Author Archives: Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)

Another “Good Idea” From Obama


Here comes yet another “good idea” from Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama. He proposes that we taxpayers spend $100 million next year in order to begin a brain mapping project. He says the BRAIN Initiative could create jobs, and it will “… revolutionize our understanding of the human mind.” Obama says the research has the potential to improve the lives of billions of people worldwide. But (and there’s always a “but” when Obama is involved), the $100 million is expected to be “seed money” for a project that could take over a decade to complete.

There is, however, one slight problem: project goal(s). A working group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will work on defining the goals and develop a multi-year plan to achieve them. NIH will receive about $20 million in FY2014 above its initial budget for its services.

Obama said, while proposing the BRAIN Initiative at the White House:

“Ideas are what power our economy. When we invest in the best ideas before anybody else does, our businesses and our workers can make the best products and deliver the best services before anybody else.”

There’s that word “invest” again. Any idea that he favors is an “investment.”

Anyway, the last time Obama had an idea, we all know what happened. Obama said that he called upon numerous smart people in order to grow the economy. We are still waiting for the economy to grow.

“Today I’ve invited some of the smartest people in the country, some of the most imaginative and effective researchers in the country – some very smart people to talk about the challenge that I issued in my State of the Union address: to grow our economy, to create new jobs, to reignite a rising, thriving middle class by investing in one of our core strengths, and that’s American innovation.”

I guess that idea was an investment as well. There is nothing wrong with making investments or having ideas. Problems arise, however, when Obama surrounds himself and/or taps what he calls “smart people” that are nothing more than “yes” men. And the most painful part is that we taxpayers get to pay for his investments and ideas.

All of this despite sequestration.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Humor and Irony Abound as Obama Offers Budget Advice

Obama failures

The humor (if we didn’t laugh at his policies, we would surely cry) never stop with Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama. Yesterday (April 1, 2013) he announced that his administration is launching a program to help people budget more responsibly. There were two factors that caused questions about the sincerity of the announcement: timing and author.

The timing caused many to question the sincerity of the announcement: April Fool’s Day. And, the author was also a cause for questioning sincerity: Obama!

Now, one day later, the announcement has reached the irony stage as it has proven to be true. Obama has declared April to be “National Financial Capability Month, 2013.” In a proclamation released Friday, March 29, 2013, but was not published by the MSM until yesterday, Obama said:

“I call upon all Americans to observe this month with programs and activities to improve their understanding of financial principles and practices.”
“My Administration is dedicated to helping people make sound decisions in the marketplace.”
“Together, we can prepare young people to tackle financial challenges – from learning how to budget responsibly to saving for college, starting a business, or opening a retirement account.”

Yes, that is the same Obama who:

  • through his economic policies, has increased the national debt by $53,377 per household
  • has increased the national debt by over $6 trillion since he took office
  • has not submitted his budget proposal for fiscal 2014
  • has had a total of about $4.6 trillion of deficit spending for FY2010-2013
  • promised, if elected, to halve the deficit by the end of his first term

Perhaps Obama should take some of his own advice. But, why should he? He has all of us taxpayers to prop him up and pay the bills his economic policies run up, so, for him, a budget isn’t necessary.

I guess it takes real chutzpah for the “Narcissist-In-Chief” to issue a budget proclamation. What is saddest is that he is serious about his proclamation! And he refuses to acknowledge (because of ignorance or because all is going to plan) what HIS budgeting is doing, and continues to do, to this country.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Politics and Christianity


I got a comment the other day from “a person on the Christian Left” in response to the “Left Conveniently Rewriting History” article that CDN was kind enough to publish. The comment was:

“the problem is that we on the Christian left HAVE had that cvraensotion (I guess the word here is “conversation”), and like the cartoon, have been told that we’re not Real Christians. It’s like talking to people who watch FOX noise; you can SAY there’s economic inequity, global warming, etc, but it’s rather exhausting, and quite possibly pointless.”

