spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi, said that Obama,

"has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

However, in the same statement Ms. Morigi stated,

"In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a 'Strategic Framework Agreement' governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office."

Isn't that what was reported in the Taheri article? I would have to say that Ms. Morigi just confirmed exactly what the Iraqi Foreign Minister said. Oops!!!! I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the Obama camp later that day.

So the question is, did Barack Obama commit treason in this unsanctioned activity?

According to the Law Library - American Law and Legal Information - American Encyclopedia Volume 6,

"The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799...the Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act in short and reads as follows:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment."

It would appear that Obama did violate the Logan Act, which would be an act of treason. Someone at the justice department needs to investigate his activities in Iraq. How about any closed door meetings he might have had in Afghanistan...London...Paris...and Berlin?

How Much More are the American People Going to Take?

We have seen a barrage of personal attacks leveled against Governor Sarah Palin since being named as Senator John McCain’s running mate. The attacks, although not instigated directly by Senator Obama’s campaign, have been perpetrated by those who support him and his candidacy; leaving some to wonder if someone within his own camp might be orchestrating them.

The individuals behind these attacks are brutal and they will stop at nothing to destroy any perceived threat to their pursuit of power. Currently that perceived threat is Governor Palin. Their primary goal is to destroy her at all cost and take no prisoners. It doesn’t matter whether the methods they use are legal or illegal; and they don’t care whether or not their irresponsible actions might possibly lead to physical harm to their intended target or her family members. They are under the assumption that anything goes.

The latest in this endless string of attacks occurred yesterday with regard to Governor Palin’s personal e-mail account.

Governor Palin has been accused by some in Alaska of using her personal Yahoo e-mail account to conduct official government business. No proof has been given…just allegations. Yet, an internet terrorist group, who calls themselves “Anonymous”, managed to acquire her personal e-mail account. How? You might ask? By way of an article that was written regarding the allegations. In the article the author included her personal e-mail address for all to see.

A member of “Anonymous”, with the ammunition he had been provided, called Yahoo pretending to be the governor and telling them that he had lost his password. They allowed him to change the password to her e-mail account and then he was able to get inside and make a zip file of everything. The contents that he stole included two sample e-mails, an index of messages and Palin family photos. He then posted the information on the whistleblower site Wikileaks contending that the information was proof that Governor Palin had improperly used her private e-mail to do official government business.

I have not seen the information he stole from Governor Palin's personal e-mail account, and I have no desire to do so. However, Paul McNamara on the website Network World has seen them and this is what he says,

"There's no way to tell at a glance whether this material is authentic or a hoax, but the organizations involved are well known. Obviously, the method by which the information was obtained and posted will be hugely controversial. (And inclusion of the pictures seems gratuitous, if not mean.)

However, the e-mail index from Palin's account does appear to indicate that she has been using it for both private and official business, with one entry addressed to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and another to Palin's chief of staff, Michael Nizich, to cite only two obvious examples.

As for the sample e-mails, rather than bolstering the contention that Palin uses private e-mail to avoid possible public scrutiny of official business, at first blush they actually seem indicative of her dutifully separating Alaska business from Alaska and national politics. Both samples are overtly political in nature, which, based on my admittedly limited understanding of the law in this area, make them inappropriate when using government resources."

What I can ascertain from this account is,1) Governor Palin may have used her private e-mail account for official business, 2) the official business was not related to Alaskan government issues, and 3) because the business was not related to Alaskan government issues, it would have been inppropriate for her to use her government issued e-mail account.

This most recent attack; unlike all of the others, which were downright nasty and vile or had bordered on defamation, was illegal with a capital I. When caught (not if), and prosecuted, the culprits will face jail time of one to five years. This violation was not a matter of freedom of speech or of improper search and seizure or of phishing for information that could prove unethical activity; this was a violation of Governor Palin’s privacy, which is covered by Federal law.

