We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common def---aw, f*#@ it, let's just be Socialists!
What it looks like when a Sheriff really slaps around a black man. Well okay, no one was physically assaulted in the video. It's a war of words, and Al Sharpton loses. Anyone here surprised?
Since no one can argue the fact that Al Sharpton is retarded, here is the relevant portion of the law which was just passed in Arizona. Emphasis mine.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
Democrats can teach us lots of useful things. Here's one example: Slander. Watch this video.
Did you catch the part where they said "Paul Ryan actually voted to abolish Medicare..." Under the picture of Ryan in the video, the DNC cited the source legislation. Curious what the legislation stated, I looked it up.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 4 printed in House Report 111-73 which seeks to spend $4.8 trillion less than the President's budget over 10 years; sets spending levels which are 20.7% of GDP; freezes non-defense/non- veterans spending; borrows $3.6 trillion less than the President's budget over 10 years; seeks to hold debt to 65% of GDP; and puts forward a long-term budget to bring debt under control. The substitute also seeks to permanently extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief; permanently fix the Alternative Minimum Tax; create 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrats' budget; suspend capital gains taxes through 2010; and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25% from the current 35%. The amendment also seeks to provide $5 billion over the President's budget for Defense; $540 million over the President's budget for Veterans; to save $50 billion annually for war or unmet defense needs; and provide for health and retirement security by reforming programs to ensure they provide benefits for future beneficiaries.
My reading comprehension may be suffering, but I do not see where Mr. Ryan suggested or voted for the abolition of medicare. Ryan was offering an amendment to the Congressional Budget for 2010. In the end, Ryan voted no on the budget, but voted yes on the amendment. Where did he 'vote to abolish Medicare' again?
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
Whilest perusing the internet, as I'm wont to do, I began searching for the smartest person on the political left. Here is his video.
Since it's rather late at night/early in the morning, and I can hear my pillow calling out to me, I am asking each of you to take a 'fact' out of this video and write a response in the comments. I was able to find several inaccuracies within the video and am interested to find out if you'll come up with the same and provide me with some I missed.
From my recent blog post at the Bakersfield Californian.
Why you should not support Ken Mettler in his campaign to get elected to the California Assembly, 32nd District.
I began hearing about Ken Mettler a few years ago, and liked some of what I had heard. He was passionate about Proposition 8, even getting physical defending campaign signs from an opponent who was stealing them. I’d also heard him on the radio, and he really seemed to be a strong conservative with a passionate message. Recently, however, several things that Mr. Mettler has done or said have concerned me greatly, so much so that I am reaching out to those who support him.
Mr. Mettler has been at odds with some of the members of the local conservative community, even choosing to conduct opposition research on Zack Scrivner whom Mr. Mettler believed would run against him for the Assembly Seat. Mr. Scrivner ultimately did not run against Mr. Mettler . As you may have read in the paper, Mr. Mettler is now being investigated for improperly using Republican Assembly of Kern County (RAKC) monies to conduct that research. Mr. Mettler is also accused of improperly using RAKC monies to pay for his defense in the civil suit brought by the individual who was assaulted during the Proposition 8 scuffle.
That's right, Mettler, hide behind your kid...
It has been revealed recently, Mr. Mettler encouraged candidate Shannon Holloway to enter into the race for the 32nd Assembly as ‘political strategy’, a charge which Mettler has both denied and then more recently confirmed. Holloway recently dropped out of the race, however, her name will still appear on the ballot. Apparently, Mr. Mettler is incapable of winning on his message alone, so he must use the political strategy of adding another person with the name of Shannon to the race, in the hopes of drawing votes away from his opponent Shannon Grove. Mr. Mettler's response was not to defend his actions, but instead attempt to refocus the conversation from his highly questionable tactics to the actual leaking of the emails which broke the story. If you can't defend your actions, diversion is always a good second option.
I have been friendly with members of the Kern County Young Republicans (KCYRs) for just over a year. Since befriending those individuals, I have in turn met many more great YRs including christians, young professionals as well as upcoming community leaders. They are hard working young people who seek to advance conservative principles in Kern County, the state and across the nation. In December of 2009 an election was held within the California Young Republicans (CYRs) causing a dispute over the proper leadership of the group which has now led to arbitration. When Mr. Mettler addressed the KCYRs during their April meeting, he was made aware of the leadership dispute within the California club and asked not to accept any endorsement by the CYRs, as it was also a violation of the club’s bylaws for the state group to endorse a local candidate. Mr. Mettler, however, refused, announcing the same week, via his Facebook account, that he’d received an endorsement from the CYRs.
"The California Young Republicans have endorsed Ken Mettler, Conservative for Assembly."
When Andy Stanley, the recently elected Chairman of the CYRs questioned and attempted to correct the announcement, his comments were deleted from Ken Mettler’s Facebook page. When another Kern Young Republican asked Ken what was going on, their comments were deleted as well. The Young Republican is reporting that they were subsequently ‘unfriended’ by Ken Mettler who later went on to describe the endorsement as being from the ‘legitimate CYR group’.
