Worried About The Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Crisis? Bush Was Worried About It 5 Years Ago.

The democrats keep blaming Bush for the economy. Want to get a glimpse at who is truly at fault? Read this:

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

The New York Times reported this five years ago:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Updated: Bush Lifts Executive Order That Bans Drilling Offshore

From Human Events:

President Bush on Monday lifted an executive order that banned off-shore drilling, increasing pressure on Congress to follow suit.

"With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Mr. Bush said. "The time for action is now. This is a difficult period for millions of American families. They are rightly angered by Congress' failure to enact common sense solutions."

As far as gas prices go, this won't mean a thing if Congress decides to continue ignoring this option. What it does is leaves Congress with no excuses. They can begin discussing this option or let the people know they are willing to bankrupt this country to push their agenda.

Freedom watch's new ad could not have come at a better time.

Update: From the office of Senator Jim DeMint:



H/T: Hot Air

Huge Bakken Oil Field A Myth

A few days ago I posted this about the Bakken Oill field.

It seems I jumped the gun a little:

Reports circulating on the Internet tell of an oil field spanning parts of western North Dakota and eastern Montana where 400 billion barrels of oil supposedly are just waiting to be tapped. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tells Cybercast News Service that those huge estimates are "a myth."

A USGS report issued in April estimates that there are between 3 billion to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in what is referred to as "the Bakken Formation" -- well below the 400 billion barrels discussed on the Web, but up from the previous estimate of 151 million barrels made in 1995.

Richard Pollastro, Bakken Formation task leader at the USGS, said the myth stems from a 1999 draft report -- never published -- by a now-deceased USGS employee, Leigh Price. Price estimated that the Bakken Formation holds up to 400 billion barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of known oil reserves.

So it looks like there is not as much there as I thought. The thing about the Bakken field is that we can drill there.

Something to smile about- Bush called for an end to the offshore drilling ban today:

President George W. Bush was to call Wednesday on Congress to end a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling, as a way to tap new energy sources to combat soaring gasoline prices.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement late Tuesday that, with gasoline now priced at more than four dollars a gallon, the president "will explicitly call on Congress to also pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally-friendly offshore oil drilling."

Bush was to make his statement Wednesday at 10:35 am (1435 GMT) in the Rose Garden of the White House.

This would open up huge amounts of oil and natural gas supplies. It would also open up ANWAR.

White House Ignoring "Global Warming" Debate

A few days ago I wrote this post. It was in response of this story. When asked about it the White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded with this:

The spokeswoman for President Bush says the thousands of scientists from across the United States that reject the theory of "global warming" about human-caused greenhouse gases posing a major threat to future life can have their "opinion."

But no further comment came from Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, when asked about the issue by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.

At today's White House news briefing, he asked, "WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now [have] signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?"

"I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion," Perino responded. "What's your next question?"

"That's all?" Kinsolving asked.

"That's all I'm going to say," she said.

What I want to know is why? Why can we not debate this issue. I speak out against "Global Warming/Climate Change" every chance I get, and I never get an honest debate. I get treated as if I have lost my mind.

Until we reach a point on this issue where we can hear both sides of the argument, this country is going to continue to throw our money, and corn down the "ethanol" drain. All while not doing a thing to help the environment, or stop Global Climate Change.

We have listened to Al Gore and his bunch, let's listen to some people on the other side.

If The Shoe Fits

Wear it:

Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals—comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them. McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.

How is this dishonest? Obama said he would talk to the leaders of countries that sponser terrorists. He said it in a debate.

The President did not mention Obama's name at all. Although, it could be said about many people on the Democratic side of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi met with the leader of Iran. He could have been talking about her. Or he could have been talking about Carter, etc...

Mike Huckabee was on Mike Gallagher's show this morning. I think he described it best when he gave this saying: "When you throw a rock across the fence, it's the hit dog that hollers".

President Bush Pushes The Merida Initiative Forward

If you don't know what the Merida Initiative is: it is a plan to provide Mexico with $500 million to:

This partnership would support coordinated strategies to:

• Produce a safer and more secure hemisphere where criminal organizations no longer threaten governments and regional security; and
• Prevent the entry and spread of illicit drugs and transnational threats throughout the region and to the United States.

To achieve these goals, President Bush has requested $550 million as part of a multi-year program to provide:

• Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.
• Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.
• Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice – vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.
• Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.
• Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leaders’ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.
• Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.

Does this sound crazy to you? Me too.

We can't spend money to secure our own border, but we can dish out $500 million to a country whose leaders keep encouraging it's citizens to thumb their noses at our laws.

Well it sounds good to Bush:

...The White House is trying to stuff major portions of the Merida Initiative into the war spending bill–while our fences go unbuilt and immigration chaos reigns on our soil:

President Bush on Wednesday showcased his request for $500 million in U.S. military assistance to help Mexico combat murderous drug cartels in a bid to build congressional support for the more contentious part of his spending package — the latest multibillion dollar request for emergency war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush crafted plans for the U.S. military assistance to Mexico at a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon 14 months ago and sketched details last October, including money for military equipment such as helicopters, training and assistance in combating corruption in the criminal justice system.

I have a great idea. Use the $500 million to protect the United States from illegals trying to enter this country and undermine our sovereignty.

Of course, with the current candidates for President, this is the type of thing we will grow accustomed to in the years to come.