That (IMHO) is a very provocative comment, so I want to share my response. I respond thusly:

“Person on the Christian Left,” yours is a very interesting comment. You say, “… we on the Christian left …”, and you refer to “… FOX noise…”. So, am I safe in assuming that you are liberal, and consider yourself a Christian? With that assumption as a starting point, what does the Bible say?

Are you familiar with Leviticus 25:35-36? These verses are provided below:
35: If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.

36: Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you.

Not one word here about what Liberals/Progressives/Democrats (LPD) just love to do: tax, tax, tax and redistribute wealth, all in the name correcting what the left considers to be “economic inequity” (your words). The Bible calls for people to be generous OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, not to FORCE generosity upon them through taxes. Further, if the Christian right is not generous enough by LPD standards, there is absolutely nothing prohibiting the Christian left from preventing economic inequity. The question then becomes: What right do you (LPDs and/or the Christian left) have to FORCE us to do your bidding?

And, are you familiar with Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” So, it’s very difficult to continually support the economic inequality of someone who refuses to work. Notice that I did NOT say “cannot find a job.”

Politics has NO place in Christianity. Even Jesus knew that, and expressed that sentiment in Matthew 22:20-21, to wit:

20: and he [Jesus] asked them [the Pharisees], “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?
21: “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Bottom Line: People on the left may, indeed, be “Real Christians,” but there is absolutely no place in Christianity for politics, regardless of what the left says. Please do not FORCE your opinions about economic inequality upon us.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Inconsistency, Thy Name Is Obama

With apologies to William Shakespeare, here is an unpassable opportunity to illustrate just how inconsistent Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama is. He has done two things today (Friday, March 15, 2013) that shows what he REALLY thinks.

First, he has proposed a $2 billion “green energy” fund (he calls it an Energy Security Trust), to be financed from government royalties from offshore oil and gas leasing. In return, he “may” approve the entire Keystone XL pipeline. Obama administration officials say the fund will not increase the deficit. They say it will be funded by an “expected increase in revenue from oil-and-gas production.” I guess that Obama thinks that any money is best spent on one of his pet projects, one that has shown no commercial success despite years of massive subsidies, rather than (symbolically begin to) reduce the national debt that has more than doubled since he took office. True, his proposal will not increase the deficit (where have we heard that before?), but this is another example of his “spend, spend, spend” attitude. Does he, or his economic advisors, know that deficit and debt are two entirely different things?

Second, as if all of the above wasn’t bad enough, he intends to double-down on his inconsistency. He will fly to Chicago today on Air Force One, a flight that will consume (round trip) approximately 6,200 gallons of jet fuel and cost us taxpayers a total of approximately $1 million. He will announce the Energy Security Trust at the Argonne National Laboratory in the Chicago suburb of Lemont, IL. The Trust is designed to “invest” in research that will shift the country’s transportation sector away from using oil. Have you noticed that anything Obama favors is called an “investment?”

Obama couldn’t announce the Energy Security Trust from the White House. Noooooooooooooooo! It had to be announced in Chicago, at taxpayer expense. His trip and speech would fund White House tours for 15 weeks. What sequestration? And I’m suuuuuuuuuuuure he will not ask Democrat donors for money while there.

As William Teach wrote, “Yet, Obama will take yet another unnecessary fossil fueled flight, first on Marine One to Andrews, then on Air Force 1, followed by a trip in a fossil fueled limo surrounded by lots of fossil fueled SUVs, make a speech, followed by fossil fueled cars and trucks, then fossil fueled plane trip and helicopter trip. It’s good to be the king.”   [emphasis mine]

Here is yet another example of Obama being inconsistent (surprise!), illustrating his “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. What is worse is that he gets a pass from the MSM and the (slim) majority of voters.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Sequestration. What Sequestration?

