The reason the Bush wanted to stimulate the economy was to cover up the impact of the cost of the Iraq War. The Bush administration juiced the economy with loose with mortgage lending to keep the economy strong during the Iraq War. The Iraq War has cost the taxpayers of the United States more than $650,000 billion. Congressman John Yarmouth stated that the economy was linked to the cost of war. It’s not logical to believe that the United States can wage a war and spend in excess of $650,000 billion and it would not have a negative impact on the economy.

This will be the first war that the United States whas fought and the citizens did not have to suffer. That doesn’t make sense. While the war was being and fought and paid for, the economy seemed to be strong. Citizens were seeing increasing home values. For many households, the increasing net worth resulted in increased credit card spending. Over all, things seemed to be pretty good. Until . . . . it all came crashing down, because the economy was strung out on the steroids of loose mortgage lending practices.

The economy was juiced with the loose mortgage lending practices with little or no regulatory oversight, because this kept the economy strong during war time. It’s totally ridiculous to wage a war and lower taxes at the same time. Something had to be done to strengthen the economy during the war. The solution was to let the housing market boil over with loose lending practices. Of course, the Bush administration did not expect that the economy would hit bottom and not be able to go any lower.

Just as a drug addict must hit bottom before they will admit they are not in control of their drug use and seek help, the Bush administration has hit bottom with the economy and now has admitted that they need help. The $700 billion bailout is the help and add this to the $650,000 spent on the Iraq War and this is the true cost of the war.

Why would the current administration juice the U.S. economy. Certainly the only answer is that it was a tactic to maintain a strong economy. A rising housing market was thought to increase wealth and increase consumer spending. For several years, the finance and economy pundits on CNN, MSBN, and the major networks have said that the housing market has kept the economy from sinking. It’s clear that the housing market was let run wild with no mortgage lending regulation to stimulate the economy. Folks, what other logical reason is there?

It must have been a deliberate tactic to let the mortgage lending market run loose and wild with no meaningful oversight and regulatory actions. It hasn’t been very long since the U.S. experienced the last real estate meltdown due to loose mortgage lending practices. Anyone that is 50+ will remember the 1980’s real estate crisis when foreclosures hit unheard of highs. During the 1980’s the savings and loan industry made questionable loans to thousands of home buyers that were not qualified financially. The 1980’s real estate crisis was not that long ago and it just is not possible that the regulators, managers, bureaucrats and financial industry experts were not aware.

There had to be a conscious decision to let the mortgage lending market run free and wild. Keep in mind that billions in profits were made. Many investment firms, mortgage companies, home builders, title companies, lawyers and others made billions in profits. Consider another perspective. Why were interest only loans created and allowed in the last decade? Who can remember the radio and TV financial advisors recommending that buyers use interest only mortgages “if they were only going to own the house for one to two years”. All of the speculators planning to flip houses knew that “own the house for one to two years” was a euphemism for “flip the house”.

And then consider all of the special mortgages offers for no application fee, no closing fees, no PMI, etc. These are all red flags that the mortgage industry has been operating with no oversight. The important point though is that it wasn’t on accident, no folks, the purpose was to juice the economy by inflating housing prices and convincing Americans to over consume with the end goal to artificially inflate the economy.

My friends, you have a right to be outraged! You should be outraged! The situation that our country is in today was not an accident that couldn’t have been avoided. Are we so naive that we will believe that?

Public Funding was created after Richard Nixon’s campaign when he far outspent his opponent in the election.  At the time, the public opinion was that he had a big advantage, because of donations from wealthy individuals and corporations.  There was genuine concern that it may become impossible for a minority candidate to win a campaign against a candidate supported by a well funded political machine.  The Public Funding money comes from U.S. taxpayers that check the box on the their IRS tax return (Form 1040) that they donate $3 to the Presidential campaigns.  Most Americans check the box and the Public Fund can make avaiable approximately $85 million for each candidate.