The Announcement of the Improper CYR Endorsement
During his address to the Young Republicans, he was also questioned over the statement that he was ‘embarrassed’ of the Kern club (see his March 14th Facebook post).
"The GOP state convention. Lots of good work uniting volunteer groups (though opposed by a few GOP staffers from Kern Co..... embarrassing)"
No, Mettler, it's you who's embarrassing.
The "GOP staffers from Kern County" are members of the KCYRs. Mr. Mettler first denied that the comment existed, then when pressed, denied writing the comment but instead claimed was written by someone else. So concerned with this message on his Facebook wall was Mr. Mettler that he went right back to his office and took no action regarding the post. The comment was still up as of the writing of this post.
Mr. Mettler has engaged in talking out of both sides of his mouth, questionable financial dealings and questionable ethics. What does it say about a man who cannot address dissent and correction, but must instead cover them up and act as if they never happened? If this is the type of behavior that Mr. Mettler is engaging in prior to the election, just what is he going to do when he’s in office?
I do not know, nor have I ever met Shannon Grove, and I am not asking you to vote for her. You must judge her record and her actions for yourself. I am, however, asking you not to vote for Ken Mettler. California cannot abide another politician in the mold of Mr. Mettler.
Ken Mettler is one of two candidates running for California's 32nd Assembly seat. He is seen, at this point, to be the leader in the race. Since the end of March, however, several damaging stories including some of those above, have come out. Ken Mettler is a politician of the worst kind, using undue influence to sway the outcome of his political race and being caught recklessly using PAC funds. Shame on Ken Mettler, and anyone who votes for him choosing to overlook his failings.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
In early November 2009, I wrote a little about my disdain for RINO's and Blue Dog Democrats. It's primary season in California, which means that the airwaves are being inundated with political ads. Unfortunately, neither of the Republican candidates for Governor are ideal. Poizner is a slime ball and you can read below all about Meg Whitman. She's since clarified her 'praise' for Van Jones, with whom she was most unfamiliar at the time.
Lean in close for the wet and sloppy one...
I'll answer the question of my take on Meg Whitman with another question; when are you going to get fed up of voting for the lesser of two evils?
This goes back to growing tired of the pragmatism versus principle argument that is going on throughout the Republican party, spurred in large part by the election of Obama and more recently by the nomination of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23. For far too long, the citizenry of this country has sat upon the sidelines taking no real action in supporting a candidate of any sort. And as a result when the primary comes along, the candidate we'd prefer (i.e. Tom McClintock for Governor, 2001; Fred Thompson for President, 2008; etc.) loses to a candidate that has larger name recognition or a prettier smile. We sit back and pontificate amongst ourselves on why these conservative candidates are the only acceptable choice for the office they seek and then sit back on our laurels as a much more moderate and distasteful candidate handily wins the primary. Once the primaries are over, then we watch this milquetoast candidate go on to run against the candidate from the other party, and then hold our noses as we enter the voting booth and publicly state that we've just voted for the lesser of two evils. Are you catching my drift here? We are to blame for 'middle of the road' candidates, and the RINO plague that currently infests the Republican party.
Now specifically as to Ms. Whitman... My principles would never allow me to support Barbara Boxer for Senate, ever. However, the last time that Boxer was up for re-election, Ms. Whitman publicly supported Boxer, and maxed out on donations to the Boxer for Senate campaign. (Also supported by Meg Whitman are moderate icons Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as well as Democrats John Kerry and Mike Honda.) There are few in the Senate who in my opinion are more liberal than Mrs. Boxer, and yet Ms. Whitman not only publicly supported Boxer, but also donated money to her, snubbing Republican Bill Jones in his bid for the Senate seat. I would be interested to know what has changed about Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Whitman in the last 5-6 years that would allow Ms. Whitman to support Carly Fiorina or Chuck Devore against Boxer as a Republican candidate would have to do in order to secure the Republican nomination. In addition, Ms. Whitman seems to be pleased with the job that self-proclaimed 'Radical Communist' Van Jones was doing, as recently as May 2009. If you'll recall Van Jones was President Obama's Green Jobs Czar and an admitted 9/11 truther. What business does a 'darned good' conservative Republican have supporting an avowed communist and 9/11 truther who is in the Obama Administration?! I have yet to hear Meg Whitman explicitly denounce the Stimulus package which has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Ms. Whitman seems to have a hard time showing up to complete her civic duty. She was not registered to vote until 2002 and since that time, no voting records can be found in any of the counties or precincts she has inhabited. Recently, Ms. Whitman has also made some 'pro-amnesty' comments in interviews, all of which make my skin crawl.