whatseqSequestration became the law of the land on Friday, March 1, 2013. Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, on Saturday, March 2, blamed Republicans for $85 billion in automatic budget cuts in both domestic and defense programs over the next seven months. I guess newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry failed to get the budget cuts memo. On March 3, despite the sequestration, Kerry gave $250 million to Egypt, ostensibly as immediate “economic assistance.” Kerry insisted Egypt would need to make some economic and political reforms before he releases the next batch of U.S. funding. The total amount could go as high as $1 billion if the reform is deemed successful. Is there any doubt that the reform will be deemed successful? Can anyone say, “Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?” That, by the way, is in addition to the $450 million Obama gave to Egypt last year.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Kerry announced that the Obama administration will give $60 million to the Syrian rebels.

As John Hawkins wrote:

“If we have 250 million dollars to give to Egypt – TO EGYPT – how can Barack Obama be so duplicitous, so irresponsible, so despicable as to lay off teachers, release illegal aliens, and generally punish people as part of a ridiculous political stunt?”

Yes, that is the same John Kerry who served in Viet Nam, who is of “Ginghis Kahn” fame, who threw his Navy medals over a White House fence, and who “saved” Boston harbor in 2004, promising “No retreat, no surrender.”

And, yes, that is the same Egypt that elected Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi, who called for all Jews to be destroyed, called Obama a liar, called Israelis “the descendants of apes and pigs,” called Jews “blood suckers,” is in support of the Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and said that “Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are ‘a waste of time and opportunities…’.” Egypt was a former ally, and, despite having the largest military in the Middle East, was given sixteen F-16s and 200 M-1 main battle tanks. As a condition for receiving the jets and tanks, Egypt has promised not to use the advanced weapons to attack Israel. Again, “Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.”

Can Obama pick ’em, or what?

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Obama

gun control

William Shakespeare wrote “Frailty, thy name is woman,” in his play “Hamlet.” With apologies to Shakespeare, I took liberties with his famous line when titling this article. But I just could not resist, given Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s latest action.

It seems that yesterday (March 1, 2013), Obama pardoned seventeen people for “minor” offenses. Among those receiving a pardon was Larry Wayne Thornton of Forsythe, GA. Thorton’s offenses (of which he was convicted): possession of an unregistered firearm, and possession of a firearm without a serial number.

The pardons came on a Friday afternoon, so the MSM can ignore it, and Jay Carney and the White House can think of ways to place a positive spin on his actions.

Yes, this is the same Obama who, in January 2013, said, “If you want to buy a gun – whether it’s from a licensed dealer or a private seller – you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.” This is the same Obama that issued 23 executive orders in January to “curb gun violence.” And this is the same Obama that surrounded himself with children while signing the EOs.

We can add all of this to “Fast and Furious,” Obama’s Justice Department’s failed attempt at gun-running, the result of which caused the deaths of (at least) two American citizens.

And, while we’re at it, since when are “unauthorized acquisition of food stamps” and “false claims upon and against the United States” considered minor offenses? Alfor Sharkey and Jamari Salleh were convicted of these crimes. One of Obama’s primary speech points is the elimination or reduction of fraud. Here is yet another example of Obama’s hypocrisy.

And, since when has “unlawful use of a communication facility to distribute cocaine” become a minor offense? Lynn Marie Stanek was convicted on that one.

If there was ever an example of “Do as I say, not as I do,” this is it. What’s even more outrageous is that the lap-dog MSM will not call him on it, will not expose his hypocrisy.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal very conservative web site.

Illegal Aliens Get Driver’s Licenses, Still Complain


This one surely belongs in the “Awwwwwwwwwwww” department. We learn that “North Carolina To Issue Illegal Immigrants Driver’s Licenses… Illegals Complain It Has A Pink Stripe On It…”

It seems that in January 2013, North Carolina was going to deny young illegal aliens who have received two-year deferrals from deportation a driver’s license. That position caused quite a row among illegal aliens. Cinthia Marroquin, an illegal alien, said, “It’s horrible. Do I even get a job? Am I going to make it? What am I going to do? You can’t really get a job, basically.”

