sovereignfront

Drill, not Nationalize

2008-05-28T18:35:13Z

As congress put big oil on trial for crimes against the American Socialist Movement, liberal agenda, what you didn't see is oil executives blaming congress for blocking drilling and new refineries. You also didn't hear that the Federal Government makes more money per gallon than the oil companies. Even the thought that we would allow drilling in ANWR or on the Gulf Coast would immediately have an impact on oil prices. The real reason prices are out of control is because OPEC has strong reason to believe that our liberal controlled congress will not allow drilling to take place. Obama and McCain are both against drilling so OPEC is comfortable raising prices and feeding billions of extra dollars to terrorists knowing our next president will not do anything about it. If our government started to take steps toward allowing drilling OPEC would immediately lower prices or raise production to make it less cost effective for us to drill. Wow supply and demand I learned about that in high school. We need to send a message to these idiots in congress by voting them out for their anti American campaign against big oil and sticking us at the pump.

Watch Maxine Waters tell the oil executives that she would be for the government taking them over...

Remember @ 3pm

2008-05-25T00:18:48Z

WASHINGTON - President Bush is asking Americans to pay tribute to those who have served and lost their lives by pausing for "a moment of remembrance" this Memorial Day. Bush said the moment of remembrance would be marked Monday at 3 p.m. local time. "At that moment, Major League Baseball games will pause, the National Memorial Day parade will halt, Amtrak trains will blow their whistles and buglers in military cemeteries will play taps," he said Saturday in his weekly radio address. He asked that as we celebrate Memorial Day that we honor all the sacrifices that Americans have made to defend our freedom.

"No words are adequate to console those who have lost a loved one serving our nation," Bush said. "We can only offer our prayers and join in their grief. We grieve for the mother who hears the sound of her child's 21-gun salute. We grieve for the husband or wife who receives a folded flag. We grieve for a young son or daughter who only knows Dad from a photograph."

"All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should."
Samuel Adams

We are free because of all the sacrifices our veterans and those now serving have made for our freedom. They valued our freedom enough to serve their country and even give their lives.

This Memorial Day as we attend picnics and gatherings with friends and families take a moment to remember.

A Good Republican?

2008-05-21T16:51:07Z

With alot of wimpy Republicans in D.C. who dont stand up for what we believe in as conservatives its nice to find one I know I can support. Jack Hoogendyk is running for the U.S. Senate against Carl Levin Michigan Senator, a true demoncrat, tax and spend, socialist, liberal (oh yea thats the same thing and oh yea when I was trying to broaden my consience once I actually voted for Levin. Dont tell anyone). Jack is now on the ballot after turning in double the signatures needed, 30,000! Below are highlights of where Jack Hoogendyk stands on the issues:

• I support making current tax cuts permanent. Taxes are too high.
• Corporate tax rates need to be lowered to provide more incentive for corporations at home and abroad to invest in the United States.
• I support the permanent elimination of the death tax.

National Debt and Deficit Spending

• Since taking office in 1978 Carl Levin has only contributed to the National Debt increasing from $800 billion to almost $10 trillion. This must stop. We need to pay down the National Debt until it reaches zero.
• I am opposed to deficit spending. The federal budget should be balanced every year. Carl Levin was the deciding NO vote in the Senate when the balanced budget amendment came up for a vote.

Public Education

• I am opposed to federal spending on public education. The Department of Education should be abolished. There is no evidence that the billions spent on public education at the federal level has resulted in any improvement in test scores of overall achievement by children in public schools.
• I am a supporter of local control over community schools. The best schools are those controlled by the parents and their designated board and administrators at each local district.
• I support the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and education of their children.

Human Life

• I believe that all humans have constitutionally guaranteed right to life. This right extends from the time of conception to the time of natural death.
• I am a proponent of stem cell research. But I draw a distinction between embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and adult stem cell research. Embryonic is impractical because of problems with rejection and, to date, a failure to produce any cures. ESCR also requires the destruction of a human embryo, which is human life in its smallest form. Adult stem cell research, which would include the use of umbilical cord blood stem cells, has produce over 70 cures and continues to show great promise and progress. I oppose ESCR and strongly support Adult stem cell research.

