Barack Obama put the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation rather than leading a great one.
By SHELBY STEELE Oct 27, 2010
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don't know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.
All this would be enough to explain the disillusionment with this president—and with the Democratic Party that he leads. But there is also a deeper disjunction. There is an "otherness" about Mr. Obama, the sense that he is somehow not truly American. "Birthers" doubt that he was born on American soil. Others believe that he is secretly a Muslim, or in quiet simpatico with his old friends, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, now icons of American radicalism.
But Barack Obama is not an "other" so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new "counterculture" American identity. And this new American identity—and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned—is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying "otherness" but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.
Bad faith in America became virtuous in the '60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the "imperialism" of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the '60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America's natural default position.
Among today's liberal elite, bad faith in America is a sophistication, a kind of hipness. More importantly, it is the perfect formula for political and governmental power. It rationalizes power in the name of intervening against evil—I will use the government to intervene against the evil tendencies of American life (economic inequality, structural racism and sexism, corporate greed, neglect of the environment and so on), so I need your vote.
"Hope and Change" positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in "Hope and Change." It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.
But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America's characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.
When bad faith is your framework (Michelle Obama never being proud of her country until it supported her husband), then you become more a national scold than a real leader. You lead out of a feeling that your opposition is really only the latest incarnation of that old characterological evil that you always knew was there. Thus the tea party—despite all the evidence to the contrary—is seen as racist and bigoted.
But isn't the tea party, on some level, a reaction to a president who seems not to fully trust the fundamental decency of the American people? Doesn't the tea party fill a void left open by Mr. Obama's ethos of bad faith? Aren't tea partiers, and their many fellow travelers, simply saying that American exceptionalism isn't racism? And if the mainstream media see tea partiers as bumpkins and racists, isn't this just more bad faith—characterizing people as ignorant or evil so as to dismiss them?
Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can't just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can't take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.
Next week's election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in '94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes.
Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution
Mr Steele has nailed exactly how the country feels.
Michael Mack
An American
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A Tale of Two Preidents - President Obama and President Pinera Who is the TRUE Leader?
A tale of 2 Presidents – President Obama of the United States and President Sebastion Pinera of Chile’
Chile’ Mine Disaster
A chronology of the disaster and rescue operation to date:
• August 5: A mine shaft caves-in at a depth of 300 meters (984 feet) in the San Jose mine, 500 miles (800 kilometers) north of Santiago.
• August 6: Chilean President Sebastian Pinera says his government will do “everything humanly possible” to rescue 33 missing miners.
• August 7: New cave-ins complicate attempts for a direct rescue through a ventilation duct.
• August 12: Mining Minister Laurence Golborne says the chances of finding the miners alive are slim.
• August 22: A drill probe reaches the miners and they attach a note to it saying: “All 33 of us are well inside the shelter.” The first video footage shows the miners waving their arms and apparently in good condition.
• August 23: The trapped miners beg to be rescued soon and receive first supplies via a pipeline.
• August 25: Chilean officials tell the miners it could be months before they are rescued. They exchange their first letters with their families.
• August 26: A Chilean judge orders 1.8 million dollars to be frozen from the accounts of the mine in order to pay future compensation claims.
• August 29: The miners move camp to a drier, cooler site deeper inside the mine. They also speak for the first time with their loved ones by radio-telephone.
• August 30: Rescuers start drilling a first 30-centimeter (12-inch) pilot hole, aiming for the shelter.
• September 4: The miners hold a first videoconference with their families.
• September 18: A second drill reaches the level of the miners, but its 630-meter (2,070-foot) deep hole must now be widened.
• September 19: A third, more powerful drill starts work on another shaft.
• September 30: Families of 29 of the 33 workers file suit against their employer, seeking 12 million dollars in damages.
• October 9: The main rescue shaft breaks through to where the miners are trapped.
• October: Some 69 days after their ordeal began, the first miner, Florencio Avalos, is pulled to the surface in a specially designed steel cage winched up through the rescue shaft.
October 13th Last miner rescued embraces president they have a conversation about the incident. The president leads the entire country and the entire group of Hundreds of people at the rescue site in singing the Chile’national anthem and saluting the Flag.
BP Oil Disaster
A chronology of the disaster and cleanup operation to date:
April 18th Obama plays golf.
April 20: Deepwater Horizon Explosion. 52 miles off the coast of Louisiana 11 crew members are killed.
April 20th to June 25th Obama plays golf 7 times.
April 22: Deep Water Horizon sinks 36 hours after the Well explodes, the pipe connecting the well breaks.
April24: Oil Leak discovered 5,000 feet below surface..
April 25: Romote control robots try to close the well.