The N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had said that it would grant driver’s licenses to those who received deferred action, but the DMV, in January, sought a legal opinion from state Attorney General Roy Cooper on how the program conforms with state law.

Now we fast-forward to the present. The NC DMV is set to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens on March 25, but not without some complaints. A bright pink stripe and the words “No Lawful Status” has caused a controversy. Cinthia Marroquin (the same person quoted above) says that she is now worried about presenting a license declaring she has “NO LAWFUL STATUS” at a police roadblock or while writing a check at the grocery store. “A lot of us are just scared. We just want to be able to get a job and drive to work. Having that license is just going to show everybody you’re here illegally, just buying a beer or writing a check. You don’t know how people might react.”

The NC American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has weighed in on the subject – surprise, surprise. ACLU attorney Ron Pinto said, “There is simply no reason for officials to stigmatize people who are in the U.S. legally with an unnecessary marker that could lead to harassment, confusion, and racial profiling.” Concerning legality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) aliens, NC state law says that a driver’s license will be issued to anyone who holds valid federal documentation of their “legal presence” in the United States. So, according to NC AG Roy Cooper, a Democrat, DACA aliens are here legally, that under federal law, DACA participants have a “legal presence,” even if they do not have “lawful status,” and that state law requires that DACA participants be granted licenses. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration of agreed, announcing last week the DMV would begin issuing the licenses.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it is up to each state to determine what to do. Rockingham [NC] County Sheriff Sam Page said, “If he [illegal alien] has an identification, there’s a better chance he’s going to get a citation or a warning and sent on his way versus ending up at the magistrate’s office and ending up in the local jail. This will save both the DACA immigrants and law enforcement officers time and money.”

Well, illegal aliens in NC will get driver’s licenses. But are they satisfied? To quote John Belushi on SNL, “Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.” The fact that illegal aliens are getting a driver’s license is absurd enough. But to complain about it because it properly identifies their legal status is simply beyond comprehension. I guess that, for the estimated 1.8 million illegal aliens, leaving the US is simply not an option.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site.

Left Conveniently Rewriting History


Have you ever wondered why Nazism (essentially socialism) and Fascism (again, essentially socialism) are considered right-wing political philosophies? Well, it’s because the left-wing (and the MSM, its obedient lap-dog) have gone to great time and trouble to recast them as such.

Leftists are quick to cite the fact that one of Hitler’s first actions was to get rid of the Leftist Socialists & Trade Unions. But what leftists fail to point out is that the Socialists & Trade Unions were comprised of and led by communists, the main enemy, according to Hitler, of Germany. They also cite that Hitler, in 1919, attended a German Workers Party (GWP) meeting. The subject of the talk being given at the meeting was “How and by what means is Socialism to be destroyed?” But what leftists fail to point out is that Hitler soon joined the GWP, became their leader, and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) to try to appeal to socialists.

In an effort to create as much distance as possible between Hitler and his socialist principles, Hitler has deliberately been mis-labeled as extreme right wing by the Socialist movement. Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist or the Nazi party represented extreme left wing politics.

From this source we learn that the left “… attempt to recast Mussolini as ‘right wing’ although his relativistic, atheist philosophy and socialist roots were distinctly ‘left-wing’.”

As Doug Ross points out:

“The main point is this – to detach from the genocide of the holocaust, leftists have not only disowned the fascists (and especially the Nazis) they have gone to the trouble of pinning them to the right. Of course it’s a complete lie, and that’s why the left defends it so savagely. Anyone that points out the truth is attacked in massive fashion.”

As David Limbaugh wrote in 2011:

“… today’s liberals see themselves as champions of the ‘working man’ and enemies of corporate interests and the wealthy. Their political lifeblood is class warfare on behalf of the ‘working man’ (read: labor unions). Redistributionism is at the heart of their philosophy.”