Ms. Whitman may indeed be a Republican, but she, should she get elected, is going to be the type of Republican than is difficult to distinguish from a Democrat and that is one of the factors contributing to the Grand Old Party's current wander in the wilderness.
I refuse to continue to elect RINO's and then spend 2, 4 or 6 years complaining about the direction of the country. Ms. Whitman will not receive my vote, because she has not earned it, period.
Last week there was a stunning bit of honesty from Tom Perriello (D-VA) regarding the power and money grabbing tendencies in Washington DC.
Any guesses as to who voted for another power/money grab? You guessed it, Tom Perriello. Listed below are the 36 Democrats who opposed the 'health care reform' bill, and absent from the list is one Tom Perriello.
Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)
Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.)
Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)
Anyone in Virginia have something to say about that?
---
Update:
There are several candidates running in the GOP primary for this seat. Although there is no definitive leader as of yet, Robert Hurt is polling ahead of the pack.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
A little bit of good news, to temper the blow from the last post. From Reuters:
A wealthy businessman who raised money for leading Democratic Party politicians, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, pleaded guilty on Thursday to defrauding three major banks out of $292.2 million in loan transactions.
Hassan Nemazee, 60, who once ran a private equity firm, admitted in Manhattan federal court to defrauding Bank of America Corp of more than $142 million, Citigroup Inc of $74.9 million and HSBC Holdings Plc of $74.9 million to pay his debt to Citigroup.
...
Nemazee was listed as one of the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics.
He typically donated more than $100,000 annually to Democratic Party political candidates, including Obama and now-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
...
The Democratic National Committee declined to comment, but an official said it had been previously announced that the affected donations would go to charity.
I am completely shocked... No really, this is my shocked face. Clinton just can't catch a break, can she? First there was Norman Hsu, and now Nemazee... What's next?
Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.
Stop the presses! We've got an amazing nugget of honesty from an elected official regarding thieving politicians. While meeting with some Tea Party activists on March 16th, Congressman Tom Perreillo admits to what everyone already knows. Unless you tie the hands of politicians, you cannot keep them from raiding entitlements to fund pet projects. Take a listen for a refreshing bit of honesty from Washington DC.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.
Paul linked to this web article in his New Year's Eve link dump, and I thought it was worth excerpting.
I cannot fathom why people do not understand when you legislate in favor of any people group, you are discriminating against another. It's not that difficult a concept to wrap your mind around. However, since all white people are racists, we need to be given a disadvantage so the poor helpless minorities can get a fair shake.
Both [health reform] proposals are obscenely expensive. Both limit our freedom to choose our families’ health care. And both would legislate racial and other forms of discrimination — making them not only unconstitutional, but immoral, counterproductive, and dangerous.
I would like to point out, however, that on several occasions Barack Obama has stated that he is open to listening to other ideas, opinions from outside his own party and political persuasion. That's why he and every member of the Moron Party ignored two letters sent from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Within the last three months, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has twice sent letters to the president and the leaders of the House and Senate warning them of discriminatory provisions in both bills. But those warnings have been ignored, and the problems remain.
Apparently the Senate bill written by the pillar of marital fidelity, Max Baucus (Moron-MT), states that "priority" for federal education funds are only to be given to institutions which offer "preferential" admissions to underrepresented minorities. This is obviously because dumber more rich and racist white people are getting the spots that would otherwise go to the sweet, innocent, wholesome and much more intelligent underrepresented minorities.
[The health care reform bill] directs the secretary of health and human services to award federal grants worth billions of dollars to educational institutions that train medical-service providers. However, “priority” for federal dollars is to be given only to those institutions offering “preferential” admissions to underrepresented minorities (according to race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion, depending on which section of the bill you look at). Thus, schools will be unable to compete for essential federal funding unless they adopt admission policies that intentionally and deliberately discriminate.
This next part is one of my personal favorites. The bill states that those institutions which do not have a clear understanding of the mating habits of the homosexual and transgendered sub-aboriginal people of the island of Tonga and/or lack concern for the LBGT community of Puama'u, Hiva Oa are subject to ineligibility for federal funds and are liable for "liquidated damages."
The bill also declares that institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they discriminate. According to Section 756, these programs must enroll “individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations” and demonstrate “knowledge and understanding of the concerns of the[se] individuals and groups.” If the schools fail to abide by these requirements, they will be liable for “liquidated damages.”
Take the time to read through the entire article and have your eyes opened to the mandated racism from the Party of Morons. Also, be sure to see Paul's blog posts on the truth about the Dixiecrats, Democrat racists who were NOT ever Republicans.
There has been quite the hot debate going on in the comment section of this blog post over at The Bakersfield Californian. Essentially, what's up for debate is the causal reason of the foreclosure crisis, and the subsequent recession. So, in an attempt to lay out what happened, when and who was involved, I submit the following.