April 26: Senators call for Investigation on offshore drilling and reevaluation of Coast guard resources to deal with emergencies.
Leak estimated at 42,000 gallons per day. Oil appears on surface in 600 sq. mile oil slick.
April 29: Oil approaches Louisiana coast Bobby Jindal declares state of emergency.
Interior Department say oil leak could last 3 months, Coast Guard Rear Admiral says we are prepared for the worst. BP is a very responsible spiller.
Robert Gibbs assures American People the President is deeply involved in the Oil Spill.
April 30 White House restates position about Morotorium and no new drilling will be authorized.
May2 White House “ We are stepping on the neck of BP”
Obama makes visit to Gulf coast “your governmet will do whatever it takes to to stop the crisis, plus BP will be payihn the bill.
May 3rd BP CEO Tony Hayward says BP will pay for clean up.
Gulf Fishing Shut down
May 4th BP sprays dispersants in Gulf
Oil hits barrier islands in Louisiana
May 5th Small leak capped
May 7th Containment dome lowered
May 8th Containment dome failed
May 11th BP blames Transocean for leak.
Secretary of Interior calls for MMS Reform
May 14th BP lowballs leak flow to 210,000 gallons per day.
May 18th No fishing zone expanded
May 20th Spill Cam goes live.
May 21 – Obama appoints Spill Commission
May 26th Top Kill begins – effort to plug leak
May 27 President Obama announces a 6 month extension of the moratorium on Oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico. Reiterates Oil spill is my “ highest priority”
also the MMS Head Resigns.
June 1 Department of Justice launches Criminal Probe
June 11 Obama attends Washington National’s baseball game.
June 12th Obama plays golf
July 15th Oil leak capped after 85 days and 189 million gallons leaked
Attached is an article from Martin Sieff, I could not say it any better……
What a man is this President Sebastian Pinera of Chile! He believes in God and is not afraid to say so. He doesn't care about being ridiculed by the American Civil Liberties Union or its Chilean equivalent: He orders church bells to be rung to celebrate the amazing, truly miraculous rescue of 33 miners trapped underground for more than two months in his country's San Jose mine.
Pinera doesn't give endlessly long speeches that are packed with so many weightless, meaningless clichés that they rise out of sight and out of memory as soon as the worthless, empty words are uttered. When Sebastian Pinera simply says, “We are not the same Chile we were 69 days ago,” he brings tears to the eyes of millions of people far beyond the borders of his own admirable country.
In other words, Sebastian Pinera is not Barack Obama. Pinera is a real leader for the 21st century. He is a real man.
President Pinera did not sit back passively when the miners were trapped. He did not show his so-called, metrosexual, 21st century cool head and so-called “emotional balance” by showing no passion. He felt it and he showed it.
Pinera put his presidency on the line by committing himself publicly to make sure those miners were rescued come what may. How Rahm Emanuel must have laughed.
But did we get any leadership like that when BP (Yes – that’s BRITISH Petroleum, or maybe we should start calling them RUSSIAN Petroleum (RP) since they're investing so heavily in Siberia now) was choking the Gulf of Mexico with an unstoppable deep sea oil leak? The president of the United States you’ll recall, did nothing, absolutely nothing, for months except pout his mouth and grit his teeth – his usual substitute for any effective action on anything.
Obama didn't call in the best experts personally from around the world. He didn't put the vast resources of the United States government or assemble the unmatchable expertise of the U.S. oil industry, the best in the world, on the job. He just sat back passively and let RP -- sorry, BP – make things worse.
Barack Obama and his shameless acolytes like economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, The Washington Post's Richard Cohen and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, have redefined democratic leadership
as pious, whining, passive, dignified ineptitude. The only time Obama expresses any passion at all is when he’s whimpering about how all those big bad conservative talk show commentators are being so horrible to him.
The Chilean people in their democratically-expressed wisdom picked a brave and magnificent leader as their president. We got an empty suit who makes Jimmy Carter look like Rambo. Can we swap?
Martin Sieff is former Managing Editor, International Affairs, for United Press International. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East.”
Michael Mack
An American
Chile’ Mine Disaster
A chronology of the disaster and rescue operation to date:
• August 5: A mine shaft caves-in at a depth of 300 meters (984 feet) in the San Jose mine, 500 miles (800 kilometers) north of Santiago.
• August 6: Chilean President Sebastian Pinera says his government will do “everything humanly possible” to rescue 33 missing miners.
• August 7: New cave-ins complicate attempts for a direct rescue through a ventilation duct.
• August 12: Mining Minister Laurence Golborne says the chances of finding the miners alive are slim.