“As political theory and actual practice throughout history demonstrate, both communism and fascism are left-wing political and economic ideologies – as far as they can be from the right wing of the spectrum.”

And, as Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote:

“Today’s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.”

In the irony category, I really like these quotes from leftists: “Hitler was indeed right wing, his totalitarian policies were designed to remove all class structure.” and, “His policies were indeed similar to the 20th century Communist policies, which are extreme right winged regimes.” So now the policies of removing class structure and communism are somehow right-wing policies. I guess the left has never heard of capital redistribution or the EPA. Further, isn’t it rather ironic that Hitler said, “… we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak.”   [emphasis mine]   How many times have we heard Obama use the same word, the same idea, to further his economic policies?

Want confirmation of leftist effort? Consider this from Gary M. Grobman:

“The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism’s ideology included a racial theory which denigrated “non-Aryans,” extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.”   [emphasis mine]

Here is another confirmation. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, in April 2009, issued a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report says, “The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization.” But the report provides no examples or incidences of rightwing radicalization. The report also says, “… no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.”

The liberal blog had these three “take-away” points about the DHS report:

  • Anti-immigration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence.”
  • Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”
  • Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms … may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

And guess what! The very liberal MSM ate up the DHS report, as can be seen here, here, and here.

Need even more confirmation? Please read this article.

As Dr. Josef Goebbles, the extraordinary NAZI propagandist said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” I think Goebbles’ philosophy fits here well!

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Are Background Checks Unconstitutional?

2nd amendment

One of the central tenants of “Gun Control” is the background check. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says that, “… 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.” They, of course, offer no source for these percentages. They also say, “‘Universal background checks’ on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns.” They call to, “Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.”

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama announced on January 23, 2013, that he would, through Executive Order (EO), take 23 actions, among them:

  • “… require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.”
  • “Address unnecessary legal barriers … that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.”
  • “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.”
  • “Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

That all sounds, … er, great for gun control advocates. But (and there’s always a “but” with Obama), out of the other side of his mouth, Obama has called for the abolition of background checks, maintaining that they are unconstitutional. Background checks on potential employees assumes a criminal past of these potential employees and, therefore, should not be allowed. Specifically, a man of Mexican origin was denied employment as a truck driver because he had a criminal record that was discovered through a routine background check. Obama and his “Department of Justice” claimed that the trucking company had no right to deny employment to the criminal saying it violated his “civil rights.” Yet, the same Obama issued several EOs that call for or mandate background checks.

As James Bovard wrote,

“In the late 1970s, the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] began stretching Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to sue businesses for practically any hiring practice that adversely affected minorities. In 1989, the agency sued Carolina Freight Carrier Corp. of Hollywood, Fla., for refusing to hire as a truck driver a Hispanic man who had multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny. The EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification for the job was the ability to operate a tractor trailer.”

“EEOC’s position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics.”

Are we also to assume that we gun owners/potential buyers are also assumed to have a criminal past because of Obama’s call for a background check? I personally find this assumption to be highly insulting! Further, should the Obama background check be limited, as the EEOC suggest, only to the operation of a gun?

As Warner Todd Houston wrote, “If background checks violate a person’s civil liberties in order to gain employment, then background checks also violate a person’s civil liberties in order to enjoy their Constitutional rights. After all, the right to a job is not in the Constitution, but the right to a firearm is.”   [Houston’s emphasis]

This is yet another example of Obama’s and Democrats’ hypocrisy of pursuing what best suits their agenda, while ignoring the same thing that doesn’t further their agenda.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Tom Harkin on Wealth (Re)Allocation

harkinJanuary 2015 cannot get here soon enough. That’s when Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will no longer be a U.S. senator. Harkin will not seek re-election in 2014. That’s good for, at least, two reasons. First, Harkin is a very hard left liberal, and his absence, regardless of who Iowans elect in his place, cannot but help the U.S. Senate. Second, Harkin’s absence will reduce nonsensical statements. On the down side, we will be deprived of a clown at which to laugh.