The Public Funding program is good, but it has flaws.  One glaring flaw is that all of the candidates do not have to use it.  For example, if Obama and McCain had both agreed to use it.  Independent candidates can still use their own money, and some have quite a bit, to smear the national party candidates and create a nuisance effect for the national candidates in the campaign.  Obama’s decision has highlighted this weakness in the public funding program.

Still, it is dismaying that a candidate that is running a campaign based on reform would decide to use private funding instead of public funding.  Obama’s team has pointed to several reasons why they chose to forego Public Funding, but they have not conceded to the real and underlying reason.

The underlying reason that Obama chose to use private funding is that during the primaries it became clear that he can raise much more money than McCain.  However, this is the reason that the Public Funding program was created and it’s the reason that every candidate since Nixon has used it.  This will be seen as many as a step back.  It will be seen by just as many as doing what is necessary to win the election. 

The issue is clear.  What comes first reform or winning the Presidential election.  Should the Public Funding program be strengthened to eliminate the current weaknesses and require all Presidential candidates to use Public Funding?

How many people have 72 year old men working at their office? Have you ever worked with someone that was in his/her 60’s and noticed times when they were not particularly sharp? This is a fact of life!

This issue is not about fair play. It’s about selecting a strong, capable candidate to be the next President of the United States. This is a not a one year job either. It’s a four year assignment by the American people. It’s also a demanding job, with long hours and immense pressure. Everyone must decide for themselves when they vote in November if age is a factor. But, age is certainly a factor that should be considered during the campaign process by each voter.

Senator Byrd understands the importance of the Constitution. He knows that to successfully defend it, we must understand the great freedoms and the benefits of it. He carries a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution and refers to it on a regular basis. Amazing, Senator Byrd is considered by members of both parties to be a great political figure and yet, he still carries the constitution with him.

Its the duty of all Americans to stand vigilant and defend the liberties provided by the constitution for our future generations. Senator Byrd said:

“Each generation is charged with defending the constitution at home and abroad, in peace and in war.”

The national Democratic party leaders have grown comfortable with Barack Obama being nominated as the parties presidential candidate. This represents a major shift from the beginning of the campaign when Hillary Clinton was favored to easily win.

Clinton is expected to get behind Obama and support his campaign. She is at the end of the day a democrat and a member of the party. She will help bring the party together.

No matter how ugly this polygamist sect story is, the Courts today upheld the right of the individual (and family) to due process and protection under the law.

The Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS) organization said they are disappointed, but respect the decision of the court and will return the children immediately. The court ruling stated that their are many other options and sanctions available to DFPS. Anotherwords, DFPS can still order DNA testing and continue with the investigation . . . as well it should!

Overall Obama is beginning to act like the winner of the Democratic Presidential nomination. Actually he doesn’t have the nomination sewn up yet. The super delegates are very close . . . and, while some of the super delegates have declared who they will vote for, some have remained silent about how they intend to vote and so its difficult to predict how every single super delegate will vote. Stay tuned for more.

So, back to the original question:  Should Hillary drop out?  Of course not!  The race is too close.  One misstep by either candidate can reverse the outcome.  If Obama had a bigger lead, then dropping out would be a appropriate.  But, this race is too close to drop out.  If Hillary dropped out now, she would be forever labeled in history as a quitter and the candidate that was close to winning to the nomination, but will never know, because she dropped out early.  The folks that repeatedly ask her to drop out have their own agenda and I think it’s very transparent.

The data suggests that approximately 1,200 citations were issued in the 2007 Fall Semester alone.  According to Texas Tech Director of Student Legal Services the number of citations issued has increased over 500% annually since 2006.  This causes some to wonder if the City of Lubbuck is pursuing revenue at the expense of the future careers of the students.

The led attorneys Mark Snodgrass and Chuck Lanehart to decide to provide free legal defense services for the students.  Both lawyers are members of the Lubbock Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and this organization is supporting the effort.  Hats off to folks that stand up for what is right!