We are all victims of our up bringing. The values and beliefs we learned in childhood are deeply ingrained in our psyches. They can be positive, negative, or neutral, but overcoming them is tough. They are the chains that bind. A faith in God, a distaste for green beans, a hatred of Jews, a fear of water, a belief that good overcomes evil, a faith in government or a fear of government--all can be learned at a young age and stay with us through life.

Barack Obama was brought up in a home with socialist values. His mother was a political activist. His father and his childhood mentor "Frank," (Frank Marshall Davis,whom he talks about in his autobiography), were both communists. This childhood identity was reinforced in college. He says in "Dreams of My Father, "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. TheChicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Then in Chicago he became a community organizer, working with organizations like ACORN.

Suffice it to say, Barack Obama did not grow up with free market values, pro-military values, a preference for  capitalism, nor many of the values of a Judeo-Christian society.

This is not to say that President Obama is a communist, a socialist, or harbours a hatred for the military. I don't believe any of that. But one doesn't have to look far to see the difficulty he has in breaking the chains of childhood prejudices.

When an African-American professor had a run-in with police, Obama was quick to say he did not know all the facts, but that "..it was obvious the police acted stupidly." This was not a thought-out response. It came from the gut. It came from his core values.

As President, Obama is the Commander in Chief of the military. But in his heart he wants no part of the military. The whole idea of a military-style patriotism is quite distasteful.  Notice the hesitancy to wear a flag pin?   After being sworn in he had to deal with the Afghan front. He had, after all,campaigned on the "good war." He followed the lead of the outgoing adminisration and kept Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and wisely appointed General Stanley A. McChrystal to lead the war effort. But when McChrystal sent his assessment of the war and a request for troops, Obama froze. This was not what he's about. He's a war protestor, not a warsupporter. This role goes against his basic self identity.Of course none of this is rational nor intellectual. Once again, it comes from the gut. I'm sure President Obama is not even aware of it. But it is shown by his hesitancy to act, his putting the request on the back burner, and his lack of communication with General McChrystal.

What about President Obama's repeated snubs of our closest ally, Great Britain? From returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the casual choice of gifts for the British leaders, Obama has shown a callousness for the feelings of our biggest partner in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here again these things are not thought out, nor meant to be provocative. They stem from the leftist belief that Great Britain has historically been an oppressor of minorities, expanding its empire by colonizing and subjugating the poor people of the world. Forget how much better off these many countries are, for the imposition of British values and practices.

And finally the chains delaying our economic recovery. The Obama administration is bereft of anyone with private sector business experience. Not surprising, because in Barack's mind, business, businessmen, and capitalism are all the enemy.They are the oppressors of the worker. Obama surrounds himself with union organizers and academics, none of which has ever created a job. It's not surprising that no one there understands the fear and uncertainty that's preventing businesses from expanding. They've never walked in a business person's shoes.  The idea that a business can be a team of workers, supervisors, and administrators, all working together to produce a successful product for the betterment of all, is a total anathema to someone of Obama's mindset.  Business people oppress workers and capitalists are greedy. Obama decries the greed of bankers, calling them "fat cats"for taking bonuses while typical Americans are cutting back. Of course these reactions are limited to the private sector, and he ignores the increased spending of Congress, lavish lifestyles of many in government, and his own jetting off with Michelle for a "date" in New York.  Eleven months after President Obama took office, he finally said that jobs are created by small businesses in America. This is an intellectual conclusion on his part, going against his core belief in big government and distrust of private enterprise. How much better off would we be, if he had started his term with a confidence and faith in the free market system which has made us the most powerful nation on earth?

The chains are hard to break.   Recently our president took a break from apologizing for America to remind the world that the reality of evil requires nations willing to confront it. He said there will be times when nations will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. He admitted jobs are created by the private sector. And he's wearing an American flag pin.  Perhaps there is hope after all.

When I hear the of global warming scientists "massaging the data" and demonizing their distractors, I am reminded of Stalin's favorite agricultural scientist, Trofim D.Lysenko.