Energy

• We should remove all subsidies for oil production and opening up domestic oil fields for drilling and further exploration in a way that protects the environment.
• We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
• I support expansion of nuclear energy.

Free Trade

• I support free trade that mirrors trade policy of other nations.
• I am opposed to any treaties that subordinate U.S. sovereignty to other nations.

Second Amendment

• I am rated “A” by the National Rifle Association and will continue to support the constitutional right to bear arms.

JackforMichigan.org

Politicians Today Suck

2008-05-17T09:10:49Z

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the state of our two party system. On one hand you have Demoncrats lying about things they have said or voted for without any challenge from the media. Then you have the other non-conservative party the Republicans who are to wimpy (basing how brave they are on public opinion) and cower under their desk instead of challenging the lies of Demoncrats.
    So I thought it was interesting to watch this video which shows the Dems telling the truth as they believed it to be before the Iraq war and seeing Pres. Bush actually standing up for himself and inadvertently the entire Republican party, or at least the perception of the party. When you compare that to the liars and cowards today that we have for politicians (well the liars are actually brave but the cowards are right, literally) you can see the need for an alternative so just watch the video. CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO!

*Note: at the end of the video it says to go to GOP.com for more info but I wouldn't expect to find anything there other than support of anti-conservatism. Instead go to alankeyes.com!

Obama's Morals For His Kids Includes Abortion

2008-05-16T21:26:21Z

Wow! Thats what I thought when I watched this video and heard Barack Obama say he would raise his kids with morals and values that would include abortion as a way to keep their lives from getting messed up. Without going into all the things abortion is, the effect of abortion is hopless regret for the rest of your life. That is not something you offer up as a solution to someone you love.
Check out the video. While it features Barack Obama you will hear some excerpts from Alan Keyes in the background.

Democratic Senator STUPID

2008-05-11T21:31:48Z

Senator Debbie Stabenow is either really ignorant or thinks that the American people are. There is no other explanation after her latest statements about the energy crisis in which she blames Republicans. Stabenow said "the rising price of oil, fostered by President Bush and Dick Cheney's close ties to the oil industry, is no longer just a burden." "Now it is a crisis for every American family," She called the current energy situation "a crisis that doesn't just affect us at the pump, but also raises the prices of groceries, increases our home heating bills and squeezes small businesses trying to keep their heads above water." Excuse me Senator, but our oil crisis can only be blamed on Democrats who refuse to let us drill for oil in our own country. Also the rise in groceries is a direct result of raising the minimum wage and expanding the use of food for biofuels. And lets not forget how small business is burdened with heavy taxation and regulation. These three things alone are perfect examples of the Democrat's anti business anti economic growth policies coming home to roost!
Why do the democrats think that you can just blame someone for something and Americans will just accept it without any facts to back it up? Apparently Democrats like Stabenow just figure that their constituents are incapable of putting two and two together. She thinks your STUPID! Stupid. Should we blame the Senator from Michigan who is close to the UAW for the loss of thousands of auto jobs in Michigan which also happens to have the worst unemployment rate in the U.S.? Just being "close" to an industry does not mean your responsible for that industry. This is just another example of Democrats lying to try and gain power and blaming someone else for there failed policies.

She promoted the Democratic proposals for changing energy policy. Those call for:

• Ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies. Lets just put them out of business and only buy oil from foreign oil companies. Or they could stay in business by raising prices higher!

• Forcing the oil companies to do their part by investing some of their profits in clean and affordable alternative energy. So they will have to raise prices higher!

• Protecting the American people from price gougers and greedy oil traders who manipulate the market.

• Temporarily stopping the diversion of oil to the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 97 percent full. Of course because national defense is not important to democrats.

• Standing up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil-producing nations that are working together to keep oil prices high. If we drilled for our own oil we wouldn't even have to buy from them.

What a stupid socialist plan. Lets just tell everyone how much there allowed to make!