• August 22: A drill probe reaches the miners and they attach a note to it saying: “All 33 of us are well inside the shelter.” The first video footage shows the miners waving their arms and apparently in good condition.
• August 23: The trapped miners beg to be rescued soon and receive first supplies via a pipeline.
• August 25: Chilean officials tell the miners it could be months before they are rescued. They exchange their first letters with their families.
• August 26: A Chilean judge orders 1.8 million dollars to be frozen from the accounts of the mine in order to pay future compensation claims.
• August 29: The miners move camp to a drier, cooler site deeper inside the mine. They also speak for the first time with their loved ones by radio-telephone.
• August 30: Rescuers start drilling a first 30-centimeter (12-inch) pilot hole, aiming for the shelter.
• September 4: The miners hold a first videoconference with their families.
• September 18: A second drill reaches the level of the miners, but its 630-meter (2,070-foot) deep hole must now be widened.
• September 19: A third, more powerful drill starts work on another shaft.
• September 30: Families of 29 of the 33 workers file suit against their employer, seeking 12 million dollars in damages.
• October 9: The main rescue shaft breaks through to where the miners are trapped.
• October: Some 69 days after their ordeal began, the first miner, Florencio Avalos, is pulled to the surface in a specially designed steel cage winched up through the rescue shaft.
October 13th Last miner rescued embraces president they have a conversation about the incident. The president leads the entire country and the entire group of Hundreds of people at the rescue site in singing the Chile’national anthem and saluting the Flag.
BP Oil Disaster
A chronology of the disaster and cleanup operation to date:
April 18th Obama plays golf.
April 20: Deepwater Horizon Explosion. 52 miles off the coast of Louisiana 11 crew members are killed.
April 20th to June 25th Obama plays golf 7 times.
April 22: Deep Water Horizon sinks 36 hours after the Well explodes, the pipe connecting the well breaks.
April24: Oil Leak discovered 5,000 feet below surface..
April 25: Romote control robots try to close the well.
April 26: Senators call for Investigation on offshore drilling and reevaluation of Coast guard resources to deal with emergencies.
Leak estimated at 42,000 gallons per day. Oil appears on surface in 600 sq. mile oil slick.
April 29: Oil approaches Louisiana coast Bobby Jindal declares state of emergency.
Interior Department say oil leak could last 3 months, Coast Guard Rear Admiral says we are prepared for the worst. BP is a very responsible spiller.
Robert Gibbs assures American People the President is deeply involved in the Oil Spill.
April 30 White House restates position about Morotorium and no new drilling will be authorized.
May2 White House “ We are stepping on the neck of BP”
Obama makes visit to Gulf coast “your governmet will do whatever it takes to to stop the crisis, plus BP will be payihn the bill.
May 3rd BP CEO Tony Hayward says BP will pay for clean up.
Gulf Fishing Shut down
May 4th BP sprays dispersants in Gulf
Oil hits barrier islands in Louisiana
May 5th Small leak capped
May 7th Containment dome lowered
May 8th Containment dome failed
May 11th BP blames Transocean for leak.
Secretary of Interior calls for MMS Reform
May 14th BP lowballs leak flow to 210,000 gallons per day.
May 18th No fishing zone expanded
May 20th Spill Cam goes live.
May 21 – Obama appoints Spill Commission
May 26th Top Kill begins – effort to plug leak
May 27 President Obama announces a 6 month extension of the moratorium on Oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico. Reiterates Oil spill is my “ highest priority”
also the MMS Head Resigns.
June 1 Department of Justice launches Criminal Probe
June 11 Obama attends Washington National’s baseball game.
June 12th Obama plays golf
July 15th Oil leak capped after 85 days and 189 million gallons leaked
Attached is an article from Martin Sieff, I could not say it any better……
What a man is this President Sebastian Pinera of Chile! He believes in God and is not afraid to say so. He doesn't care about being ridiculed by the American Civil Liberties Union or its Chilean equivalent: He orders church bells to be rung to celebrate the amazing, truly miraculous rescue of 33 miners trapped underground for more than two months in his country's San Jose mine.
Pinera doesn't give endlessly long speeches that are packed with so many weightless, meaningless clichés that they rise out of sight and out of memory as soon as the worthless, empty words are uttered. When Sebastian Pinera simply says, “We are not the same Chile we were 69 days ago,” he brings tears to the eyes of millions of people far beyond the borders of his own admirable country.
In other words, Sebastian Pinera is not Barack Obama. Pinera is a real leader for the 21st century. He is a real man.
President Pinera did not sit back passively when the miners were trapped. He did not show his so-called, metrosexual, 21st century cool head and so-called “emotional balance” by showing no passion. He felt it and he showed it.