It is time for the federal government to wield all of its constitutional authority to bring a stop to these attacks and prosecute those they can; especially those who illegally obtained Governor Palin’s personal e-mails. It is time for the American people to say enough is enough. It is time for us to protect the rights of us all by protecting the rights of one woman who only desires to serve the people of this nation.

Letter to the Editor

I wrote this Letter to the Editor in response to a letter that was written by a woman named Maggie in the September 11, 2008 issue of The Chief (my home town newspaper).

Ever since John McCain added Sarah Palin to his ticket, I have been astounded at the reactions from so many. Who would have thought that one woman could cause an entire electorate; one which has felt abandoned by its own party, to finally feel energized and engaged in a way that hasn't been seen in decades, while causing such vitriol responses from those who thought they had everything in the bag and were already picking out new drapes for the White House.

Maggie made a few assertions that I take issue with.

First, yes, Mayor Sarah Palin did hire a lobbyist to get earmarks for Wasilla, but they were nowhere near the $27 million reported. I found an article by ABC News entitled “Palin’s Record on Pork: Less Sizzle than Reported”. The article stated, “The initial figures on Palin's earmarks came from Taxpayers for Common Sense, whose press release stated that she ‘helped get nearly $27 million in earmarked federal funding’. But the city government, under Palin, only directly received about a third of those funds – $7.95 million between 2000 and 2003 – interviews and city records show. About $18.4 million went to the (Matanuska-Susitna) borough or private entities, some of which the city supported through resolutions, even if it did not request the money itself.”

Second, yes, Sarah Palin supported Senator Ted Stevens and he endorsed her for Governor, before he was indicted in a grand jury investigation on July 29, 2008. As stated in The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008, “Palin, an anti-corruption crusader in Alaska, had called on Stevens to be open about the issues behind the investigation. But she also held a joint news conference with him in July, before he was indicted, to make clear she had not abandoned him politically.” If I'm not mistaken, this is still America where one is innocent until proven guilty. An indictment does not qualify as guilty. Senator Stevens has not had his day in court; that will happen later this month.

If Sarah Palin’s association with Senator Ted Stevens should preclude her from serving as VP, then people had better think twice about Obama as President. His past associates include William Ayers who, according to the Chicago Sun Times (and many other sources), “Spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the ‘Weather Underground,’ an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. Policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings.” Ayers, who escaped prosecution because of illegal surveillance, is still unrepentant of his actions. In 2001 he said, “I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.”

How about Obama’s 17 year affiliation with Reverend Wright, an anti-Semite, anti-American and anti-white minister? In an interview with Kieth Olbermann on March 15, 2008 Obama said of Reverend Wright, “He and I have a relationship, he's like an uncle.”

Third, Governor Palin did not use her family as “props” at the convention. She introduced them to the electorate and those watching on television. At the end of her speech they joined her onstage. We saw the same thing during the Democrat convention; that is what happens at conventions. However, if FOX News or any conservative group had said anything about the annoying behavior of Obama’s daughters on Monday night after his wife gave her speech, the main stream media would have been whipped into a frenzy. Conservatives would have been labeled as racists or thugs. “How dare they pick on those cute little girls?"...blah, blah, blah. Here’s a news flash. Families, especially children, of candidates have always been off limits. The attacks that were leveled at Governor Palin and her family during the week leading up to the Republican convention were unconscionable and anyone who advocates that it was just fine shares in the blame.

Fourth, John McCain has never been afraid to talk about the issues. McCain sent a letter to Barack Obama on June 4, 2008 requesting that the two candidates participate in ten town hall meetings across the nation. In the letter McCain said, “What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections…I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns.”

According to the International Herald Tribune Obama initially seemed enthusiastic about the idea in early May when it looked like he was going to win the Democratic nomination. “The idea slipped away, though, after what appeared to be a half-hearted response from the Obama campaign…The Obama campaign countered with an offer of five - but that included the three debates the two men were already scheduled to hold in the autumn, meaning that Obama was really agreeing to only two of the sessions that McCain proposed. And the Obama camp wanted one of the two to be held on July 4, a day when Americans could be expected not to flock to their televisions.” Hmmmm…I ask you, who is really afraid to debate the issues?