-

Why Run For President?

2008-05-02T23:03:41Z

Why I'm Running
by Alan Keyes

I'm running for president because I think this republic is collapsing. I think our system of self-government is being replaced by a system in which we will be dominated by foreign powers, by globalist institutions, by self-seeking corporations — instead of having a government of, by, and for the people.

This collapse of our national sovereignty and the sovereignty of our people is taking place because we have abandoned the basic moral principle on which this country was founded: that our rights come from God, and that therefore we must exercise them and apply them with respect for the authority of God.

In every area, we are finding that this retreat from principle is leading to the destruction of innocent life in the womb, the collapse of the family structure, the loss of our self-confidence in the defense of our borders, and finally, a misunderstanding of what the war on terror is about, since our aim must be to defeat the forces that disregard the claims of innocent life, and which thus violate the fundamental principle on which our country was founded.

And I don't hear anybody else articulating this vision that makes it clear we are urgently involved in an effort to save our republic, to save our system of self-government, and that this effort especially depends on reasserting our allegiance to the basic founding vision and principles that our Founders put in place for this country.

I'm deeply concerned when I see other candidates ignoring the crisis we're in and acting as if we're dealing with this issue and that issue and the other issue. There is one issue, and all these other issues are like the fissures and cracks in the wall that bespeak the collapse of the foundations.

It's time we dealt with the real problem, articulated it with vision, and faced it with moral courage. And that is what my effort is about: to call people together on the common ground of our faith in God and our acceptance of the Declaration's principles, so that we can once again become a government of, by, and for a people who have reclaimed their active citizenship and re-established real liberty in this country.

Gene Rights

2008-05-01T21:33:01Z

    Congress Thursday sent a bill to President George Bush that would protect Americans from "Gene Discrimination". The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act would make it illegal for employers or insurance companies to discriminate against people using DNA testing.
    "Your skin color, your gender, all of those are part of your DNA," said Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "Shouldn't the rest of your DNA also fall under that protective umbrella?"
    President Bush is excpected to sign the bill into law which was passed almost unanimously in congress. The only member of Congress to vote against the bill was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He stated that "Because of the federal government's poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive federal legislation,". A reasonable concern regarding our government but I think they would have this info either way.
    Proponents say the bill "guarantees that no one will be denied health insurance or fired from a job because of a genetic test," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Also it is believed that more Americans would be willing to be tested. Increased genetic testing makes it more likely researchers will come up with early, lifesaving therapy for a wide range of diseases with hereditary links such as breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson's disease, lawmakers said.
    Congress gets an A+ for this effort toward protecting our rights, but I wonder how long it will be before they find reasons to use the information and manipulate that right as they have done in other areas in the past.

Are Americans Still Paying For Dead Iraqi Troops?

2008-04-26T20:39:51Z

    A new Defense Department report reveals that thousands of dead Iraqi troops are still on Iraq's payroll. Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, says "There are continuing uncertainties about the true number ... who are present for duty at any one time,". "I would not call it a damning report. I would say it's reflective of the difficulty of assessing troop strength ... and, more importantly, capabilities," Bowen said in an interview Thursday. Bowen also said that at any given time only 70% of Iraqi troops are actually available for duty.
    OK so Iraq has less troops than had been reported. That means we still can't bring troops home which is costing us enormously. Only now we find out that some of our 20 billion dollar Iraqi training program money is being paid to dead Iraqi troops, supporting their families.
    Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who requested the report, said he found it "bizarre" that a Defense Department assessment as recently as September showed that Iraqis only estimated a need for 390,000 security forces — a number that jumped to nearly 573,000 by March.
    Is 390,00 security forces not large enough because some of them are dead? Obviously we can't trust the Iraqi government with our money or resources.
    In a war that we shouldn't have entered we haven't been able to exit because of miss management by the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Where is the payback from oil we were promised in return for reconstruction and defense. Iraq needs to pay now! We can't afford to leave our troops in a country where the people don't have enough guts to stand up for themselves. Americans are free only because we fought for our rights! I guess Iraqis are gutless. I guess we want to raise them dependant on their government for their needs instead of letting them fight to institute a government for the people, by the people. They will never have a successful democracy unless they fight for it and earn it with their blood.
    So now I have succeded in changing my mind on staying in Iraq. After remembering that Americas success and freedom come only from the Americans that spilled blood for us, I now see that if we really want Iraq to succeed as anything other than a puppet government they have to pay with their own blood. We must leave Iraq now!