Before we get to everything, there are two very important points I wish to make. First, were the Democratics solely responsible for the foreclosure crisis? No, not solely. They were, as you'll see below, primarily responsible. Second, every elected official (well, damn near all of them anyway) is scum. They primarily seek to enrich themselves and their specific interests. Why be a conservative then and not an anarchist? Because, I understand that some government is needed. The less, the better. How can anyone benefit with an over-reaching bureaucratic mess entangled in every part of your life? Better to support a party who, at least in theory, is for smaller and less government.
Let's begin.
In 1977, while Jimmuh Carter was President and Tip O'Neill and Robert 'KKK' Byrd were Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, respectively, the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, law was passed. Passed with the best intentions, the CRA was intended to cut down on discriminatory lending practices and open up loans to borrowers in low and moderate income neighborhoods.
Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.
In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.
Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.
In 1997, congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation reduced the capital gains on the sale of homes under $500,000. This action alone did nothing to impact the foreclosure crisis. However, when coupled with insane subprime lending practices, these tax rates made home sales the best return on the dollar investment for the average person. Thus began the home speculation wave.
In 1998, HUD Director Andrew Cuomo held a press conference detailing a settlement reached with a major bank on a lending discrimination case, presumably based on the CRA. The result of the settlement was $2.1 Billion for subprime loan offers. He admits that the lawsuit forced the bank to lower it's qualification standards as a remedy to the 'discriminatory' lending practices. This is is another crucial turn in the foreclosure crisis. The press conference was a warning to other lending institutions that the administration intended to interpret the CRA laws broadly and that the full force of the Clinton Administration would be aligned against any company that did not meet their standards of the CRA.
It is these enforcement techniques coupled with the marketing of the MBS as low-risk investments which spurred the enthusiastic subprime lending from the private lenders. What was the risk? Offer risky loans to low-income applicants making a large profit, then sell the asset to the GSE's which then acquired the risk. No risk, high profit subprime loans then became a no lose option for the private lenders.
The next step is one of supply and demand. With a flood of new 'qualified buyers' on the market for homes, the new home builders went gonzo. New home starts went through the roof, as demand never seemed to dry up. Demand out paced supply until sometime during mid 2006. Once the supply of homes outweighed the demand by consumers, home prices began to fall. It is this fall coupled with insane personal debt amounts that would begin the foreclosure crisis. During the boom years between 1998 and 2006, home owners were able to use their homes as banks, borrowing against the equity in their home at values higher than the home's actual value, all while banking on the increasing value of the home. Also at this time, Adjustable Rate Mortgages were in demand allowing a home owner to purchase the home with an introductory, low interest rate, which would adjust after 3-5 years. The expectation was that the value of the home would have risen during that time, allowing the owner to refinance into another ARM or traditional loan, at a lower interest rate. It was this expectation of an ever increasing home value that lead home owner after home owner to extend their personal debt beyond the sustainable point.
Once home values began to fall, and adjustable rate mortgages adjusted, many home owners were no longer able to afford their monthly mortgage payments. As a result, foreclosures began to rise. In turn home values fell further causing the housing bubble to burst.
Finally, and most despicably, the systematic fraud committed by the two GSE's in mis-stating earnings as to increase the bonus compensation for the executive staff's allowed the crisis to continue on long after it should have. The GSE's were government entities, so they could borrow money at lower interest rates, they required less capitalization and they had less regulations all of which were supposed to translate into more money available to securitize mortgages. Instead, names like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson all cooked the books in order to increase their bonuses. At the same time, Alan Greenspan was pointing out the dangers of the GSE's weak capitalization. There were voices of reason, but few had ears to listen.
Liberals, Progressives and Democratics are all quick to point at the Republicans and claim that it was through deregulation that the subprime mortgage crisis began. As a point of fact, Democratics repeatedly attacked and undermined the regulators which oversaw the two GSE's, accusing them of being bigoted and attacking Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae. In reality the foreclosure crisis is as a result of the Carter Administration's efforts to expand low and moderate-income home ownership through the CRA along with DIDMCA's removal of interest rate caps and AMTPA's opening up of non-traditional loan types, coupled with the Clinton Administration's aggressive enforcement of it's own broad interpretation of the CRA which coerced the free market into supporting subprime loans. The deregulation in and of itself had little to do with the foreclosure crisis. It was primarily through the efforts of the Clinton Administration that brought us the crisis.
In the early 2000's, some Republicans in congress were able to see the policy which kept the GSE's under capitalized and allowed the GSE's to purchase risky subprime paper and resell them as low risk investments had the potential to bring the financial system to its knees. These Republicans proposed new regulation attempting to increase the capital which the GSE's had on hand and attempted to reduce the quota's for subprime acquisitions set up by earlier sessions of congress. In the end, however, the Republicans failed to use their majority in both houses of congress to force the regulation instead acquiescing to the minority party. Watch below as several Democratic congresscritters attack the regulators from OFHEO.
So, here we are on the other side of this orgy of destruction, and who is to be held responsible?
