For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12
"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Thomas Sowell has a new column out challenging the MSM to lay aside their Obama-worship (my words) and report the actual facts about the mortgage crisis, many of which indict both Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
Here is an excerpt:
[Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?]
The rest of this very insightful column can be found HERE. In it Mr. Sowell lists the names of the real culprits, several of whom you can see in action HERE in a You Tube video. Quite damning if only the sycophantic main stream media would shine the spot light in the right direction. But then their darling Obama might lose the election.
Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco bankruptcies combined are all much smaller than the mess brought down upon us by Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom should be stripped of their fortunes and forced to do the perp walk. But if Obama is elected we should assume that will not happen. For they are both Obama advisers and will be rewarded for their loyalty to their master.
It is past time to sound the bell and spread the word. Shift into high gear and don't stop moving forward. It is safe to say at this point that the very existence of our country and way of life depends upon it.
Just received this E-Blast from Laura a few minutes ago and thought enough of it to rush it to print (so to speak). In it she asks some very poignant questions we should all be asking our legislators before they spend nearly a trillion of our and our children's tax dollars for something they HOPE will repair the current financial catastrophe. Here they are:
1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive? 2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different? 3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation? 4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane. 5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion. 6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability? 7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes? 8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?
THIS is the video the MSM does NOT want you to see. It's from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hearings in 2004 in which several Democrats verbally attacked regulators who found huge problems in how both Fannie and Freddie were run. The obfuscation is almost too nauseating to watch, considering present day's events. Several Republicans defended the regulators and pointed out large discrepancies while naming names (like Jamie Gorelik, for instance). One can only wonder how Republican strength in numbers wasn't enough to win the day back then and avoid this trainwreck.
The urge to grab a noose and head to Washington is almost too overwhelming to ignore. And several of these people are helping to write the bill being voted on Monday or Tuesday. The MSM should go down with them for protecting them so close to election day.
I always learn a lot while watching Special Report with Brit Hume. In fact, if I had access to only one news source with or without commentary, I would go with Brit. Here, Fox News explains most of what happened that led up to the current crisis. There are other reasons, of course, as I have previously mentioned. But in 2005 the start of the crisis was clearly in view, alarms were sounded, and warnings not only went unheeded but denied and thwarted by DEMOCRATS. It's no wonder the MSM (main stream media) aka TOD (tool of Democrats) is so eager to spread the blame around. Allow me to correct:
First, a word from former President Bill Clinton. Click HERE for the ABC News interview in which Clinton not only defends McCain's decision to fly to Washington to assist in bailout talks, but also seems willing to spread blame to Democrats, while incorrectly putting himself on the side of those who tried to fix things (once a liar...).
Secondly, here in its entirety is an editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader putting the blame for the mortgage meltdown on the proper people:
[One month from tomorrow, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be the keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. It is a coveted and high-profile role previously filled by such notables as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. The Democrats’ choice of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is, therefore, very revealing.
The party announced Frank as the keynote speaker on Sept. 11 — three days after the U.S. government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, costing taxpayers untold billions. That takeover probably could have been prevented had Frank not worked to thwart every attempt to limit the risks taken on by the two government-sponsored mortgage giants.
For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.
In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”
But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.
(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)
In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”
Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.]
There are many questions being asked about the mortgage crisis and the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of mortgage debt from private firms. And there are not many answers being given. But there are a few things we know for sure. First, if history has taught us anything, we know that a successful bailout is always more than the initial estimate. It was so in the the S&L crisis and it will be for this one, too. Expect it to be well over a trillion dollars. I believe many people sense this, and that's why only 28% approve a federal bailout.
Second, the liberals are not THAT upset about this. Many of them see it as something to blame on Republicans, which could lead to a sweeping Democrat victory this November. After all, the Republicans have been in power for most of the last 8 years. Never mind that Democrat President Bill Clinton signed into law the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which had been in force since the Great Depression, and thus making it possible for banks to own investment firms capable of dragging banks down with them. Never mind it passed the Senate 98-0 with Harry Reid and Joe Biden both voting in favor of the repeal. These socialists and their MSM allies, may of whom adore Castro, see this as an opportunity to completely regain power and kill capitalism once and for all.
Third, capitalism will never completely die. And it may not even be down for the count here, even if the bailout fails. It will merely lie on the ground for a bit, pick itself up and shake the dust off. Things might not be so prosperous for a time, but capitalism will prevail. It's only natural. Communism was proven a failure in the 1980's. And now the only thing the liberals have left to offer are socialist economies in Democratic states.
Whether or not the bailout is a good idea is something I have trouble seeing, what with so may good and bad things that may result. It may be the only way out of a much larger and deeper pit, or we might be selling out our nation's very soul. Here are a couple of links to play with: click HERE for pro and HERE for con.
Personally I don't agree with a whole lot of regulations slowing down economic growth. But I do believe in oversight. And there was none here. Or if there was any, whatever was viewed was ignored. It appears as though both the borrowers and lenders were crossing their fingers on interest rates and gambling with their (and our) financial futures.
Obviously we cannot have a total meltdown of endless consumer foreclosures and bank failures. But letting stupid consumers or lenders totally off the hook is completely unacceptable. Make the consumers who signed the dotted line pay dearly by stretching out their payments over a much longer period, like 40 to 45 years so they can keep their low monthly payments and their precious homes. And put the predatory lenders in jail. Let them pay through the nose to the government who generously bailed them out. Without this there is no credibility in government, and there will likely be a huge tax-payer revolt. Enough said.
Click on picture above for information about the author.
Also, I want to add that not everyone I link to below marches lock-step with me on every issue. But I link to them nonetheless because I think they are righteous. They have taken sides in their respective battles, political and/or religious, and have chosen wisely. May you do the same.