"The Republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it ... This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."   Elmer Davis

Parental Rights

2008-04-23T21:24:55Z

We need to do what we must to protect the rights of parents in our country. Please take a moment to watch this video. Then go to ParentalRights.org to sign the petition.

"The Crisis of the Republic"

2008-04-18T21:15:35Z

The Crisis of the Republic

By Alan Keyes

For a long time, I have believed that the 2008 election would be a turning point for the survival of the American republic – our nation’s system of constitutional government based on the sovereignty of the American people and respect for their unalienable rights.
    During the past several decades, the trend in American life and politics has been adverse to just about everything needed to sustain American liberty. In our intellectual life, we have embraced theories and concepts that are simply incompatible with the ideas of human equality and unalienable rights that shaped our institutions of self-government.
    In the moral realm, we have legitimized attitudes and practices incompatible with the self-reliance and self-discipline that make limited government practicable.
    We have lived with policies on taxation and our economic life that destroy the rights, self-sufficiency, and initiative of the people.
    We have thoughtlessly adopted – and allowed our elites to implement – an understanding of political life that destructively erodes the sovereignty of the people. The end result is a crisis so pervasive that our preoccupation with its many symptoms and manifestations keeps us from appreciating its overall extent.
    If we are to have any hope of reversing this onslaught, it is now time for us to raise the standard of faith, as the sovereign citizens we are, and to elect leaders who understand the crisis and who are willing to take the practical steps necessary to address it effectively.
    If we can find the courage to do so, together we will secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, as every previous generation of Americans has done.

Dems Division is Media's Fault Not Hillary's

2008-04-13T17:21:33Z

    Obama is now being criticized again, slightly. The media who fails to do their homework or even report on Obama's character is forced to report again of another problem with Barrack Obama. The funny thing is they blame Hillary Clinton for dividing the party but if they had done their job over the last year Hillary would easily be the nominee and the Dems would be united and on their way to the White House.
    So now we know that Obama has a good friend thats a known terrorist, he has a spiritual leader that is an obvious racist, and he spoke at an Islamic dinner that was largely anti-semitic, oh yea his wife isn't a proud American and he will not wear an American flag on his lapel, and wait, thats right he was, and is, a U.S. Senator through all this. Now he says things that put into question whether or not he would defend our rights, he said about "bitter" Pennsylvanians "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." You might have to cling to your guns if he was elected.
    This is just the beginning and already Obama is unelectable. Again if the media had done their job Hillary would easily have the nomination and the Dems would be united instead of looking like idiots. Just another way to loose the election. The media has got to realize that their influence over the American public can only get a candidate so far. They are responsible for holding up a paper candidate in the wind and hoping it wouldn't tear. Well now John McCain is the beneficiary of the media's blunder. But hey they were responsible for his nomination too! Maybe they really wanted McCain all along!

