The Way I See It

It’s election day. Whatever will happen, will happen. I’m just so amazed at those who are misinformed. I’m amazed that someone who cares and who is trying to weigh her options, thinks that George W. Bush caused the current banking crisis. I’m amazed that she has not seen this video, in their own words.

And still more:

And for the person who asked, because I know she loves more information rather than less:

From GovTrack Senate Record regarding Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, dated May 25, 2006.

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, 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.

And further, McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005 and Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Plus, go here and scroll down a little for a list of Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008.

If anyone wants to debate these claims, please do so with documentation.

For those who haven’t read my short and sweet About Me page, I’ll save you the trouble of clicking away and tell you that the important tidbit there is that I am a Libertarian. I’m not particularly fond of either of the two major parties so I’ll probably cast my vote for the least of all the evils. This is all significant because I want to be clear from the start: my opinion has nothing to do with my choice for president. None of the candidates reflect my views. My commentary on the 2008 race in general and this post’s topic in particular is not partisan in any way. Feel free to comment an opinion of your own but I don’t promise to debate you, even if I disagree. But I might.

I’ve watched for a week now as the media played the endless loop of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s offensive sermons. I’ve listened to the pundits and I’ve listened to and read the transcripts of Senator Obama’s response. And I am amazed.

Why does it matter what this man’s religious and spiritual leader says and believes? Why must we conclude that Senator Obama agrees with Reverend Wright on every issue? Is that even fair?

According to Catholics In The Public Square, the 110th Congress claims 157 Roman Catholics. Of those, there are 89 Democrats in the House and 16 Democrats in the Senate. Think about that.

A handful of those Democrats are pro-life but for the most part, these Catholic Democrats vote the party line of pro-choice. We all know that the world wide leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, has taken a decidedly pro-life stance and has instructed US politicians to do the same. Maybe I’m not paying attention but I haven’t heard an outcry that all Catholic Democrats secretly agree with the Pope and will work to undermine the pro-choice laws of the United States.

Of course, being pro-life isn’t necessarily a hateful thing, as racism is. So let’s look at another issue that Catholic Democrats face: Gay rights. While both parties seem to be intent on denying gays the right to marry, Democrats have always talked the talk of gay rights (even if “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a cop out). And yet the Pope, as leader of the Catholic Church, has called gays “sinners” and homosexuality a sin. Some claim that the stance of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is hateful.

Do we question Catholic Democrats who claim to disagree with their spiritual leader on this issue? No, we do not. In fact, we don’t find it at all unusual for Catholics, whether in political life or not, to disagree with their Pope or their Bishop or their priest on this and other issues. And yet, we are holding Barack Obama to that standard. Why is that?

If we’re going to question Barack Obama on the beliefs of his spiritual leader, then we need to question every member of Congress about how their political beliefs match up with the teachings of their spiritual leaders. We need to examine them with a fine tooth comb just as we have Senator Obama and the Reverend Wright.

The way I see it, the man who brought Barack Obama to Christ is a flawed man. That doesn’t mean that the Lord did not use Reverend Jeremiah Wright to bring His child Barack into the family of Christians. Maybe it simply means that Christians are sinners but that God can still work through us. Maybe it means that no matter our shortcomings, the hand of our Lord can bring forth goodness. Maybe the message in all of this is not about hatred but about God’s power.

If the media really wants to do some digging, let’s find out who is really fueling this story. That’s what I’d like to know.

No, I’m not talking about the war in Iraq. That one is the hot topic of every political site on the internet and every news show on TV. Iraq has been talked into the ground.

I’m talking about the war that our politicians on both sides of the aisle when never stop fighting even though they will never win it. Which war is that, you ask? The War On Drugs.

Ironically, anyone who has been through a 12-step program will tell you that Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time. And yet, when it comes to fighting drugs, we do the same thing over and over with the same results: failure. Why? Well how about a lesson we learned more than a half century ago. Prohibition doesn’t work. It didn’t work for alcohol and it isn’t working for drugs.