Pinera put his presidency on the line by committing himself publicly to make sure those miners were rescued come what may. How Rahm Emanuel must have laughed.
But did we get any leadership like that when BP (Yes – that’s BRITISH Petroleum, or maybe we should start calling them RUSSIAN Petroleum (RP) since they're investing so heavily in Siberia now) was choking the Gulf of Mexico with an unstoppable deep sea oil leak? The president of the United States you’ll recall, did nothing, absolutely nothing, for months except pout his mouth and grit his teeth – his usual substitute for any effective action on anything.
Obama didn't call in the best experts personally from around the world. He didn't put the vast resources of the United States government or assemble the unmatchable expertise of the U.S. oil industry, the best in the world, on the job. He just sat back passively and let RP -- sorry, BP – make things worse.
Barack Obama and his shameless acolytes like economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, The Washington Post's Richard Cohen and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, have redefined democratic leadership
as pious, whining, passive, dignified ineptitude. The only time Obama expresses any passion at all is when he’s whimpering about how all those big bad conservative talk show commentators are being so horrible to him.
The Chilean people in their democratically-expressed wisdom picked a brave and magnificent leader as their president. We got an empty suit who makes Jimmy Carter look like Rambo. Can we swap?
Martin Sieff is former Managing Editor, International Affairs, for United Press International. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East.”
Michael Mack
An American
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
U.S. Government Loaned Mexican Government More Than $1 Billion to Drill Oil in Gulf of Mexico
The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency, loaned more than $1 billion to the Mexican state oil company PEMEX in 2009 to support the company’s oil drilling in the southern Gulf of Mexico. The bank has another $1 billion in loans in the pipeline for 2010, unless Congress objects.
On May 27, after the British Petroleum oil spill, President Obama imposed a moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf, effecting 33 deepwater drilling rigs in the region.
So let me get this straight? We ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, The U.S. Oil Companies layoff Thousands of workers, and now OUR Government loans the Mexican Government $1 Billion dollars so they can drill in the Gulf of Mexico.......
Looks like just another step in the Socialist Plan to Re-Distribute wealth away from the U.S. and give the jobs to a poorer country. The results will be, put the workers on unemployment benefits, the jobs will not return, the workers will draw unemployment, loose their homes, some will file for bankruptcy...Just another day in Washington DC.
The people in Washington wants you to believe they have your back.. Yeah Right!!
Time for a change the President's plan is to destroy this country and the democratic congress is a rubber stamp. There is not a Tea Party candidate or true conservative that would vote for this...Remember That!!
Michael Mack
An American
On May 27, after the British Petroleum oil spill, President Obama imposed a moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf, effecting 33 deepwater drilling rigs in the region.
So let me get this straight? We ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, The U.S. Oil Companies layoff Thousands of workers, and now OUR Government loans the Mexican Government $1 Billion dollars so they can drill in the Gulf of Mexico.......
Looks like just another step in the Socialist Plan to Re-Distribute wealth away from the U.S. and give the jobs to a poorer country. The results will be, put the workers on unemployment benefits, the jobs will not return, the workers will draw unemployment, loose their homes, some will file for bankruptcy...Just another day in Washington DC.
The people in Washington wants you to believe they have your back.. Yeah Right!!
Time for a change the President's plan is to destroy this country and the democratic congress is a rubber stamp. There is not a Tea Party candidate or true conservative that would vote for this...Remember That!!
Michael Mack
An American
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Chrysler's Been Railroaded!
Chrysler's Been Railroaded!
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's
Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why
was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the
Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared
bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and
federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep
them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big
to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and
GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy
named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar -
literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this
list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news
agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by
the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve
Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why
certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed
the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government,
788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes,
while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only
"Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700
to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This
same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens
to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former
national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As
such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the
nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky
"coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened
in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that
Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns
a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the
name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and
was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of
RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were
ordered closed - not one!
While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and
Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major
Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their
zone.
Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a
dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made
up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under
the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal
government and the United Auto Workers union!
Fiat owns 20%.
The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded
on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the
auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to
be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has
the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of
100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now,
in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the
"Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or
to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever
wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the
phone to your national senator or representative in the House and
demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for
evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's
Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced
by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and
spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another
opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the
future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar
pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors
he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal
involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again,
that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with
his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but
him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.
But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"......as Tim
Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO, HOW'S THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
on the part of our government! I hope you will spread this far and
wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that
transparency we were promised......followed by criminal prosecution of
the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!! Vote 'em all out...November, 2010!
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's
Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison. Why
was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the
Chrysler Corporation were to be closed?
Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared
bankruptcy. Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and
federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep
them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs."
Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big
to fail," same story with GM.