General Election Matchups

Head-to-Head Polls
McCain vs.	Clinton
46.4%	44.8%
McCain vs.	Obama
45.2%	44.8%

Update: Colombian Trade Deal

2008-04-13T16:37:59Z

Update:
    It has now been 16 months since the trade deal was signed with Colombia and now in a purely political move House speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a rule change that now allows the Democrats to stall. Under normal House rules they would have been forced to vote on the deal within 60 days of the President's submittal. President Bush submitted the bill on Tuesday but with the rule change the Democrats are threatening to stall possibly into next year after a new President takes office. Well it must be a great trade deal if the Democrats want to save it for possibly a Democratic President to take credit for it. They actually claim that Bush hadn't followed proper protocol in putting together the deal so they needed more time to review it.
    Pelosi has said whether the agreement is dead for the year "depends on the good faith" of negotiations between Democrats and the White House. "Until we can address the concerns of the American people, in this downturn in the economy, which some call a recession, and we can talk about how this trade bill fits into that picture, then, again, we need more time to do that," Pelosi, D-Calif, said.
   President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley said "The decisions that were made by the leadership are disappointing," and "We will continue to work with the Congress. But the point is this is a good agreement. It helps American farmers, workers and businesses. It stands by Colombia. "We have no better friend than Colombia in this hemisphere. And the president believes very strongly that Congress owes the American people a vote on this agreement this year," he said.
    During our current economic depression you would think the Democrats would stop using divisive tactics to block a deal that could genuinely stimulate our economy. This is not NAFTA, which Bill Clinton signed, this is a fair deal that would eliminate duties on our products and open the Colombian markets for our farmers, workers, and business.

Original Story: SovereignFront
    While a slow economy has created negative feelings toward trade agreements like NAFTA, the Colombia deal actually works toward opening the Colombian market to our products. Unlike NAFTA that has led to some loss in manufacturing jobs, the Colombia deal would remove duties from our products opening the Colombian economy to our goods. Colombia already enjoys sending most of its products to the U.S. duty free.
    Right now Bush is in a battle with congress trying to get them to approve the deal. Bush said "If Congress were to reject the agreement with Colombia, we would validate antagonists in Latin America, who would say that America cannot be trusted to stand by its friends," Bush made these comments in warning about Hugo Chavez gaining ground in the region if this deal isn't passed. "We would cripple our influence in the region, and make other nations less likely to cooperate with us in the future,""We would betray one of our closest friends in our own backyard."
    Democrats have said that Colombia's government has not done enough to halt violence, protect labor activists and put an end to paramilitary organizations. Bush said President Uribe has reduced violence, improved labor and environmental standards, and demobilized tens of thousands of paramilitary fighters.

"Not a place on earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them." Thomas Paine

An Alternative For America

2008-04-10T21:49:08Z

The following is an excerpt of a Dec. 5, 2007,

WorldNetDaily interview with Alan Keyes

WND: What are the key issues you are raising in your campaign that other campaigns are not addressing?

Alan Keyes: I think the major issue that faces the country right now is not being addressed by anyone and that is the fact that our system of self-government is under assault and is collapsing on every front, and not only is this not being addressed, I don’t think the others who are in the race understand the nature of this crisis and of course if you don’t see it, you’re not going to be able to address this. Each one seems to see pieces of it. Some will see the immigration and border security aspect of it; others will see the assault on the moral foundations; still others will profess to understand some elements of the destruction of the economic sovereignty of our people and the constitutional sovereignty. Nobody understands that these are not separate issues, that they are in fact symptoms of the crisis of the American republic, the question of whether government of, by, and for the people is going to survive in the 21st Century. I think that that’s being decided in this election. Unfortunately the choices available on the Republican side are not offering the alternative that is required if we are to meet this test.

WND: What is that answer that you’re proposing?

Keyes: The answer is to restore the sovereignty of the American people, restore their moral sovereignty by addressing the moral issues like the abandonment of the basic principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, therefore to reject the idea that we shall be separated as a country from our appeal to the Creator God, and therefore deprived of the very foundation that gives us the claim to be free. We shall have to restore our constitutional sovereignty against the assault of abusive judges who have arrogantly taken unto themselves the right to make laws, taking that away from our legislatures. And we’ll have to deal with the assault on our physical sovereignty in terms of the border and immigration crisis and the fact we have elites that have betrayed us for the sake of their service to narrow, special interests who are seeking their own profit and have done so in such a way as to surrender the physical integrity of the borders of the United States. And finally we have to address the economic sovereignty of our people by abolishing the income tax and restoring to the people of this country control over 100 percent of the money that they earn, so that forces in the government no longer dictate to the people of this country how much of their own money they get to keep.