With a crisis in food production in the Soviet Union, Lysenko had a theory on how to greatly increase food crops. His idea was at odds with the prevalent theories of Mendelian genetics. Being politically astute, Lysenko attacked his opposition by saying their theory was akin to fascist policies of eugenics and they were "people haters". His attacks were successful and many traditional genetics scientists were sent off to Siberia or otherwise "disappeared." Lysenko himself was promoted to director of the Lenin All Union Institute of Agricultural Science, replacing world famous geneticist Nikolai I. Vavilov, who was arrested and shipped off to die in prison. Lysenco had apparently "massaged the data" in his experiments, because his early "successes" never translated to the real world. For decades Soviet agriculture dramatically lagged behind the Western world and countless numbers of their citizens died of starvation as a result. In 1964 the Soviet Union acknowledged Lysenko's experiments were fraudulent.

When science becomes politicized, and scientific discussions are not allowed to flourish in a free market of ideas, disastrous consequences can result.

The corruption of science, as seen in the emails of some of the world's leading climate scientists (see "Climategate--Nothing New", below,) leads to a broader question of how deep and how far the problem goes.  In a study by Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson, and Raymond de Vries published in June 2005 in Nature on the behaviors of U.S. scientists, it was discovered that the problem may go deeper than we had imagined.

We have generally assumed that most scientists are conscientious and principled, and that the few "bad apples" which we occasionally hear about are the exception. We have heard about falsifying data, making up statistics, stealing research, and the like, but surely those "scientists" are discovered and removed from their positions. The US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (FFP). But it appears there is a large grey area of less serious misconduct which scientists are engaging in.

In the Nature study over 3000 scientists, both early-career and mid-career, were surveyed anonymously concerning their ethical behavior. Sixteen criteria were studied, ranging from inadequate record -keeping to changing results due to pressure from a funding source. Survey questions were to be limited to the last three years. Interesting results included:

• 12.5% of respondents admitted overlooking others' flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.
• 6% failed to present data that contradicts one's own previous research.
• 20.6% of mid-career scientists admitted to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
• 13.5% said they had used inadequate or inappropriate research designs.
• A more serious question of falsifying or "cooking" research data was admitted to by only 0.3% of respondents.
• 10% of respondents admitted to at least one of the top ten categories during the previous three years.

It can be assumed that the respondents under-reported their bad behavior, and the most egregious violators probably failed to respond.

So what's the cause of this disrespect for scientific principles? Is it a reflection of a decreasing morality in society? Is it pressure to be recognized, pressure to produce, or financial pressures? Is it a type of political pressure? Whatever the cause, it is crucial to the future of our country that it be rectified.

We should begin in our educational institutions. Scientific ethics and responsibility should be emphasized. One of the chief scoundrels in Climategate is Michael Mann. In spite of questionable scientific practices early on in is career, he was lionized by the climate community and made director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State. The first step in changing the system should be to remove this type of role model, and hire or promote only those who have demonstrated fealty to sound scientific principles and practices.

Anyone who is shocked by the emails eminating from the University of East Anglia and some of the world's leading climatologists just hasn't been paying attention to the climate warming debate. There have been constant inferences and accusations of non-scientific bias by high level scientists.

Michael Mann, who in one of the infamous emails complains of having to "...respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future," is no stranger to controversy.

In 1998, then a recent graduate, Mann published a report in Nature magazine containing the infamous "hockey stick" graph that showed a period of 1000 years where the earth had slowly warmed until the time of industrialization where the graph showed a dramatic increase in warming. The graph dramatically showed, in a line resembling a hockey stick, that the earth's warming had gone into crisis mode with the large increase of carbon dioxide being released by industrialized humans. Mann was an instant hero in the global warming community. He became a lead author for the IPCC and was appointed editor of the Journal of Climate.

Some scientists were immediately skeptical of the graph because it seemed to discount two periods of known climate change, the Medieval Warming Period (900-1200) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850.)

Two Canadian scientists, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, requested Mann's data in order to review his report. Violating sound scientific protocol, Mann initially refused the data, but because his study was federally funded he was forced to release the data. He did so in bits and pieces.

A public battle ensued between global warming advocates accusing McIntyre and McKitrick of harassing Mann and his associates, and skeptics charging a violation of scientific ethics by covering up the data and methodology Mann used.

McIntyre and McKitrick pretty much demolished Mann's study when they released their own report in Energy and Environment.It appeared that the editors of Nature had not properly reviewed Mann's paper.

To resolve the public furor of cross accusations, the House Science Committee asked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the criticism of Mann's work and to assess the historical climate data reconstructions. Showing their own political bent, the NAC agreed, but only under conditions where they would not investigate whether Mann had withheld adverse results or made the original data and methodology available for review and replication.