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee blocked legislation from Republicans which attempted to rein in the GSE's undercapitalized vacuuming of subprime paper. He, the largest recipient of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie, killed the legislation in committee.
William Jefferson 'BJ' Clinton (D-AR) The former President was instrumental in pushing the banking industry into expanding home loans to the low and moderate-income markets. So set on the increase in ownership that he was willfully ignorant of the destruction his policies would have on the financial markets of this country in the coming years.
Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) As Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cuomo set the standard by which all lending institutions would be judged. He used his bully pulpit to praise his department's efforts in winning a $2.1 Billion settlement which would be used to provide subprime loans. He went as far as to admit that the loans were riskier and had a higher rate of failure, yet did nothing to undo the damage he'd begun.
Honorable Mentions:
Barney Frank (D-MA) As the ranking Democratic on the House Financial Services Committee, he opposed a proposal in 2003 to remove the oversight of Fannie and Freddie to a new agency under the Treasury Department. The justification for the proposal was that congress neither had the tools nor the stature for adequate oversight, however, Frank opposed the move stating "These two entities... are not facing any type of financial crisis... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." It should also be noted that Mr. Frank had a relationship with Herb Moses, the CEO of Fannie Mae and referred to him as his "spouse" and his "lover."
Barack Obama (D-IL) The Race Baiter in Chief sued Citibank under the CRA laws to force them to make risky loans. Obama was listed in a class action lawsuit along with ACORN against Citibank alleging that the bank had specifically denied loans based upon racism. This NY Post article makes it clear that Obama was aware of the intimidation tactics being used against Citibank and yet still supported the plaintiff in the lawsuit. This leaves little doubt that Obama was not only aware of ACORN's tactics in attempting to strong arm banks into making risky loans, but was complicit, as well.
A word about lenders, borrowers and the free market. It is often alleged that predatory lenders were responsible for the foreclosure crisis by preying upon unsuspecting borrowers, encouraging them to take loans that the borrowers could never possibly afford to pay back. One would be foolish to believe that this did not happen. However, this scenario was spawned by every other action listed in this post. Predatory lenders had no influence on the CRA, DIDMCA, AMTPA, the dropping of capital gains taxes, the increased mandate for the GSE's to purchase subprime paper, and on and on. This was a by product of the failure of the government, period. In the list of people who need be held responsible, the consumer themselves should not be ruled out. Similarly to the predatory lenders, they were not responsible in starting the foreclosure crisis, but without their uninformed and greedy borrowing, this crisis would never has gotten as large as it became. Ultimately, when you place your signature on those 200 different forms, you are in effect saying that you understand the terms of the loan for which you are signing. It is your responsibility to understand what your are getting yourself into. When a person loses their home and cries that they had no idea, I feel little sorrow. For that person claimed on a legal document that they did, in fact, understand what they were getting into.
The free market is not to blame for what went wrong here. It was only through the manipulation of that free market and players within that market that this crisis came to be. The market left to it's own devices will regulate itself. Greedy and predatory lenders will go out of business as customers become wise to their practices and purchase from someone else. Lending institutions will offer loans which will be competitive with other lenders, but secure enough as not to be overly risky. No company goes into business looking to scare away potential customers and few customers go into a business relationship without knowing exactly what they are consuming and for how much. It is these principles that guide the free market to function and correct when it needs to.
-UPDATE-
Paul pointed out in the comments some facts I left out on predatory lenders: Uncollateralized loans.
The idea that someone could approve the loan of and move someone into a house without the borrower so much as having a job was also begun during the Clinton Administration's Gestapo forced lending tactics. A whole new cottage industry called "Mortgage Origination Offices" cropped up in all the neighborhoods where payday loan places do good business.
Paul goes on to reference this Wall Street Journal Article which shows the areas that are hardest hit by default rates. Paul notes the areas which are hardest hit also seem to have the highest unemployment rates, and the lowest incomes. The areas are referred to as Urban Enterprise Zones, which are areas in which development of blighted neighborhoods is encouraged through tax and regulatory relief. With the revelation of tactics used by community advocate groups such as ACORN, there is a strong possibility that these groups were instrumental in securing loans for some of those now in default.
-UPDATE II-
This subject is so large, and the damage so widespread that it is difficult to sum up all of the factors that played a roll in the eventual meltdown in a single post, let alone at 3:00 in the morning. A commenter at TBC points out that artificially low interest rates in the early 2000's encouraged lending practices that were out of control. This is true, however, it's important to note that low interest rates alone could not have caused this crisis. It is only when all of the pieces are strung together that you get the financial meltdown we are all currently experiencing.