This 1:12 video of Harkin says it all. Harkin denies that we have a spending problem (15 second point). He says, “Is It a Spending Problem? No … It’s a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.” As if that wasn’t bad enough, Harkin blamed hard-working Americans for the misallocation problem. At the 58 second point, Harkin says, “All of this wealth has been accumulated by hard-working Americans has been accumulated in fewer and fewer hands all the time.”   [emphasis mine]

So, I guess that in HarkinWorld, being a hard-working American and trying to reap the rewards of your own efforts, to accumulate wealth so you are not dependent upon the government, is bad.

But Harkin somehow seems to avoid his own words, thus making him a colossal hypocrite. According to Roll Call, Harkin is number 27 on the roll of richest men in politics, worth $10.5 million. According to Roll Call, “According to Harkin’s financial disclosure forms, his minimum net worth has essentially doubled since 2006 because of his wife’s purchase of about $5 million worth of stock in 2007.” It sure seems to me that $10.5 of capital gives Harkin quite an opportunity to at least begin to correct the misallocation problem. Will we soon hear of an announcement from Harkin’s office? Don’t hold your breath.

Harkin’s remarks are simply unbelievable! We would cry if we did not laugh at Harkin’s statement.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Democrats Responsible for the 2008 Mortgage Meltdown


It seems that then-president George W. Bush warned Congress seventeen (that’s right – 17) times in 2008 about the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage crisis. But Congress did nothing until the situation was out of hand. So, we (U.S. taxpayers) are stuck with the situation.

A little history of the crisis is in order. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), first enacted in 1977, started the ball rolling in 1995 (while Bubba Clinton was president). The CRA and major regulatory changes (emphasized by the White House in the late 1990s) created an increase in subprime lending, a sharp increase in highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom. In 2001, Bush’s first budget called subprime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “a potential problem” and warned of “strong repercussions in financial markets.” “In 2003, John Snow, Bush’s Treasury secretary, proposed what the New York Times called ‘the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.'” Did Democrats listen to Snow? NO! “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis,” declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle.

What “proof” do we have that Democrats caused the mortgage meltdown? Directly, none. But look at what happened, as uncovered by a recent National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study, and see if what the study highlights rises to the level of proof.

The NBER found:

  • “… adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”
  • “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam.”
  • “To satisfy CRA examiners, ‘flexible’ lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often.”
  • “The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis – 2004 to 2006 – when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.”

    “We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals,” Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick [yes, you know that name] beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000 [while Bubba was still president], just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant’s [Fannie Mae] affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. “We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities.”

And, as the graph that accompanies this article illustrates, “tightening” CRA rules (forcing banks to follow the CRA, or else) in 1995 clearly led to an increase in loan commitments to ACORN and other non-profit organizations. (An enlarged graph can be found here)

Want more “proof?” Then read this article by John Carney (not White House hack Jay Carney). Carney lays out the entire CRA fiasco. Carney closes with, “… an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers target by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests [but does not prove] that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.”   [emphasis mine]

What’s happening right now? As Paul Sperry at Investor’s Business Daily wrote, “… the Obama administration is broadening the anti-redlining regulation’s [of the CRA] authority and scope, spooking bankers.” Ex-BB&T CEO John Allison said, “The CRA overhaul ‘has been a disaster.’ [It] forced ‘banks to participate in making high-risk housing loans to low-income buyers who would not meet traditional bank lending standards. The default rates on these low-income loans are extraordinarily high.'” Sperry continued, “Still, the Obama administration wants banks to step up approval of such low-income mortgages.”

It sure seems as if Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama cannot, or will not, learn from history, and still wants to throw good taxpayer money after bad.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

How Many Times Is Enough?

arrestI don’t think anyone is against rehabilitation, but how many times is enough? There is an old saying that applicable here: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!” That saying refers to lessons we ought to have learned. But, it seems that in Chicago, judges and police can be fooled at least nineteen (that’s right, 19) times. Where were the MSM trumpets on this one?