NAC did not refute any of McIntyre and McKitrick's allegations, but in a politically correct summary they ignored the first 600 years of Mann's graph and stated Mann showed the "..last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period of the last 400 years." Please note that Earth's surface temperature during the Medieval Warming, where there was no industrialization, was higher than it is today.

Michael Mann is now the director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State.

Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark in 1996 released a study concerning cloud formation. Increased cloud formation makes for a cooler Earth, whereas fewer clouds create a warmer planet. His report showed that Sun activity affects cloud formation, and that "changes in the sun's activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth's temperatures."

Dr. Svensmark, who also supports the idea that CO2 in the atmosphere can capture heat from the sun, was shocked when the U.N. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change called his views "extremely naive and irresponsible."

When asked by a reporter about this attack, Dr. Svensmark said, "I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn't understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained than when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn't fit, that is what you are excited about." He said critics were essentially telling him he should not have done the work.

Alan Carlin, 35-year Environmental Protection Agency veteran, presented a 98-page analysis at about the same time as the EPA prepared issue an "endangerment" finding on carbon. The finding establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Carlin's paper argued that the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Carlin was removed to another branch of EPA, where he can no longer engage in the climate debate.

This squelching of differing opinions and lack of openness in scientific debate has been going on for sometime now, but it is a great threat to our country. We are preparing to spend trillions of dollars in an effort to counter the effects of a global warming threat documented by dubious data and messy methodology.

One of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. In April he said, "The days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Let's hope that our president and Congress re-visit the global warming debate with an open mind and a non-ideological approach to the problem.

Early on in the healthcare debate one of the networks was doing "man on the street" interviews. A woman being interviewed complained that her health insurance costs kept on rising. "They've got to do something...anything," she said in an exasperated voice.

The lady is getting her wish. The Senate is doing something...anything. And The CBO now says that under the Senate bill premiums will increase for an individual from 10% to 13% over what they would if Congress did nothing. Family policies will go to $15,200 instead of the status quo price of $13,100.

But not to fear. In the warped mindset where a 10.2% unemployment rate translates to a creating or saving of over a million jobs, the Whitehouse excitedly declared the CBO report was "more good news for what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo." The media chimed in as well. The New York Times headline was, "No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums is Seen in Study."

Employee-sponsored health plans will fare better, according to the CBO. Their costs will remain unchanged.
So the woman in the street is getting her wish. Congress is doing something...anything. And it will only cost our country a thousand billion dollars or so.

In 1996, with a Republican Congress pushing, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, saying, "This is the end of welfare as we know it." Emphasis on "..as we know it."

Welfare soon re-appeared in many forms..so many that it is very difficult to tabulate. But the Heritage Foundation has done just that in a report released in September. According the them:

• Welfare will cost each American household $560 per month in 2009, rising to $638 per month in 2010.
  
  
• According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $1,030 billion over the next 10 years. This will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty, or $1,000,000 for a family of four.
  
  
• Over the next decade, federal spending will equal $7,500 billion, while state spending will reach $2,800 billion.
  
  
• Average annual welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, will be about twice the spending levels under President Clinton over the next few years.

So welfare didn't end. It just changed form...and greatly increased.

It has become increasingly obvious over the years that there is a danger lurking throughout our society. It is the corrupting influence of OPM. It is true in government, it is true in insurance companies, it is true on Wall Street, and most recently we have seen it in ACORN.

OPM--Other People's Money. Wherever an individual or an organization is using OPM, corruption is soon to follow.

Think of it as being given $50,000 and told by the donor to go to Las Vegas and gamble with the money. The donor tells you to gamble however you want. He'll cover your losses and you get to keep your winnings.

Now given that deal, would you bet conservatively, or aggressively? You stand to win more if you bet aggressively, and the fact you could lose more is not important. The donor will cover your losses. It's the OPM factor.

Fannie and Freddie were backed by the U.S. taxpayers. They didn't have to fear losses, because it wasn't their money. It was ours. So they behaved recklessly, and we suffered the consequences.

The same was true with the Wall Street. These big firms had someone else's money to play with, so they didn't pick the wisest and safest investments; they picked the ones with the most profit potential.

OPM corrupts all levels of society, even you. You pay your car insurance premiums every month. So when it comes time to make a claim, do you shop around for the best deal? No, you go to the shop that you feel is going to do the best job whatever the cost. And if the guy says he'll fix that other little ding on your car and say it was part of this claim, well that's okay. It's not your money.