The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and
GM. Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy
named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar -
literally, that's what his title is.
Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this
list of dealerships'. Not true!
The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news
agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by
the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve
Rattner.
Now the plot thickens.
Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why
certain dealerships were closed?
Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed
the connection.
Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government,
788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes,
while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only
"Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700
to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This
same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens
to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former
national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As
such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the
nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky
"coincidence," we're certain.
Then comes another really wacky "coincidence."
On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened
in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri . It seems that
Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns
a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the
name of Robert Johnson.
Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and
was a huge Obama supporter and financier.
These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of
RLJ-McClarty-Landers. Interestingly, none of their dealerships were
ordered closed - not one!
While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were!
Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and
Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major
Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their
zone.
Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a
dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made
up.
Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under
the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal
government and the United Auto Workers union!
Fiat owns 20%.
The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded
on the stock market. Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the
auto industry.
As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to
be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has
the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of
100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda.
This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now,
in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the
"Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or
to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done.
Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever
wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the
phone to your national senator or representative in the House and
demand an investigation into this.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for
evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's
Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced
by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom.
According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and
spend time with his family."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another
opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the
future."
By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar
pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ....
Uh-oh!
But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors
he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal
involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again,
that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with
his family."
Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but
him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.
But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,"......as Tim
Geithner likes to say!
SOOOOO, HOW'S THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?..
Check it out at the following websites.....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html
on the part of our government! I hope you will spread this far and
wide, and hopefully the taxpaying public will demand some of that
transparency we were promised......followed by criminal prosecution of
the perpetrators!
What a crooked government, we have!!!!! Vote 'em all out...November, 2010!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Islam is the Greatest Threat to America Today
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
· The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States à Muslim 0.6%
Australia à Muslim 1.5%
Canada à Muslim 1.9%
China à Muslim 1.8%
Italy à Muslim 1.5%
Norway à Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark à Muslim 2%
Germany à Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom à Muslim 2.7%
Spain à Muslim 4%
Thailand à Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France à Muslim 8%
Philippines à 5%
Sweden à Muslim 5%
Switzerland à Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands à Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago à Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana à Muslim 10%
India à Muslim 13.4%
Israel à Muslim 16%
Kenya à Muslim 10%
Russia à Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia à Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks,
and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia à Muslim 40%
Chad à Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon à Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania à Muslim 70%
Malaysia à Muslim 60.4%
Qatar à Muslim 77.5%
Sudan à Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run
ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the
infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and
in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh à Muslim 83%
Egypt à Muslim 90%
Gaza à Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia à Muslim 86.1%
Iran à Muslim 98%
Iraq à Muslim 97%
Jordan à Muslim 92%
Morocco à Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan à Muslim 97%
Palestine à Muslim 99%
Syria à Muslim 90%
Tajikistan à Muslim 90%
Turkey à Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates à Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan à Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia à Muslim 100%
Somalia à Muslim 100%
Yemen à Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'TheHaj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only
the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make the US' homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?
Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?
Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically à no � Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously à no � Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally à no � Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically à no � Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially à no � Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically à no � Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically à no � Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually à no � Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically à no � Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually à no � Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier???
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
· SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
· THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
· The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States à Muslim 0.6%
Australia à Muslim 1.5%
Canada à Muslim 1.9%
China à Muslim 1.8%
Italy à Muslim 1.5%
Norway à Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark à Muslim 2%
Germany à Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom à Muslim 2.7%
Spain à Muslim 4%
Thailand à Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France à Muslim 8%
Philippines à 5%
Sweden à Muslim 5%
Switzerland à Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands à Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago à Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana à Muslim 10%
India à Muslim 13.4%
Israel à Muslim 16%
Kenya à Muslim 10%
Russia à Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia à Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks,
and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia à Muslim 40%
Chad à Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon à Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania à Muslim 70%
Malaysia à Muslim 60.4%
Qatar à Muslim 77.5%
Sudan à Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run
ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the
infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and
in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh à Muslim 83%
Egypt à Muslim 90%
Gaza à Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia à Muslim 86.1%
Iran à Muslim 98%
Iraq à Muslim 97%
Jordan à Muslim 92%
Morocco à Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan à Muslim 97%
Palestine à Muslim 99%
Syria à Muslim 90%
Tajikistan à Muslim 90%
Turkey à Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates à Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan à Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia à Muslim 100%
Somalia à Muslim 100%
Yemen à Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'TheHaj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only
the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
That should make the US' homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?
Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood?
Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically à no � Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously à no � Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally à no � Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically à no � Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially à no � Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically à no � Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically à no � Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually à no � Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically à no � Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually à no � Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a Muslim be a good soldier???