I’ve seen loads of statistics regarding drug use and abuse. I don’t put much stock in the stats that say drug use is going down, especially when those stats have to do with teens. Teens are not all that honest; drug users are notoriously dishonest. If you want real stats, look at hospital records for overdoses, numbers of kids and adults being arrested for drug related crimes, and sadly, statistics for drug related deaths.

Oh, and don’t forget that alcohol is a drug. And yet, some parents allow their “almost adult” kids to drink in the home so they’ll “learn” responsible drinking. Yeah, good call. Just when a kid is needing to really grasp the concept of dealing with negative emotions while overcome by a sea of hormones, show him how to dull those feelings with a drug so he’ll know there’s an easier way to deal with low self-esteem or a broken heart. Good call, oh wise parents.

Back to my original thought… this is about our War On Drugs and stupidity of passing new laws to fight this plague. The latest law that really irritates me is the extreme government control of various sinus medications. Every time I need to buy a box of Aleve Cold and Sinus, which works wonders, by the way, I come home fuming.

Apparently, the active ingredient in this over the counter medication (as well as other sinus meds) is also an ingredient used in making crystal meth. Since law enforcement is unable to stop the manufacture and abuse of crystal meth, our lawmakers have enacted laws to make it harder to get this ingredient. The problem is, those who use this medication for SINUS PROBLEMS now have to jump through hoops, show proof of ID and worst of all, pay high prices for this effective medicine.

That infuriates me.

As annoying as it is to jump through the government’s hoops to just get a little nasal relief, the price issue is what really makes me want to scream. I used to be able to buy Aleve Cold and Sinus at a discount store for half the cost of the drug stores and other department stores. Now a pharmacist must distribute it and the price is never reduced. Talk about the government and private business working together to screw the consumer! Just check the price on this stuff; it isn’t cheap.

This is just one more example of how our government places more restrictions on law abiding citizens because it has failed to restrict criminal activity. If you can’t stop the law breakers, tighten the reigns on the good people so they’ll think you’re doing your job. Sorry, we’re not that stupid. We know you have failed.

So, what is the answer? Well, let’s go back to the premise that continuing this War On Drugs has proven to be insane. Let’s rethink what drug use and abuse is. How about, a disease? Wouldn’t that be a novel idea? Let’s treat addicts medically, in rehab facilities instead of jails, to see if that works. We already know that more laws and jails do not work. What do we have to lose?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ah, the Second Amendment. Once again the debate arises. Once again the gun control folks don’t get it. And amazingly, the anti-gun control folks don’t get it either.

The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It isn’t about protecting your home, family or property from criminals. It isn’t about protecting our country from foreign invaders.

The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from our own government. Period.

Remember that we had to battle the British Army to break away from their control. Had we not had weapons at least equal to that of the British, we would have remained subject to their tyranny.

Our government is the people. Anything the government has, we have a right to have. Like it or not, physical strength is power. Weapons are power. If we relinquish our weapons, or stength, to the government, we relinquish power. We will no longer be the government.

Rather than looking at Virginia Tech as an example of why we need more gun control, go back several decades. Look instead at Kent State in Ohio in 1970. The Ohio National Guard opened fire on college students during protests against our involvement in Viet Nam. The nation was outraged. Songs were written about it, movies were made. People stood up and the outcry became even louder. And Nixon began pulling troops out; by 1973 most American troops had left Viet Nam.

Without the Second Amendment and our right to govern ourselves, things could have been much different. The Kent State tragedy could have been just one of several such incidents from a too-powerful government. In fact, some would argue that other incidents, such as Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians, are leanings in just that direction. I say that as long as we hold our Second Amendment rights dear, these examples of government missteps will remain widely spaced and the exception rather than the rule.

I realize the events at Virginia Tech recently and Columbine (and other schools) previously are tragic. We are all outraged at this kind of evil and we all want to fix it. Destroying our Second Amendment rights, though, will not fix it but rather will create an entirely new set of problems. And these new problems will be even more tragic as we lose our right to govern ourselves, if not in my lifetime then surely in my granddaughter’s.

We must never allow fear to motivate us to give up our rights. That is a form of terrorism.