The same is true with health care. You don't care if the MRI costs $700 or $3000. The OPM factor makes it irrelevant. If the doctor sends you for an unnecessary test because he owns a piece of the testing firm and thus profits from the test, no problem. The test doesn't cost you anything, and it might just find a problem you didn't know about.

When ACORN gets government funding with no accountability, would you expect anything BUT corruption?

The answer to all of this is not easy. First you must be aware of the OPM factor, and limit it wherever possible. Insurance companies must find ways to reimburse for losses while encouraging their customers to be frugal--something like the customer's deductible being a percentage of the claim.

Financial institutions should be better regulated to discourage reckless investments, and should NEVER be bailed out by the government when they screw up.

Unions should be highly regulated to prevent leaders from profiting from the management of their members' dues. Similar rules should apply to corporate officers.

Tax money going to private groups should be tightly restricted, and when such funding does take place, the receiving groups or agencies should be required to open their books to the public.

The biggest corruption from OPM is the hardest to control. That is our government. Millions, billions, trillions of dollars, all mean nothing when our "leaders" engage in their spending programs. It's not their money. As long as they see that enough money goes to enough people to keep the politicians in office, they are free to be as reckless and as greedy as they want. There is little control.

The only answer to the OPM factor in government is to keep the role of government as small as possible. Candidates who make promises of "bringing home the bacon" should be shunned and voted out of offices. A bright light should be shown on all spending by government. No legislation should be passed without a clear explanation to the public about where the money is going and how much. Lastly, legislation should be single-purpose only. No earmark for a public park in St. Louis should be attached to a healthcare bill.

 

Kudos to R.P Graham, Orlando Fla.

Subtitle:  The Great Financial  Shellgame

When I heard Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testifying  before Congress in June, he was asked directly if he would monetize the debt. He responded emphatically that he would never do that.

I didn't know what that meant, so I checked it out. Monetizing the debt means to print money with nothing to back it up in order to pay down our debt.

Think of it this way. The government cuts up a pie into eight pieces and you own one piece of the pie. Then the government decides it's going to cut the pie into sixteen pieces. You still own one piece of the pie, but it just got smaller. 

Take out a dollar bill and hold it in your hand. When the government monetizes the debt, that dollar bill just got smaller.

Knowing all that, I was really glad the Bernanke wasn't going to monetize the debt.

But then in early August an interesting thing happened. The Treasury Department auctioned off about $30 billion worth of Treasury Bonds. This is essentially borrowing money with a promise to pay it back with interest at a later date.  Less than a week later the Fed bought $14.2 billion worth of the sames bonds. They paid for those bonds with freshly printed money.  In other words, Treasury and the Fed, working together in collusion, monetized $14.2 billion of our debt.  Feel your dollar shrinking?

There were two benefits to this transaction. One is that Bernanke could accomplish what he wanted to do without technically breaking his promise. He didn't personally monetize the debt. 

The other is that whoever bought the bonds and then sold them to the Fed made a tidy little commission on the $14.2 billion transaction. Do you think he knew the Fed would buy the bonds at the time he bought them from Treasury?-- naah!--we don't have that kind of corruption in government. 

 Do we?

Beware the social engineers, for they think not of the consequences.

"Anyone who opposes Obamacare is a selfish, heartless bast_rd." (Can't use that language on Townhall!)

Many on the left would agree with that statement, and the conventional wisdom in the traditional media is that liberals are more caring and selfless than their friends on the conservative side. But how do you know for sure?

Well, for a start you could look at socialogical studies and surveys done by credentialed researchers and unbiased members of academia. That's what author Arthur C. Brooks did in his book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" Brooks found among other things:

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Mr. Brooks reported in a Wall Street Journal column this year that in 2008 secular conservatives gave on average $1,100 more in charitable donations than secular liberals. (Ironically employees of major charities favored Democrats over Republicans in their private political contributions by a margin of 82% to 18%.)

In May of 2008 the Gallup poll asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. Forty-Two percent of those surveyed called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" and gave 56% of the total reported charitable donations. "Liberals" and "very liberal" responents represented 29% of the total polled, but gave only 7% of the total donations. So the average conservative in the polled group donated 5 1/2 times more than the average liberal.