Fed policy in the early 2000's was to keep the economy afloat after the dot com bubble and 9/11. In order to encourage people to continue spending money and making investments, and with the help of a wave of foreign cash from growing Asian economies, money was made cheap and available. The Fed policy was foolish, but, as pointed out with several other steps in the eventual crisis, not without good intentions. The intent was to keep the economy moving and minimize the downturn. As a result, the dot com bubble was not burst, but instead moved to become the housing bubble. This is why conservatives, but primarily libertarians believe that the Federal Government should not get involved in financial downturns or crashes. With limited exception, the FedGov always makes the situation worse.
Please, do not follow this link and give the Pittsburgh Post Gazette any traffic. Apparently the Post Gazette has a special needs hiring program and one Reg Henry has benefited. Mr. Henry writes a column lamenting the evil genius of them damn right-wingers and their attacks on the pure hearted, and good intentioned Barack Hussein Obama. After extolling the genuine goodness of Mr. Obama he takes him to task for just taking to stinking long to think about things. Of course, it's the evil-genius republicans who are forcing PeeBo into this difficult spot. I shall quote from the dimbulb, below:
"This is where the evil geniuses (political) come in. The challenge for them is that old bugbear, reality. They are faced with a president who obviously wants to find the middle road and end partisanship and who is by nature cautious and good-hearted. In human terms, these are endearing traits -- and, of course, that will never do. Reality must be changed because partisanship must endure, otherwise evil geniuses would be unemployed.
The work of changing reality began quickly, even before the election. Almost in the same breath it was put around that not only did Mr. Obama attend the shocking Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Christian church for many years but also he was a Muslim, which would be a very strange thing for a Muslim to do. (When I go to church, I rarely see any Muslims). To sell this bizarre and contradictory notion took genius."
Of course Mr. Henry neglects to mention that Louis Farrakhan is a close personal friend of Jeremiah Wright, and that the Revarund often quoted Crazy Louis. He also fails to point out that Mr. Farrakhan is the cover story of the November/December 2007 issue of Wright’s Trinity United Church Of Christ’s magazine. So as you can see it's highly illogical to assume that PeeBo may have some Muslim leanings.
"The troublesome idea that the president is smart had to be turned around, too. Fortunately for the evil geniuses, Mr. Obama, while visibly tired on the campaign trail, stumbled and referred to 57 states, which confirmed the populist image of ex-presidents of the Harvard Law Review as Dumbos. A normal person would look at this and other slips often mentioned and just laugh but that would be to be underestimate evil and genius both.
The touch of genius is also upon the fuss about teleprompters (all modern presidents have used them) and unconfirmed czars (recent presidents have had them -- and, moreover, when experts were called to Congress to testify about this concern they agreed they were constitutional). Still, you have to admire the genius of those who tied people's knickers in a twist."
Do we really have to go over how smart PeeBo really isn't again?! I'm not going to rehash what a moron the POTUS really is. If you need examples, please see any/every post over at Paul's place. And the whole Teleprompter thing is sooo partisan and evil that even that bastion of right wing ideals, The Onion chronicled it's over use by PeeBo.
"The same can be said of the string pullers for the tea-bag protest movement. The very name conjures up the spirit of those who resisted taxes in Boston long ago, except that one of Mr. Obama's first acts was to pass a stimulus package that included tax cuts for most taxpayers. To make people forget about this was genius, sheer genius."
These must be the tax breaks Mr. Henry was talking about...
Of course, Mr. Henry gets most worked up, however, about those damn tea bag people calling PeeBo a Marxist Socialist!
"But in my view the greatest act of evil genius was to dust off the hoary stereotypes about Marxists and socialists and apply them to Mr. Obama, a leader milquetoast enough to confound any real revolutionaries.
And how can these labels have any sting in an era that thought it proper for Communist China to own most of our debt and produce most of our consumer goods? And how can they call health-care reform socialism when the public option barely hangs on? Genius, my friends, and evil at that."
Because we all know that nationalizing the banking industry and striving to nationalize the healthcare industry are bedrock capitalist principles.
I wonder if Mr. Henry has ever stopped to ponder why the Post Gazette is losing it's ass? The last report I can find of an increase in readership was while Clinton was still playing hide the cigar with Monica.
What the hell sort of unholy furor would have been brought down upon the Bush Administration had they allowed a convicted felon into a state dinner?
Believe it or not, I do not own a TV. As such, I do not ever catch the Glenn Beck program. Hell, I have to drive across town to catch football at my Dad's place. That being said, I ran across this article at Big Government.
While in prison—or “forced sabbatical,” he called it—Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007).
The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern—the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House—and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer’s tome “provides a blueprint for future victories.”
In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky’s political career. He also lays out a “Progressive Agenda for Structural Change,” which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009:
* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”
* “We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
* “We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
* “Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
* “We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
* “We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
* “To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”
Creamer adds: “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”
Republicans have recently been accused of all manner of naughty things, including but not limited to; being in the pocket of health insurance companies, being in the pocket of big tobacco, having happy feet in a Minneapolis men's bathroom stall. However, no one, at least to my memory, has ever accused the Republicans of having their proposed legislation written and proposed by a convicted felon.