The President Wants A Bill To Combat Global Warming

We may starve to death, but at least we will be cooler:

President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.

Specifics of the policy are still being fiercely debated, but Bush administration officials have told Republicans in Congress that they feel pressure to act now because they fear a coming regulatory nightmare. It would be the first time Mr. Bush has called for statutory authority on the subject.

"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week.

Like we need for this administration to move closer to the center.

With the price of food going through the roof and gas strangling this country, the President wants to go ahead and create a bill that would push the prices up more. All for a hoax. That is right I said it. They are pushing this stuff down our throats whether it is true or not.

H/T: Hillbilly White Trash

Busy Day

I am having one.

So here is a few things I would suggest you read:

Second Amendment

Obama

Iraq

Iran

One side note is this:

I have been hearing of why I should vote for John McCain because of the Supreme Court nominees. Did they forget the gang of 14? I guess so. McCain would not appoint a conservative judge. The best we could hope for is another wishy washy judge that the democrats would not put up a fight against.

Bush's Supreme Court Appointees Seem To Get The Second Amendment

From Reuters:

...

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Washington, D.C.'s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, in referring to a controversial provision barring the private possession of handguns.

Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of one's home.

I have been very outspoken in my opposition to some of President Bush's policies. It seems like he made a good decision on the judges he has appointed though. Of course there was that whole Harriet Miers fiasco, but I can cut him a little slack on that. Especially with news like you see above.

Gun Owners Beware Of The Bush Administration

Robert A. Levy calls the brief filed by the Bush Administration a breached promise:

If you think the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms in all homes is a reasonable regulation under the Second Amendment, you'll love the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Bush administration in D.C. v. Heller, now before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) previously stated position is that the Second Amendment secures a right of individuals not restricted to militia service. But astonishingly, the Justice Department now recommends an elastic standard for determining whether a handgun ban is reasonable. According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.

Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.

That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.

Read the rest at the link, please.

This is serious business. If you are a gun owner living anywhere in the US you need to keep on top of this case. This could open the door to the very fear that most, if not all, gun owners have. This could mean the loss of our right to keep and bear arms. Should this not go our way it will, at the very least, be used to attack our gun rights for years to come.

Go here to check deeper into this. And while you are there, sign up.

Bush Wants $1.4 Billion To Help Secure MEXICO's Southern Border

Unbelievable:

...

The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.

Read all of Michelle Malkin's post at the link above.

This is one of the craziest things I have heard of in quite some time. The Bush Administration needs to worry about the US, not MexAmeriCanada. This is an insult to the people of this great country. We spoke up and wanted OUR border secure.

Get this:

Naturally, the State Department has taken a lead role. They’ve held meetings in
secret and cut out members of Congress from discussion. You’ll love the explanation for the secrecy: Mexico is “sensitive,” you see. Also, according to one expert, “Mexico is very protective of its sovereignty and very worried about any incursion of U.S. security forces or private contractors—like Blackwater—coming in to train Mexicans.” Yeah, they’re worried about incursions and sovereignty.

So Mexico is very concerned with their sovereignty, but ours don't mean a damn thing.

Get in touch with your Representatives now and let them know this kind of stuff will not be tolerated.

Has Bush "LOST" His Mind?

His support for the Law Of The Sea treaty is not surprising:

The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.

The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"

The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"

"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.

"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.

"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.

I don't avoid hypotheticals. Of course we would not have been able to do any of those things. Before we could defend our interests we would have to crawl to the UN and ask for their permission. And you know how cooperative the UN is with us. Bush and Perino both know this and do not care. Bush is a globalist, plain and simple.

Read it all, but I want to draw your attention to the last section:

The proposal would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority.

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.

With the UN as corrupt and useless as it is, do we really want to turn our mining and fishing industries over to them?

No matter how it is spun, this would be a major loss of our sovereignty.

Put That Veto Pen Away GW

The Senate Republicans did the job:

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion Iraq war bill because it had a troop pullout plan, defeating Democrats' latest attempt to end the war while continuing the battle over funding it.

The Senate action stopped a Democratic proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against.

The measure would have given President George W. Bush about one-fourth of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

Good now the Democrats in Congress can get back to the important stuff, like giving $1,000,000 to the hippie museum.

Bush Vetoes Another One

This time it was the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill:

President Bush Tuesday vetoed the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill in a move that is likely to escalate the ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over government funding.

“The bill is nearly $10 billion over the president's request, and is filled with 2,000 earmarks,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters aboard Air Force One.

She added that Bush would urge Congress in a speech later Tuesday to “take out the pork and reduce the overall spending level and return it to him quickly.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was quick to condemn the veto.

Just like I said the other day:

...veto all the unnecessary pork bills, even if you know they will be overridden. Let the American people see how many of these bills are being pushed through. When a bill gets passed right on through the average American never even notices. When they override a veto you can bet it will make all the news sources, especially the MSM (Democratic controlled Congress hands Bush a defeat on his veto...). Even though the veto did not stick, the bill is getting the press it deserves.

All Of A Sudden Bush Likes To Veto Stuff

This should have started a long time ago:

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in vetoing legislation that provides $23 billion for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

It appears certain Bush will have his veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. The bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's decision and make the measure law.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

It will be overridden, but it will also be brought to the public's attention. That is why it is important to do this. Too many bills slide right through without any opposition because they can be overridden. He should veto them all and let it be know that he opposes them.