It seems that Jesus Castaneda, who is fifteen years old, was arrested for the nineteenth time after yet another crime in (wait for it …) Chicago. Castaneda, who was known to Chicago police, is accused of using a gun to rob an acquaintance last weekend (February 2-3). The acquaintance knew Castaneda as “Little Rowdy.”

What is (IMHO) even more outrageous is that Cook County judge Maria Kuriakos-Ciesil set bail on Thursday at $25,000. Why, one must ask, was bail even discussed, much less set? And if Castaneda makes it (some bleeding-heart will put up the $25,000), is there any doubt that he will commit another crime before his scheduled court appearance on February 27? The MSM was fooled. The Chicago police were fooled. Cook County judges were fooled. Rahm Emanuel was fooled. But, perhaps they were not fooled. They all chose to look the other way.

But have no fear – Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel has crime under control. How do I know?

  • B. Christopher Agee, in his excellent CDN article, let’s us know the current crime situation in Chicago: “According to the [Chicago police] department, crime scenes at which a suspect is “not on the scene and not expected to return immediately” and the victim is “safe, secure and not in need of medical attention” will no longer get a police visit.”
  • Agee continues, “Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said he wants to put more officers on patrol rather than send them to crime scenes.” I’m sure that McCarthy’s policies will comfort all the victims of Castaneda’s crimes.
  • Chicago Police arrested eight offenders … associated with an open-air drug market … after a two-month investigation. Oh, that explains Castaneda’s situation. It took Chicago police “only” two months to make arrests in an open-air drug market.
  • Speaking of bleeding-hearts, here is an article by Angela Caputo that truly fits, that describes what is ongoing in Chicago: “Second City Ranks First in Teen Arrests”
  • More youth killed in Chicago than any other American city.
  • As of December 21, 2012, shootings in Chicago have increased 12 percent this year, and homicides are up 19 percent.
  • Since Rahm Emanuel’s gun violence policies have worked so well (NOT!) in Chicago, the country’s murder capital, that may explain why he feels he has to lecture the rest of us on the best way to curb gun violence.

But not to worry. This arrest of Castaneda was only the second one that was gun-related. And, as Lisa Richards said in her CDN article, we all know how evil guns by themselves can be.

So, what’s next? Well, as long as Rahm Emanuel, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s former chief-of-staff, remains Chicago’s mayor, nothing. As Robert Maranto and Patrick Wolf of The Huffington Post wrote, “In Police Work, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure.” The reason is that, “… there is no relationship between a police chief’s cutting crime and keeping his or her job.” As long as the MSM continues to provide cover, nothing will happen. All we can do is continue to ask: “How many times is enough?”

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama and Defense Spending


Here is a quote from Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., in a great article at The Foundry:

Military strategy should drive the budget, not the other way around. The mission of the United States military is determined by America’s vital interests and an assessment of the threats to those interests. We must spend what is necessary to fully fund our military. Of course there is waste and inefficiency in the defense budget. But the core and undisputed responsibility of the U.S. government to provide for the nation’s security must not be up for negotiation.”   [emphasis mine]

Spalding illustrates just how far down our military has fallen in the name of the budget. He also says:

“… while government spending is soaring, defense spending relative to the size of the economy is near historical lows. The Obama Administration is promising to hollow the military even more in the years ahead.”

Spalding paints a rather sobering picture of the current condition of our military, but with sequestration cuts of almost $500 billion just around the corner the worst is yet to come! The Army alone says that troop readiness and equipment repair will be affected by the cuts, as well as many family support programs. Sequestration is set to start on March 1, 2013, unless Congress enacts a preventative deal, which sources say is unlikely.

Here’s more news about the military. America’s enemies are increasing defense spending (as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product), while America does just the opposite. Current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says, “Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we’d turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester.” Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said that about a third of the cuts would have to come from forces. He also said that two-thirds of the cuts will be taken from spending on modernization, compensation, and readiness.