Fifth, Maggie asserted that the Republicans, “Offered no concrete policies to help us mend the country.” I guess through all of her gagging she couldn’t hear what was actually being said. I have copies of both Presidential candidate’s speeches and on my blog I have broken their speeches down and compared them side by side. Unfortunately, in light of the amount of space I have already taken, I cannot put the comparisons in this letter. Let’s just suffice it to say, McCain did offer concrete plans. He is proposing among others; lower taxes to working families by increasing the per child tax credit from $3500 to $7000 (granted it may not be the Robin Hood plan that Obama proposed, but it would be a more fair tax plan for all families), he is proposing a jobs training program for displaced workers, “We’ll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage”, and he is proposing an overhaul of the education system, “We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.”

Sixth, Maggie made the comment that the GOP does nothing but block any legislation that the Democrats try to pass. That practice is nothing new, and if anyone was paying attention to the news when the GOP was in control they would know the Democrats did the same thing. That is what is so frustrating with our government; neither party is willing to work with the other. The only way to stop this ridiculous mentality is to institute term limits on all politicians. I say throw the bums out and replace them with politicians who remember what they were voted into office to do…SERVE THE PEOPLE!!!!

Seventh, let's talk about honesty in politicians. Believe it or not, Obama has a real hard time with the truth...or maybe just remembering what he said. Cases in point: 1) In 2002, Illinois State Senator Obama gave a speech on the Illinois Senate Floor in which he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He said, "He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity." Obama then went on to say that he opposed the war because it was a distraction from the real issues. However, today he says, "I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction." 2) In 2006, Obama voted for a bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency. However, in June 2007, Obama voted against English as America’s Official Language and on July 22, 2008 Obama said, "Understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English ... You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish."…NOT!!! 3) On September 29, 2006 Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the Secure Border Act which, among other border security measures, authorizes a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border. Then on March 13, 2008 Senator Obama voted against increased funding for border security, 700 miles of fencing, and placing 6,000 National Guardsmen on the border. 4) In February 2007, Obama said, "I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Then on June 19, 2008 Obama rejected public financing by saying, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." I have many more examples, but you get the picture. Honesty is not Obama's best policy.

Finally, Maggie wants to know how Palin’s experience equates with Obama’s. What experience does Obama have? He has been an Illinois State Senator for six years and spent only 143 days in the U.S. Senate before running for President…143 days.

In addition, Sarah Palin is not running against Obama, McCain is. However, Palin’s six years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and her two years as Governor of Alaska have given her more executive experience than either of the Presidential candidates and the Democrat vice Presidential candidate. She has cut taxes, balanced budgets, fought corruption in her own party, and she took-on “big oil”. She has been working in the trenches directly with the people, not in Washington D.C. away from the people.

Sarah Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience is moot. John McCain has that experience. Barack Obama, on the other hand, who will not only be a “heartbeat” away from the Presidency, but is running to be President, has no foreign policy experience (OH…wait…I forgot about his magical mystery tour overseas this Summer). He had to add Joe Biden onto his ticket to compensate for his deficiency. So which is more important, that the President have foreign policy experience or the vice President?

On the lighter side…in a campaign stump speech in Beaverton, Oregon on May 9, 2008; Barrack Obama stated, "Over the last fifteen months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty-seven states? I think with one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it." HUH?...this is a direct quote folks…I couldn’t make this stuff up. I’m pretty sure Sarah Palin knows there are only 50 states.

Let's Talk About Flip Flops...Okay?

It is truly amazing how McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate has changed the political landscape. Obama seems to be more concerned with Palin, than McCain. I guess he has forgotten that McCain is actually the one he is running against.

I found a quote on Political Punch made by Obama regarding Palin. Obama was speaking at a rally in Flint, Michigan when he began attacking the new McCain-Palin add which touts Governor Palin's claim that she stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere". He said,

"Well, now, let’s get the facts clear here. When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks -- pork barrel spending –- all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the 'Bridge to Nowhere', she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it, and she started running for governor, and then, suddenly, she was against it!