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
· SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
· THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Financial Meltdown on the Horizon..and Obama tells you things are great!
As another example of President Obama's lack of leadership and inability to make a decisive decisions, Obama has appointed a committee to examine the future of the economy...a rope a dope move to side step a decision, and show no leadership.
The two leaders -- former Republican senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton
Bowles said that unlike the current economic crisis, which was largely unforeseen before it hit in fall 2008, the coming fiscal calamity is staring the country in the face. "This one is as clear as a bell," he said. "This debt is like a cancer."
I disagree with Bowles 2008 was not unforseen - the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority home ownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.
Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.
Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)upon taking office Christie declared a state of emergency, signing an executive order that froze spending, and then, in eight weeks, cutting $13 billion in spending. In March he presented to the Legislature his first budget, which cuts 9 percent of spending, including more than $800 million in education funding; seeks to privatize numerous government functions; projects 1,300 layoffs; and caps tax increases.
Christie is adamant about lowering taxes. After taxes were raised 115 times in the last eight years, he said the wealthy are tapped out. Property taxes rose nearly 70 percent in the last decade, and studies show top earners — the 1 percent of taxpayers paying 40 percent of income tax — are fleeing the Garden State.
As the United States watches a debt crisis in Greece like a fiscal oil spill, waiting to see where it will spread first and when it will make landfall on our shores, Christie is tackling the nation’s worst state deficit — $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget. In doing so, Christie has become the politician so many Americans crave, one willing to lose his job. Indeed, Christie is doing something unheard of: governing as a Republican in a blue state, just as he campaigned, making good on promises, acting like his last election is behind him.
Wow! He went from campaigning to governing - That's a unique concept
The last time I looked at TV Obama was still campaigning, or golfing, or fund raising - not governing and leading this nation.
This is what is happening on Main Street
For a growing number of Americans, job prospects are bleak, savings are too low, debts are overwhelming, and, as the following report reveals, credit ratings are shot to pieces -- how in heck can anybody even think that we are on the cusp of a consumer-led recovery?
Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers - nearly 43.4 million people - now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders. It's unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.
Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.
"I don't get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings," said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. "I have plenty of business, but I'm struggling to stay open."
FICO's latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO's 300-to-850 scale weren't as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.
We hear nonsense like the job market is improving, but one statistic presents a stark reminder of the challenges that remain: Nearly half of the unemployed—45.9%—have been out of work longer than six months, more than at any time since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1948.
…Overall, seven million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and most of them—4.7 million—have been out of work for a year or more.
Long-term unemployment has reached nearly every segment of the population, but some have been particularly hard-hit. The typical long-term unemployed worker is a white man with a high-school education or less. Older unemployed workers also tend to be out of work longer. Those between ages 65 and 69 who still wish to work have typically been jobless for 49.8 weeks.
The effects of long-term unemployment are likely to linger when the overall jobless rate falls toward normal, threatening to create a pool of nearly permanently unemployed workers, a condition once more common in Europe than in the U.S.
The picture is that of a crisis rather than a correction! Regardless, it is the the reality of more than 7.9 million Americans who have fallen off the economic radar.
Let me ask you something?
Do you believe anything this administration says about a "Recovery?"
It reminds of a story I heard:
A cowboy from Texas attends a social function where Barack Obama is trying to gather support for his Health Plan. Once he discovers the cowboy is from President Bush's home area, he starts to belittle him by talking in a southern drawl and single syllable words.
As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, "Y'all havin' some problem with them circle flies?"
Obama stopped talking and said, "Well, yes, if that's what they're called, but I've never heard of circle flies."
"Well, sir," the cowboy replies, "Circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."
"Oh," Obama replies as he goes back to rambling.
But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks, "Are you calling me a horse's ass?"
"No, sir," the cowboy replies, "I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their president a horse's ass."
"That's a good thing," Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.
After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says, "Hard to fool them flies, though."
Remember this story the next time Obama starts telling you how good things are!
Michael Mack
An American
The two leaders -- former Republican senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton
Bowles said that unlike the current economic crisis, which was largely unforeseen before it hit in fall 2008, the coming fiscal calamity is staring the country in the face. "This one is as clear as a bell," he said. "This debt is like a cancer."
I disagree with Bowles 2008 was not unforseen - the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority home ownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.
Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.
Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)upon taking office Christie declared a state of emergency, signing an executive order that froze spending, and then, in eight weeks, cutting $13 billion in spending. In March he presented to the Legislature his first budget, which cuts 9 percent of spending, including more than $800 million in education funding; seeks to privatize numerous government functions; projects 1,300 layoffs; and caps tax increases.