The Senate With Another Bad Plan

2008-04-07T19:53:49Z

    A housing bill before the senate that aims at reducing the amount of foreclosed homes on the market is taking a lot of criticism. The bill would award a $7,000 tax credit to people who buy foreclosed homes or homes on which foreclosure has been filed. Proponents say that all the foreclosed homes on the market may bring down the value of homes that people are making their payments on. "All these houses in foreclosure are doing a whole lot more damage to the (house) value of the homeowner who's making their payments than having a $7,000 tax credit to induce people to absorb those foreclosures," says Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. "It helps you to fix the bottom of the market so the market can turn around."
    The bill, that is mostly sponsored by republicans, is not supported by President Bush. David John, an economist for the conservative Heritage Foundation and critic of the bill said "What this does is not to help anyone who has problems with their mortgage. All this does is to make those homes easier to sell once the home has gone into foreclosure,"  and "It benefits the lender. It doesn't benefit the borrower." So far we have seen a lot from the Federal government helping banks and not the people. Should we be surprised to see more of the same. critics say that it would benefit the banks because "a bank that owns a foreclosed house will get a big selling-price advantage over the single mom who lives next door and has been faithfully paying off her loan," says Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "Indeed, because lenders would expect a higher price when they put a foreclosed house on the market, such a law might even encourage banks to repossess properties more quickly," Gleckman adds.
    This sounds like a bad plan that could actually put more homes into foreclosure by giving the banks a little more value on a foreclosed home. For all the homes already repossessed by the bank there are many more that are on the edge that they might find more attractive to foreclose on instead of trying to work with the mortgagee. The senate would serve the American people better by staying away from these types of bail out programs. It threatens capitalism, which has made our economy the greatest the world has seen, every time they do it. They need to do more to hold financial institutions responsible for the risky mortgages they chose to take on. How quickly we forget before this crisis they were making billions from these risky loans.
    One thing that has helped in this housing crisis is The Hope Now plan. With the help of the Hope Now alliance, the mortgage industry is helping more than 160,000 families a month to keep their homes either by developing more realistic repayment plans, or by modifying their existing loans. This is some real help that doesn't reward Americans who haven't paid their mortgage, or financial institutions who gambled on risky loans and lost.

"In U.S. politics, 'compassion' means giving money and privileges
to well organized interest groups at everyone else's expense."
-- Paul Craig Roberts
(1939- ) Economist, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration ("Father of Reaganomics"), former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.
liberty tree quotes

U.N. Anti Semitic Conference

2008-04-02T21:48:05Z

In a full page add set to run in papers Thursday a group of 25 religious, academic and legal figures are asking that Condelezza Rice announce that the U.S. will boycott next year's United Nations anti-racism conference. They believe the conference will be anti semitic and anti West. The conference titled Durban II is the second such conference which both the United States and Israel had to walk out of Durban I after it turned anti semitic. Canada has already announced that it will boycott the conference and now we're waiting for the U.S. to do the same. Soon after Durban I Israel's then-deputy foreign minister, Michael Melchior, said the conference "hosted the most racist speeches and proposals to be heard in an international forum since World War II." He added that "the conference became the mouthpiece for a new and venal form of anti semitism." The ad says that next year's conference "seeks not to combat racism, but to promote and fuel hatred toward Israel and America. ... There is an immediate way to act against growing anti-Semitism around the world — say no to Durban II. Declare that the United States will not participate in a dialogue that promotes prejudice." Although Condelezza Rice has not said the U.S. was going to boycott she did say when asked by Senator Norm Coleman "We have not made that statement, but let me assure you, senator, we have no intention of participating in something like Durban I,".
Its not surprising that the U.N. would do or say something anti American or anti western, but obvious anti semitism at a conference that is suppose to be anti racial is ridiculous. Would we expect any better? We need to quit supporting an organization that hates us and our allies. These United Nations have only ill will toward America. Or at least stop giving them money for awhile!