Compromise readiness. I guess that means that when Americans are being attacked, as they were in Benghazi, the solution is to “stand down.” But, what the heck? Obama could not care less. He, according to Leon Panetta, never communicated with Obama or anyone at the White House. Is this just a forecast of what is to come?

And let’s not forget this bit of information about former senator Chuck Hagel from PJ Media:

“Senate sources [say] that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called ‘Friends of Hamas.'”

When it rains, it pours! Just when you think Fearless Leader Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats can’t get any lower, they do.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama’s Treason: Update

talibanCDN was kind enough to publish “Obama Flagrantly Commits Treason” on January 13, 2013. The article highlighted how Obama approved, with Mohammed Karzai’s acquiescence, the Taliban to open an office in Kabul, Afghanistan. The office is supposedly, in “Dear Leader” Barack Hussein Obama’s own words, “… to facilitate talks.”

But, the Taliban doesn’t appear ready to talk. Afghan police say a suicide car bomber targeted a convoy of NATO supply trucks on January 25, but failed to hit them. A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said no NATO troops were killed or injured in the attack for which the Taliban have claimed responsibility.The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the attack.

“… to facilitate talks.”

That’s well and good, but actions speak much louder than words. You would think that Obama would have learned that fact with the Taliban. But, to quote John Belushi on SNL, “Nooooooooooooooooooo.” It seems that the Taliban, in 2011, targeted an American consulate convoy, and that two Americans were “slightly wounded.” But the fact that Americans were “slightly wounded” is beside the point. The Taliban attacked an American convoy, and continues to attack American ally convoys.Yet, Obama somehow saw fit to reward them.

Did Obama’s reward end the attacks? “Nooooooooooooooooooo.”

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Gun Violence Versus Violence

stop the gun violence

“Dear Leader” President Barack Hussein Obama, on January 14, 2012, said, “My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation. Some of them I can accomplish through executive action.”  [emphasis mine]

And, Obama plans to unveil his gun violence proposals at 11:45 a.m. Wednesday (January 16, 2013) at the White House.  [again, emphasis mine]   Obama’s proposals include 19 (count ’em, 19) executive orders (EO) that Vice President “One Heartbeat Away From Being President” Joe Biden has recommended. All EOs focus upon gun control.

I was in the Army for 22 years. I have been around guns of all types (pistols, rifles, shotguns, even [gasp!] M-16 assault rifles with [double gasp!] 20-round magazines) all of my life. I taught my daughters and son to shoot a shotgun when they were safely (IMHO) able to hold it. Never once did any gun, of its own accord, act violently. And, I have never seen or heard from the (always unbiased) MSM of any gun, of its own accord, acting violently. So, I must conclude that both Obama and Biden have chosen a target that cannot speak for itself or defend itself. Yet, through a lap-dog MSM, Obama will announce his plans to curb (non-existent) gun violence through gun control. The real issue, though Obama and Biden will be loathe to admit it, is control.

True, the shooting in Newtown, CT, were tragic. But why not place the blame where it belongs: Adam Lanza? Lanza, not the guns, was violent. The gun(s) Lanza used did not act of their own accord. The gun(s) Lanza used cannot speak for themselves. But you can bet that Lanza has secured a loud mouth lawyer who will advise Lanza to plead “temporary insanity” and hit the cable TV “news” circuit. And that is what Obama, Biden, and the MSM will play up.

But preventing violence is simply not on Obama’s or Biden’s agenda. They have chosen a target to demagogue that cannot speak for itself, cannot protest the daily violence perpetrated against them. Did you know that there are an estimated 3,562 abortions each day? That is equivalent to 178 Newtown shootings each day. Abortions are certainly violent, especially to the fetus being murdered, I mean legally aborted.

Prevent gun violence? Obama’s way to prevent it is to control guns. Prevent violence? No way.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »