More than three years ago, John McCain proposed additional oversight and regulation on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a bill that had full Republican support and no Democratic support.  A bill that could have prevented much of what went wrong.  A bill that would have prevented these GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) from speculating on the mortgage based securities that they packaged.  The profit from this speculation is what provided the means for outrageous executive bonuses.  Obama and his cohorts, the rest of the Senate Democrats killed the bill.  Why would they do this?  Maybe it was a difference of opinion.  If so, that shows again why McCain is better suited to lead this country. 

I don't think that is the real reason the Dems killed it.  See, if they sided with McCain, the Democrats would lose their big fat donations (bribes) from Freddie and Fannie.  You see, even though Obama has only been in office for four years, (less than two if you remove his time campaigning for President - something that he said he wasn't qualified to do less than two years before he decided to) yet he was getting bigger payoffs than more senior Democrats.   Conspiracy theorists have speculated that Dhimocrats actually wanted the collapse, to try to build an even better case for one of their own to gain the White House.

Republicans are usually against regulations, but in this case McCain went against conventional thinking and tried to get these GSE's under tighter regulations.  In his speech supporting this legislation this is what he said:

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.

Fox News Journalist John Gibson, reports on how Obama continued to benefit from Freddy and Fannie and how Obama and the Democrats had much to lose if their golden goose was cooked.

JOHN GIBSON: All right Heather. Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama.

Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job.

Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad; you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Heather.

NAUERT: Wow, that's quite a report, begs the question - where is John McCain on this?

GIBSON: John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn't even come close in the political contribution department.

20 years of compiling this info and Obama, in less than four years, was number 2 in contributions.

John McCain has finally taken off the gloves to try to get the truth out, instead of playing nice with all of the Obama lies.  Here is what McCain is saying today:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.

Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

John McCain has a proven track record of working with the other party and against his own to get done what needs to be done.  Obama has a proven record of poor decisions, poor choices for influential people in his life, corruption and lies.

Choosing McCain is the only reasonable decision.

Another must see video.  Thanks to Charlie Sykes.

Democrats are the majority party in Congress.  This means that if they want something to pass, all they need to do is vote for it.  Nancy Pelosi says that the Republicans are to blame for the bailout failure, because only one third of them voted to approve it.  Yet she only needed a few more votes for it to pass and nearly 100 Democrats voted against this package.  Sorry Nancy, this does not pass the common sense rule.  To top it off, she is the one that called for a vote knowing full well that they were short of the votes needed.  All morning and early afternoon the press said that they didn't have the votes. 

Barney Frank (the second coming of Elmer Fudd - has anybody listened to the way he talks?), Harry Reid and Pelosi have had their own agenda on this since the start.  First Reid says that the Democrats won't vote for anything unless McCain shows up to vote, then McCain calls his bluff and puts Country First to try and make sure that if something is done it gets done right, at which point Reid says don't come we don't need you.  The reason was they were trying to position Obama as the savior and leader.  Even during the big meeting at the White House, the other Democrats deferred to Obama so that he could show his leadership and take charge.  The Democratic leadership was appalled when he failed to do so.  Obama ready to lead?  There isn't one Democratic leader that thinks he is. 

We should be happy when Congress feels that it can ignore the economy, health care, social security and other subjects that us mere mortals are apparently concerned with for no reason.  But the events that congress was involved in last week leave me scratching my head. 

The biggest item from Congress making news this week were Congressional Hearings involving Roger Clemens, one of baseball's best and most dominant pitchers of the last twenty years, and whether he told the truth regarding his taking illegal, performance enhancing drugs.  Baseball is, we are told, America's Pastime, and I for one am a big baseball fan.  Like many fans I am greatly disappointed at the number of players using steroids and human growth hormone (HGH).  These players are cheaters.  This era will forever be known as the steroids era, and we will always wonder whether the records that have been broken during this era are legitimate or not.  Most of the players that have their names even remotely associated with steroids or HGH will never make it into the Hall of Fame.  Baseball needs to get their house in order and get the drugs out of the game.  Thank goodness Congress doesn't have any important work to do at this time so that they can waste their time and our money on something of such national importance.  If they feel the need to stick their nose into this then they ought to go after the real problem and nail the owners, commissioner and the players union for knowingly allowing this to go on as long as it did.  I find it darkly comical but not funny that politicians, who most people feel are liars, are trying to determine who is truthful and calling others liars. 

Apparently Major League Baseball is not the only sport that Congress feels they need to spend more time investigating.  The NFL, and particularly Bill Belichek and his New England Patriots are being accused of cheating by video taping opponents signals and practices.  Congressmen spent time asking Commissioner Roger Goodell about why the NFL allowed the destruction of tapes that were evidence of the cheating. 

Finally, congress is playing games themselves.  Nancy Pelosi is playing with our national security by refusing to take action on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expired this weekend.  It's great to see the Republicans stand up to Pelosi as she tries to be the bully and get her way.  This game is the scariest of all and if it continues we will all lose.

Congress needs to stop playing in areas that they have no business interfering in and they need to get to work on what is important. 

This is Presidential Primary Season.  You are probably voting for the candidate that has the best track record and experience to improve our country or the one that has mapped out a specific plan that matches your desires and dreams for our country. 

Some people are voting based on the most insane reasons.  Some will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman and others will vote for Obama because he is black.  What has this got to do with which candidate would make a better president?  A story from the TV Show “The View”, had Whoopi Goldberg asking the others on the show if they would vote for Hillary if she wasn’t a woman.  Now first of all, other than the fact that Chelsea Clinton exists, there isn’t much proof that Hillary is a woman.  In that family it always seemed as if there were two alpha males competing for head of the country.  When Bill Clinton said “ I did not have sex with that woman”, I was kind of hoping he was talking about Hillary.  But, on the show, one of the other hosts said that if Hillary were not a woman she would vote for Obama, but she is supporting Hillary because she is a woman.  What are you thinking?  Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is sexist, and voting for Obama because he is black is racist.  Just when I think we have made some small strides in improving on racism and sexism, idiots speak and it all vanishes.

I sometimes wonder how women could even have any respect for Hillary.  Bill Clinton participated in some highly publicized extra marital affairs, and yet she thinks so little of herself that she still stays with him.  The upside for me if the Clintons win would be seeing what Bill Clinton would do in the White House.  Will he be Hillary’s version of Billy Carter, the embarrassing family member that gets drunk at the family parties and then makes such an ass of himself that you wish you could disown him, or will he find new and interesting ways to utilize the Lincoln Bedroom?

On the other hand, you have Barack Obama making a major showing in the primaries so far.  The man is an eloquent speaker, and with the use of cheerleaders stationed around him when he speaks, gets the crowds worked into a frenzy of cheering fans shouting for “Change”.  But if you ask any of his supporters what proof or track record he has for accomplishing what he says he can, you are usually left looking at the poor goof with his mouth hanging open and nothing to say.  Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing, but most people like the concept.  It’s the same reason that the backup quarterback is always the most popular player for the Chicago Bears.  Fans think he has to be better than the starter. 

The republicans look like they have already made their decision, with John McCain pulling away in the delegate count.  It was already a strange year for republicans, due to the backlash in the country against the war in Iraq; it appears that several potentially viable candidates shied away from running.  Conventional wisdom is that they would wait while the Democrats screwed things up again for the next four years before making their run for office. 

With the poor choices available in the Democratic Party, even a weak Republican candidate like John McCain makes the most sense.  He has the necessary experience and the right ideas on how to best protect Americans from terrorists as well as the big government, socialist ideas of the Democrats.  But the next step is still up to us, as we need to give him a better congress with which to work.