Bush Wants Fed to Have More Power

2008-04-01T09:14:27Z

I thought Republicans were for smaller government with less power, less regulation and oh yes, less spending. That is of course, unless your George Bush. We already know he has spent as much as he could get his hands on but now he wants to give The Federal Reserve more POWER! Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson released a 218 page plan today that would change the way thousands of businesses are regulated by the government from your local insurance agent or mortgage broker to the nations biggest banks. he released the report in a speech in which he said that " a strong financial system is vitally important, not for wall street, not for bankers, but for working Americans." We have already seen the Fed help the banks and investment firms and it looks like the administration is taking advantage of the economic crisis for a major revamp by combining a bunch of agencies into one big giant Fed. The plan If enacted would be the most widespread change in the financial regulatory system since the market crash in 1929. I like what JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer wrote, "Under an ambitious Bush administration plan, the Federal Reserve would take on the unwieldy role of uber cop in charge of financial market stability." Uber cop of our economy. Is that what we want? Howard Chernick, economics professor at Hunter College, said, "I would prefer not putting all my eggs in the Fed's regulatory basket." Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University said of the centralizing of all regulatory duties at the Federal reserve "The cataclysmic mistake is that if you eliminate so many 'eyes' that monitor the markets, and the single eye, no matter how super, misses something, then catastrophe,".Is the administration using our situation to give the Fed more power the right decision? John McCain things so as he welcomed Paulson's recommendations. "I think consolidation of the various supervisory bureaucracies is very important recognition that we are in a global economy, and transparency and closer oversight is necessary," The Democrats were skeptical and wondered why the administration would propose the plan now when it will have little or no effect on our current crisis. Hillary Clinton said "No amount of rearranging the deck chairs can hide the fact that our housing and credit markets are in crisis and they are sinking deeper every day." Its yet to be seen if this plan will ever pass through congress or all the red tape which is doubtful. It would be hard to combine 5 bureaucratic regulatory agencies into the powers of the Federal Reserve.
The Hope now plan, no affiliation with Barrack's campaign, is doing the best good for our housing crisis. With the help of the Hope Now alliance, the mortgage industry is helping more than 160,000 families a month to keep their homes either by developing more realistic repayment plans, or by modifying their existing loans.

Here is a part of a great article i found @ heritage.org:
The private sector is working effectively to sort through the problems in both the housing and financial markets by acknowledging its mistakes, admitting its losses, and working to keep troubled but credit-worthy borrowers in their homes. Yet Congress seems determined to "do something." Before it acts, Congress ought to consider a few simple questions:

Is the real intent to prop up values and bailout homeowners or investors?
If so, then Congress should understand that their good intentions will come to naught, and may do great harm by creating even more uncertainty. For example, Senator Isakson's (R–GA) proposal for a $15,000 refundable tax credit proposal would do nothing to help current homeowners stay in their homes.
If the intention is to improve the working of the markets, can the legislation be implemented soon enough to matter?
Representative Barney Frank (D–MA) and Senator Chris Dodd (D–CT) have proposed legislation effectively injecting the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) into the already operating Hope Now alliance. However, there is little chance that this would have any direct effect on homeowners until late in the fall of 2008 and less chance that it would add to what Hope Now is already accomplishing.
Would the effects of the legislation disrupt the normalizing market processes already underway in the housing sector, thus prolonging the period of recovery?
The Frank–Dodd bill and similar approaches threaten to disrupt and slow the private sector's efforts to help troubled borrowers, because either borrowers or lenders may believe they could get taxpayer-subsidized terms under the new FHA-based arrangements when they do become available.
Would the effects of the legislation disrupt the normalizing market processes already underway in the financial sector, thus prolonging its period of recovery?
Financial markets are working diligently to correct the mistakes that have led to enormous losses. The circumstances are difficult, even with the current known legal and regulatory frameworks. Congressional threats to impose intrusive new regulations on financial markets represent yet another new and ill-defined source of uncertainty. The result would likely be a quick halt to many of these private corrective actions.
Would the legislation make sense in the absence of current troubled conditions in the housing sector or financial markets?
If the legislation is ineffective in the near term, then at least it should be good long-term policy. Of particular concern is the inclination to expand the roles of the housing GSEs and the FHA and to create new ad hoc tax provisions relating to housing. A greater role for these agencies would not have prevented the current troubles, would not do so in the future, and would expose taxpayers to greater future costs.