Christie is adamant about lowering taxes. After taxes were raised 115 times in the last eight years, he said the wealthy are tapped out. Property taxes rose nearly 70 percent in the last decade, and studies show top earners — the 1 percent of taxpayers paying 40 percent of income tax — are fleeing the Garden State.
As the United States watches a debt crisis in Greece like a fiscal oil spill, waiting to see where it will spread first and when it will make landfall on our shores, Christie is tackling the nation’s worst state deficit — $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget. In doing so, Christie has become the politician so many Americans crave, one willing to lose his job. Indeed, Christie is doing something unheard of: governing as a Republican in a blue state, just as he campaigned, making good on promises, acting like his last election is behind him.
Wow! He went from campaigning to governing - That's a unique concept
The last time I looked at TV Obama was still campaigning, or golfing, or fund raising - not governing and leading this nation.
This is what is happening on Main Street
For a growing number of Americans, job prospects are bleak, savings are too low, debts are overwhelming, and, as the following report reveals, credit ratings are shot to pieces -- how in heck can anybody even think that we are on the cusp of a consumer-led recovery?
Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers - nearly 43.4 million people - now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders. It's unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.
Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.
"I don't get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings," said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. "I have plenty of business, but I'm struggling to stay open."
FICO's latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO's 300-to-850 scale weren't as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.
We hear nonsense like the job market is improving, but one statistic presents a stark reminder of the challenges that remain: Nearly half of the unemployed—45.9%—have been out of work longer than six months, more than at any time since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1948.
…Overall, seven million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and most of them—4.7 million—have been out of work for a year or more.
Long-term unemployment has reached nearly every segment of the population, but some have been particularly hard-hit. The typical long-term unemployed worker is a white man with a high-school education or less. Older unemployed workers also tend to be out of work longer. Those between ages 65 and 69 who still wish to work have typically been jobless for 49.8 weeks.
The effects of long-term unemployment are likely to linger when the overall jobless rate falls toward normal, threatening to create a pool of nearly permanently unemployed workers, a condition once more common in Europe than in the U.S.
The picture is that of a crisis rather than a correction! Regardless, it is the the reality of more than 7.9 million Americans who have fallen off the economic radar.
Let me ask you something?
Do you believe anything this administration says about a "Recovery?"
It reminds of a story I heard:
A cowboy from Texas attends a social function where Barack Obama is trying to gather support for his Health Plan. Once he discovers the cowboy is from President Bush's home area, he starts to belittle him by talking in a southern drawl and single syllable words.
As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, "Y'all havin' some problem with them circle flies?"
Obama stopped talking and said, "Well, yes, if that's what they're called, but I've never heard of circle flies."
"Well, sir," the cowboy replies, "Circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."
"Oh," Obama replies as he goes back to rambling.
But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks, "Are you calling me a horse's ass?"
"No, sir," the cowboy replies, "I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their president a horse's ass."
"That's a good thing," Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.
After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says, "Hard to fool them flies, though."
Remember this story the next time Obama starts telling you how good things are!
Michael Mack
An American
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Freddie Mac Tries to trash Homeowners rather Man up to the Reality that they caused the Whole Thing
The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley.
Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population. In contrast homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.
Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.
“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.
For those who have not suffered any disruption in income and have a longer time horizon, simply continuing to pay the bills might be best. Over time, recovering house prices and declining mortgage balances likely will close some, if not all, of the equity gap. According to the Federal Reserve, while the housing bust wiped out $8 trillion in home equity, $1 trillion came back in 2009. The point here: time might be your best ally.
In the end, borrowers considering a strategic default should recognize the damaging impact their actions can have on others. While a personal financial strategy might argue for a strategic default, entire communities and future homebuyers can be harmed as a result. And that is why our broader social and policy interests will be best served by discouraging strategic defaults. He acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.
Don Bisenius Executive Vice President Freddie Mac
Let's consider the Politics?
"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.
Liebowitz puts forward an explanation that he admits is "not consistent with the nasty-subprime-lender hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown."
In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority home ownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
"In an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s," Liebowitz writes. "The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as 'innovation' in mortgage lending by regulators, academic specialists, (government-sponsored enterprises) and housing activists."
He continues, "Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise."
"As home ownership rates increased there was self-congratulation all around," Liebowitz writes. "The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in home ownership."
An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in home ownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."
John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, however, claimed in a Fox News article yesterday that the success came at a great price.
According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.
Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.
"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."
Liebowitz' contention that lenders were under pressure to loosen their standards for racial and political goals was confirmed years ago by the companies at the heart of today's crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.
An ominous paragraph of the article reads, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.
"After the warm fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off," Liebowitz wrote, "we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that led to bad loans. … It will be ironic and unfortunate if minority applicants wind up paying a very heavy price for a misguided policy based on a badly mangled idea."