In "Makers and Takers" Hoover Institution research fellow Peter Schweizer documented that:

• Conservatives give more to charity than liberals at all income levels. When Liberals do donate, it tends to be for institutions such as museums, galleries, and universities, whereas conservatives are more apt to donate to organizations that help people more directly.
• Seventy-one percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) for liberals.
• Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.
• Liberals are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.
• Liberals are two times more likely to say it is ok to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.
• Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.
• Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.
• When asked, "Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own?" Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals.

So those who oppose Obamacare probably aren't selfish or heartless, though some may be bast_rds--or perhaps racists. We may need some more studies on that.  Liberals can't be wrong on everything they say, can they?

When Clinton said those famous words, “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski,” he wasn’t lying.  He had just redefined the word “sex”.

While  campaigning, President Obama promised transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy.  While he practiced this during the aftermath of the Iranian elections, he has reversed course in dealing with Honduras.

In June there were media reports that a military coup had occurred in Honduras. The Obama administration immediately called for the return to power of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya.

Shortly thereafter, details emerged of the Honduran political happenings.  It was not a military coup at all.  Zelaya had violated the Honduran constitution repeatedly. He had been warned of the violations, but persisted, and an arrest warrant was issued by the Honduran supreme court. The military was ordered to take him into custody, and he was deported to Costa Rica. Roberto Micheletti, president of the National Congress and from the same political party as Zelaya, was sworn in as the interim president to serve until the next elections.

Hondurans, when writing their constitution, were well aware of the danger of a democratically elected president becoming power-hungry and subverting the constitutional and democratic institutions in order to keep himself in power. Germany’s Hitler and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are but two well-known examples.

So Hondurans not only instituted term limits, they specifically said, in Article 239 of the Honduran constitution, that a president who tries for a second term loses the privilege of the office. A president can only serve one term and anyone trying to change those terms of the constitution cannot serve as president for ten years. The interim president, Roberto Micheletti, is not eligible to run for office in the next election due to the same restriction. Any change to the constitution can only be accomplished through a national referendum approved by Congress.

Zelaya is also accused of criminality, specifically taking about $2 million from the state bank account.

Zelaya was being backed by Venezuela’s Chavez, who is systematically trying to subvert democracy, not only in his own country, but in countries throughout the region. Chavez encouraged Zelaya to have a referendum allowing him to stay in office, and even supplied the ballots and ballot boxes for the illegal election. Zelaya is popular among the poor and uneducated, but the Honduran congress, the supreme court, and even Zelaya’s own party saw that Zelaya was trying to duplicate Chavez’s subversion of checks and balances in an attempt to make himself dictator for life.

President Obama has had the opportunity to back off his support of Zelaya, but has failed to do so. Initially it appeared he may be just trying to save face for having made the wrong decision initially, but recent events indicate some other motive.

Zelaya’s term of office would have expired in January, with elections to be held in November. Although Chavez and other Marxist strong-men in the region have been pushing frantically for Zelaya’s return, it was thought by moderates that time was on their side and the whole thing would blow over when a new president was elected in November

But for some reason, the Obama administration has upped the ante in siding with the Central American Marxists. It was announced two weeks ago that the U.S. would suspend all visa services for Hondurans indefinitely and that $135 million in aid to Honduras would be cut. It was also said that the U.S. would not recognize the results of the upcoming election.

Thus far the Honduran people are holding strong, but they are a poor country and are being bullied badly by Chavez and other leftist regimes in the region.

The Obama administration’s support of the Venezuelan dictator over the Honduran constitutional democracy is a mystery. He has associated with leftists in this country, but has not previously shown an affinity for dictatorial regimes.

Another possibility is that Chavez is known to have strong business ties to powerful Democrats in this country, and this may be influencing Obama. This is very dangerous, as Chavez has recently been purchasing weaponry from Russia, and is developing close ties with Iran

Thus far the whole Honduran affair has been flying under the radar and is not being covered by any major news organization in this country. There is little pressure on Obama to do the right thing.

This can be rectified by ordinary citizens doing the job that our media is failing to do and putting pressure on the Obama administration to cease in its efforts to subvert constitutional democracy in Honduras.

Email the President and tell him of your concerns. You can contact the White House at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

A suggested message follows, if you want to cut-and-paste, but feel to articulate in your own words your concern of this very troubling issue.

Mr. President—

Please recognize the constitutionally formed government of Honduras and restore visa privileges and financial support to this friendly democratic nation.