The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.
Robert Creamer, a political consultant married to four-term U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, could face four years in prison on the two felony counts when he is sentenced Dec. 21.
Seriously, what else? What else can we possibly learn about this corrupt, illegal administration? Most recently it's been Spit or Swallow Jennings, and now this.
Keep an eye on this one, I suspect it's going to get much more interesting. Oh, and if you're interested in the Beck video, part one is here and part two is here.
What has been revealed here, along with the manufactured data and side-by-side with the destruction of original data, is that scientists are as human as any other person. Meaning, that scientists are subject to the same political and financial influences that any other person is. This is why it is so utterly and critically important that science is based upon actual scientific fact and not upon 'consensus.'
Definition time:
scientific fact - n: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
consensus - n: 1. majority of opinion. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
As I'm sure all of you have been reading my blog since the beginning of time or whenever I started blogging, there is no need for me to point out that I have been blogging about AGW for quite a while. None-the-less... Pay particular attention to the quote from Professor Ian Plimer in that last post. For you with little time or patience on your hands, here is the quote:
"I'm a natural scientist. I'm out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
In the case of Climategate and until otherwise proven all global warming 'science,' 'torturing the data' would mean replacing data that does not support your theory with data that does, and then destroying the original data.
Most damning, however, has to be the fact that when confronted with the fact that the books had been cooked and these scientists had engaged in egregious behavior, other climatologists and AGW supporters failed to admit that they'd been caught in this circumstance and agreeing to dismiss the data from the University of East Anglia. Instead they are circling the wagons around the massive failure and continuing with outright denial and name calling.
UPDATE As Paul points out in the commments section, the IPCC wading deep in a cesspool of lies and fakery, says they stand firm next to the evidence
It's been 3 years, 5 months 17 days, 9 hours, 15 minutes and 54 seconds since my last post. The good news is that nothing of any importance has happened since the last time I wrote. Not going to lie, it's been difficult to balance work, caring for my grandmother, redesigning my mother's guest bedroom, nursing shingles- oh yeah, and there's that whole work thing. But you're not here for excuses- unless you're a libtard, then that's all you understand.
While cruising the seedy underbelly of these here interwebbynets, I happened upon the dumbest person ever to access the web, other than Algore hisself, of course. I must warn you, however, if you spend more than 45 seconds on that user page, your brain will kick out your teeth, crawl out your mouth and down your shirt, then hop a bus for Venice Beach in search of some one smart to inhabit. Fair warning.
Big in the news, as of late, is the aptly named 'Climategate.' Revealed within the last few weeks were 'hacked' emails from the 'University' of East Anglia from top climate researchers disclosing that they manipulated data to support their theory that the earth is warming. Yes, not only did climate 'scientists' cook the books in order to support their lunatic theory, but they also destroyed the original data, leaving only their 'corrected' data. Fan-fucking-tastic. And in order to ensure that Democrats would retain their unchallenged crown as the king of fucking idiots, Babs Boxer suggested prosecuting the individual(s) that disclosed this highly inappropriate behavior. Brillaint!
Liberal logic: if an individual exposes damaging information about a conservative, tobacco company, car company, gun company, etc.; it's called 'whistle blowing.' If an individual exposes damaging information about a libtard, ACORN, SEIU, global warming, universal healthcare, etc.; it's called illegal. Got it?
Turns out PeeBo is also going to make an appearance at Dopenhagen for the Climate Summit to meet with other heads of state so that they can all pat themselves on the back for how far up their asses they've collectively kept their heads on the Climategate issue.
Also, PeeBo announced his new (read: a fucking year old) strategery in Afghanistan. It was announced in a speech at West Point, the enemy camp, after dragging his ass on the deal for nearly 4 months. You see, PeeBo had to wrestle with the strategery General McCrystal requested. This would be the same strategery that PeeBo laid out during the campaign, and shortly after taking office, in order to make sure that it was the right decision. He was quick to point out the cost in dollars of this decision to surge the number of troops in Afghanistan becuase $50 Billion is a hell of a lot, especially when compared to the meager $1,300,000,000,000 (thats trillion) he flushed down the toilet in the 'anti-stimulus' package earlier this year. Yes, you see, Barack is the most brilliant man ever to walk the planet. Thank God that when he was born of his virgin birth, he chose the lowly United States to grace with his presence.
Lastly, it turns out that according to Norah O'Donnell, (the fuck kind of name is Norah?) Rosie's retarded half sister, Sarah Palin fans are uninformed on news items. It seems that they are just to darned busy to read the newspaper for 30 minutes every day (yes this ancient troll-hag actually suggested that informed people read newspapers) and are therefore uninformed. As Paul points out these 'morons' are so uninformed that they are more knowledgeable on the Climategate Scandal than anyone at Ms.NBC, as the network has yet to report on the fraud committed there. As Paul says:
Norah O'Donell at MSNBC claims that Sarah Palin supporters do not have the 30 minutes needed to read the newspaper. But, oddly enough, Palin supporters know about the "scientific" fraud going on at the IPCC and East Anglia, despite it NOT being reported in the newspapers. Maybe they get their news from the very same mysterious force that keeps telling us that the economy is "recovering?" Contradiction? You decide.