You remember that? For it before you were against it'? I mean you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid."

Yes, Governor Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it. I'm sure Charlie Gibson will ask her about this issue, as will every other interviewer she speaks to from now to the election. However, I look forward to hearing her explain why she changed her position rather than listen to the speculators, her enemies and the Obama-Biden camp tell me why. However, if this is the only thing she changed her position on, then we'd be lucky to have her in the White House.

As for the accusation that Sarah Palin made stuff up and recreated and reinvented herself, does he think we ARE that stupid? I guess he does...or maybe he just knows the mainstream media won't call him on his memory lapses about his own flip flops...which there are many.

First, Barack Obama has stated that he was against the War in Iraq from the beginning. During this campaign, he has critcized John McCain for his support of the war. However, I guess he doesn't really find support for the war that objectionable since he added Joe Biden to his ticket. Joe Biden was a staunch supporter of the Iraq War. In early 2002, Biden stated that,

"Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security, and that there was no option but to eliminate that threat. "

Then in October, 2002 he was one of 77 Senators (23 of them Democrats) who voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq which justified the Iraq War.

I guess Obama didn't think that putting a senator who supported the war he is so adamantly opposed to might appear inconsistent?

Second, in 2002, Illinois State Senator Obama gave a speech on the Illinois Senate Floor in which he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He said,

"He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

He then stated that he opposed going to war in Iraq because it is,

"...the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, and to distract us from corporate scandals."

Today, Obama says that he opposed the Iraq war because,

"I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

Hmmmmm...so who is reinventing himself?

Third, here are a few more Obama flip flops:

Requiring Immigrants to Learn English:

In 2006, Obama voted for a bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency.

In June 2007, Obama voted against English as America 's Official Language, even though 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.

And, on July 22, 2008 Obama said,

"Understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English ... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish."

Cracking Down on Businesses that Hire Illegal Immigrants:

On a questionnaire in March of 2004, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." His reply?

"Oppose"

On January 31, 2008 during a televised debate, he said that,

"We do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

Border Fence:

On September 29, 2006 Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the Secure Border Act which, among other border security measures, authorizes a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border.

On March 13, 2008 Senator Obama voted against increased funding for border security, 700 miles of fencing, and placing 6,000 National Guardsmen on the border.

Decriminalization of Marijuana:

In a 2004 video at Northwestern University, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. He said,

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

Then, during a debate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries campaign, MSNBC moderator Tim Russert asked the candidates who opposed decriminalization of marijuana to raise their hands. Barack Obama hesitantly raised his hand halfway before quickly lowering it again.

Reverend Wright:

On March 15, 2008 Obama was a guest on the Keith Olbermann show. Olbermann asked him if he would repudiate Reverend Wright. He stated,

"No, I would do not repudiate the man. As I said, this is somebody who I have known for 17 years. He helped bring me to Jesus and helped bring me to church. And, you know, he and I have a relationship, he's like an uncle who has talked to me, not about political things and not about social views, as much as about faith and God and family...

...So, you know, I would describe it as a member of your family who does, says something that you really disagree with. They don't stop being a member of your family, but you have to speak out forcefully on the issue."

Then on March 18, 2008 Obama was giving a speech on race when he said,

"...As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother..."

One and a half months later, on April 30, 2008, Obama disowned Reverend Wright by saying,

"What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think America stands for.

And I want to be very clear that, moving forward, Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks, but what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say that I find these comments appalling, I mean it.

It contradicts everything that I am about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign is about, I think, will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

Will he disown the black community or his white grandmother next?

Public Financing:

In February 2007, Obama said,

"I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

On June 19, 2008 Obama rejected public financing by saying,

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Need I say more? If there is a candidate in this race who has recreated or reinvented him or herself, I would propose that it is Barack Obama...not Sarah Palin.