Conclusion

Many American homeowners are facing financial hardships resulting from onerous mortgages and falling home values. Many investors are facing financial losses as the risky instruments they bought in happier times decline in value. These processes must work through to conclusion for the economy to regain a sound footing, and the private sector is working effectively toward this end.

Congressional action cannot change this reality, except by prolonging and exacerbating the situation. Congress should focus its energies on policies to strengthen the economy coming out of the current slowdown.

J.D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Bail Outs for all?

2008-03-28T16:28:20Z

    With all the money the fed has dropped into the economy for banks and investment firms, and with all the talk on the campaign trail about helping homeowners close to foreclosure, the bailout of Bear Stearns has Americans expecting to get help. "The big thing about the Bear Stearns bailout — if you want to call it that — is that it kind of opens the doors for other types of bailouts like for homeowners and individuals," said federal budget expert Stanley Collender. There were protesters at Bear Stearns Wednesday with signs that read "Blame the mortgage tsunami on Bear Stearns," and "Bear Stearns employees aren't worth $2" and chanting as they entered the lobby "Help Main Street, not Wall Street". So Americans are starting to wonder if we are going to bailout big companies like this, what about helping the little guy?
    The bailout is starting to draw some criticism from people like Peter Morici, a professor of international business at the University of Maryland. Making a deal, Morici said, "without imposing conditions on the banks for the shoddy ways they have been doing business, is really inappropriate." Exactly, and how are these people going to be held accountable so they don't end up in this situation again? Lets see these executives pay some penalties for the shoddy practices that now hinder our economy. Makes you wonder who controls your politicians. I don't believe in any bail outs but American citizens should come first not banks and investment firms. If the government wants to throw around our money in excess of 400 billion for the economy just give that 400 billion to American tax payers in a tax break. It is after all our money!
    I said before in Federal Reserve Lending More Money we are putting into motion an inflation machine that will be hard to stop, A devalued dollar that will be tough to regain, A further dependence on the Government and the Federal Reserve, And alot of people not being held responsible for their actions.

Here is an interesting quote. Does it fit?
    "If, as it appears, the experiment that was called 'America' is at an end... then perhaps a fitting epitaph would be ... 'here lies America the greatest nation that might have been had it not been for the Edomite bankers who first stole their money, used their stolen money to buy their politicians and press and lastly deprived them of their constitutional freedom by the most evil device yet created --- The Federal Reserve Banking System.' "
-- G. D. McDaniel
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/G..D..McDaniel.Quote.0F1A

California Homeschool update

2008-03-27T16:15:05Z

Court of Appeal Grants Petition for Re-hearing!

On March 25, the California Court of Appeals granted a motion for
rehearing in the 'In re Rachel L.' case. The controversial decision
which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the
parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public
schools.

The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion
is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties
in the case.

This is good news for homeschoolers in California, though it doesn't mean a victory, yet. If you havent already read the previous article on this subject just click on Previous article.

McCain: “There is such a thing as international good citizenship,”

2008-03-26T20:43:20Z

Who was John McCain today? I thought he compared himself to Ronald Reagan at Reagan's Presidential Library. But today in front of an international affairs organization he sounded like anything but, with comments like “Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed,” and “We need to listen,” he said twice, “to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary — whether military, economic or diplomatic — we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.” Was he bashing Bush? And on the threat of islamic extremist he said “our goal must be to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists.” “In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs,”. That will be great if Muslims agree to win the hearts and minds of Americans! And it will still cost us money. At least scholarships would be cheaper. Would we limit what they could major in?

"International good citizenship” is a nice idea but in pandering to the international audience I felt John McCain really didn't emphasize the fact that all these nice things, which are really nice dont get me wrong, shall not infringe on America's sovereignty. McCain said “America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model,” . I respect that. We just need to be careful to protect America first, and be a role model second not a model citizen which implies that we would conform to the mold which appeases the rest of the world.