"The only thing a politician cares about more than the money, prestige, and fame is getting re-elected." "The only principle that a Blue Dog politician is concerned with is not a principle at all, but instead a principal."
As I am sure you are now aware, HR 3692 the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed in the House last night 220 - 215. Make no mistake, this is the closest this country has ever flirted with European style Socialism. Yet there are some positives to hold on to. Number one, Harry Reid is a spineless douche, and will never be able to organize the 60 votes he needs in the Senate to pass this on to PeeBo for signing. Number two, and far more important, is the message that Blue Dog Democrats sent to the people of the United States, and to their constituents: 'We don't care what you think.'
I guess, in order to fully understand the impact that this legislation is going to have on the Blue Dog community it is important to first understand what a 'Blue Dog' is. Emphasis, mine. Wikipedia:
The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition is a group of currently 52 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives, first formed in 1995. The Blue Dog Coalition describes itself as a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security, favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline. In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these areas.
The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.
So, what do we have here? We have a group of 52 individuals who proclaim themselves to be fiscally conservative, and who strive to rise above 'partisan politics' to put the best interests of this country first. However, 28 members of the so called fiscal conservative Blue Dogs voted for the largest expansion of government in the history of the United States. They voted for the bill that will grow the government somewhere between $2,400,000,000,000 and $3,000,000,000,000. So who are these fiscal superhero's? Who are the 28 defenders of our nation's wealth and fiscal sovereignty?
Arcuri, NY
Baca, CA
Berry, AR
Bishop, GA
Boswell, IA
Cardoza, CA
Carney, PA
Cooper, TN
Costa, CA
Cuellar, TX
Dahlkamper, PA
Donnelly, IN
Ellsowrth, IN
Giffords, AZ
Harman, CA
Hill, IN
Michaud, ME
Mitchell, AZ
Moore, KS
Murphy, PA
Pomeroy, ND
Salazar, CO
Loretta Sanchez, CA
Schiff, CA
Scott, GA
Space, OH
Thompson, CA
Wilson, OH
These are the politicians who profess to the American people that they stand for fiscal conservatism, while simultaneously shoving the knife of health care legislation into our backs and telling us, 'it's good for you.'
You might be saying, 'Well, at least 24 Blue Dogs stood strong and voted 'No.'' Ha! Go back to the top of this post and read those quotes again. These spineless punks are possibly the worst lot of sleazy, political whores in the United States today. You'd be mistaken to think that these 24 stood up against the fiscally disastrous health care bill on principle. Paralyzed with the overwhelming fear of losing re-election, these gutless wusses, crawled in to Nancy Pelosi's office and begged to be allowed to vote against the bill. They've bucked their party so that at the end of the day, they could stand in front of their constituents and proclaim themselves to be the fiscal conservatives they campaigned as. These 24 members are losers who are incapable of supporting the party position for fear of being ousted during the re-elections next year. They are neither principled nor fiscally conservative, they are merely double talking politicians.
So what are we to take away from this, then? Blue Dogs, despite all their barking about fiscal conservatism, are nothing more than big government, liberty-hating Democrats. You're response to this situation is clearly laid before you, VOTE THEM OUT!
We have a message for the members of Congress, Blue Dog or not, we're coming for you and we will not sleep until you are nothing more than has-been, former politicians.
As long as the political gods seem to be attentive to our supplications, be sure to intercede on behalf of Pennsylvanians everywhere and beg for this guy's removal.
In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti... Amen
Now, I knew that the White House was inhabited by some low life scum, but this is really taking their petty war with the Chamber of Commerce a little far, wouldn't you say?
And in "I'm Sorry, The President Thinks You're Retarded News..." The Justice Department has overruled the results of a local election in Kinston, North Carolina removing party affiliation from the ballot.
Of note in the Justice Department's findings were the following:
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want…
...
Black voters account for 9,702 of the city’s 15,402 registered voters but typically don’t vote at the rates whites do.
As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."
"It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote…
By the way, this is what passes as 'Post Racial America.'
Obama just wants to make sure you know which candidates are from the correct party, and the gentlemen above are here to guarantee the right vote.
Be sure to read the whole thing, and keep a bucket handy as your brain is sure to run out your ears.
Okay, is anyone really shocked to learn this? Do I need to spend any time telling you, 'I told you so?'
My own, beloved, California was projected to gain 396,000 jobs by the wishful thinking department of the Obama Administration. Instead the GoldenBrass Tin State has lost 336,000 jobs. And just in case you thought it couldn't get much worse, home prices are projected to fall even more.