Former President Zelaya clearly has Marxist objectives in his subversion of the Honduran constitution, and should not be returned to power.

The Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, is not our friend and should not be supported in his efforts to destroy the Honduran constitutional democracy.

Please recognize and support the upcoming Honduran election.

Please forward this post to all of your freedom-loving friends so this injustice can be corrected.

Suppose Congress wanted you to form a company to help the people of Nevada. They promised to lend you money at prime rates. You could then take that money to Las Vegas and gamble. You could keep your winnings and they would cover your losses. The only hitch was they wanted you to gamble only in games where the odds weren’t too strongly against you. That was a pretty good deal, and you took it. But of course you got greedy and wanted to loosen up the rules and gamble in the other games as well.

That’s pretty much the story of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

And just as you would be willing to kick back a bunch of money to friendly politicians to loosen the rules and keep the money flowing, so did the greedy people in the mortgage giants.

Fanny and Freddy were created not to help the good people of Nevada, but to make home ownership available to those who previously could not afford it. That worked pretty well for a while, but anytime government sticks its nose in the economy, you’d better watch out. Government has a way of not functioning economically.

Politicians wanted to help the little guy in order to buy votes to keep themselves in office. Enriching their friends in the mortgage business and lining their own pockets were side benefits. But they needed a rallying cry.

“Home ownership is the way out of poverty.” That was the mantra. “Community Redevelopment.” In 1992 Democrats controlled congress and began enforcing their vision of equality in America-ie: equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. They mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Rules were instituted requiring that welfare payments and unemployment benefits be accepted as loan income qualifications. Community organizers like Acorn pressured banks to lend more money to low-income people for home ownership. The banks thought these people weren’t good credit risks, but Congress passed laws mandating a certain share of assets be set aside for this purpose. The banks had to comply. Clinton’s HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that half the loans of Fannie and Freddie be made to low and moderate income homes by 2001.

In short, the entire government was putting pressure on the mortgage industry to loosen their standards for loan qualification, and the Democrats in Congress formed a partnership with those at the helm of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to bring affirmative action to the mortgage industry.

The mortgage industry went to work to bring about the changes. Financial geniuses with Ivy League educations were put to work and came up with the idea of “securitizing” loans, bundling them together and selling them like stocks and bonds. Somehow no one thought that once this is done, there is no incentive to qualify the borrower’s credit-worthiness. Creative loan structures were formed with low-down, no-down, balloon payment ideas to entice those with little money.

Other financial institutions were brought into the game when Fannie and Freddie fueled the entire mortgage crisis by becoming the primary customer of all AAA rated sub-prime mortgage pools, in addition to holding a huge number of mortgages themselves.

We were going down a terrible path. The balloon was expanding, and the only thing keeping it from exploding was the rising housing market. The rising housing market was caused by two things. One was lower lending standards. As more people qualified for more and higher loans, there was more demand for houses, both entry-level and more expensive. The other cause was the central bank cutting the federal-funds rate too much and keeping too low for too long, after the 2001 recession. As demand for homes grew, prices rose. The balloon got bigger. Democratic politicians, government regulators, loan executives, and building industry executives all patted each other on the backs for the great social justice they had achieved. Houses for everyone…the American dream! And boosting the economy to boot!

But there were warnings of doom.

Accounting scandals gripped both Fannie and Freddie in 2005. There were investigations and changes at the tops of their organizations. Legislation was proposed to regulate the mortgage giants more like banks and minimize their risky behavior. Alan Greenspan addressed Congress and said if things remained unchanged, “we are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk.”

A reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee which gave a regulator power to crack down and required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets. But there was a problem. Although passed by the Banking Committee, the bill was strongly opposed by the Democrats, and the Republicans could not get it to the floor for a vote. People who spoke of regulation were accused of stealing the American dream from poor people.

If that bill had become law, we probably would not be in financial crisis today.

Everyone was making money in this mortgage Ponzi scheme, and they were sure to send some back to the font from whence it all came, Democratic politicians. The fix was in.

Who has received money from the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees and PACs?

Sen. Christopher Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chairman, received the most at $165,000.

Sen. Barack Obama has received the second highest amount in his short tenure in the senate, $125,000.

Sen. Hillary Clinton came in 12th for $75,000.

And what about John McCain? Well, he was one of the co-sponsors of the failed senate bill which would have saved us from this debacle.

So who’s to blame for this terrible financial crisis? Why George Bush, of course!