And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.
"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.
"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."
In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.
The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.
Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.
The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.
A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ordered the two mortgage-finance giants to de-list their common and preferred stock from the New York Stock Exchange, the latest example of how the mortgage giants are shedding their ties to private ownership.
The move came one day after the NYSE formally notified the government that Fannie Mae no longer met listing standards because its shares had fallen below the $1 share-price threshold maintained by NYSE Euronext.
The U.S. government has ordered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to delist from the stock market, a federal agency said.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the companies' regulator, said the notice from the NYSE prompted Wednesday's decision to voluntarily delist.
The FHFA said it chose that route rather than to present a "cure," or plan to bring the companies' shares back above $1, because it couldn't be sure that such a plan would work or that it would be in the interest of the government and shareholders to try to keep prices above the $1 threshold.
Now lets go back to Don Bisenius comment about home owners trashing their neighborhoods, He acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.
Don Bisenius Executive Vice President Freddie Mac
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae trashed the country and now tries to lay the blame on the homeowner for a housing bust they caused wiped out $8 trillion in home equity?
If the home equity had not vanished we would not be talking about this!
Left and Right Politics aside, both are guilty was hell!
So who is the jerk in this story The Homeowner? or the Fannie & Freddie?
In the latest disaster that cannot be managed- The BP Oil Disaster
Anyone with any common sense at all could do better than the Government - My worst supervisor at UPS could have handled the oil disaster with ease, He/she would have contained the problem immediately, Manned up to handle the problem and worked 24 hours a day for a week to keep it from growing, and oil never would have touched land or if it did it would minimal. What did the government do?
Failed to act immediately.
Failed to get all equipment in place to neutralize the oil. (last count I heard 33 countries offered assistance - on Day 3 - about day 70 we accepted a tanker with the diffusion capability)
Let it get so big it is impossible to control.
I guarantee you this disaster could have been contained if private enterprise and the states would have been unleashed rather than stifled.
Oh yeah I forgot blame Bush. can't forget that, If Obama did not Have Bush to blame he might have to do something!
Whomever you choose to blame - The Government cannot run anything so bend over and hold your ankles this is not going to be fun!
Health care is the next debacle!
Michael Mack
An American
Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population. In contrast homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.
Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.
“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.
For those who have not suffered any disruption in income and have a longer time horizon, simply continuing to pay the bills might be best. Over time, recovering house prices and declining mortgage balances likely will close some, if not all, of the equity gap. According to the Federal Reserve, while the housing bust wiped out $8 trillion in home equity, $1 trillion came back in 2009. The point here: time might be your best ally.
In the end, borrowers considering a strategic default should recognize the damaging impact their actions can have on others. While a personal financial strategy might argue for a strategic default, entire communities and future homebuyers can be harmed as a result. And that is why our broader social and policy interests will be best served by discouraging strategic defaults. He acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.
Don Bisenius Executive Vice President Freddie Mac
Let's consider the Politics?
"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.
Liebowitz puts forward an explanation that he admits is "not consistent with the nasty-subprime-lender hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown."
In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority home ownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.
"In an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s," Liebowitz writes. "The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as 'innovation' in mortgage lending by regulators, academic specialists, (government-sponsored enterprises) and housing activists."
He continues, "Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise."
"As home ownership rates increased there was self-congratulation all around," Liebowitz writes. "The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in home ownership."
An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in home ownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."
John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, however, claimed in a Fox News article yesterday that the success came at a great price.
According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.
Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.
"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."
Liebowitz' contention that lenders were under pressure to loosen their standards for racial and political goals was confirmed years ago by the companies at the heart of today's crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.
An ominous paragraph of the article reads, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.
"After the warm fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off," Liebowitz wrote, "we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that led to bad loans. … It will be ironic and unfortunate if minority applicants wind up paying a very heavy price for a misguided policy based on a badly mangled idea."
And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.
"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.
"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."
In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.
The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.
Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.
The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.
A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.
The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ordered the two mortgage-finance giants to de-list their common and preferred stock from the New York Stock Exchange, the latest example of how the mortgage giants are shedding their ties to private ownership.
The move came one day after the NYSE formally notified the government that Fannie Mae no longer met listing standards because its shares had fallen below the $1 share-price threshold maintained by NYSE Euronext.
The U.S. government has ordered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to delist from the stock market, a federal agency said.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the companies' regulator, said the notice from the NYSE prompted Wednesday's decision to voluntarily delist.
The FHFA said it chose that route rather than to present a "cure," or plan to bring the companies' shares back above $1, because it couldn't be sure that such a plan would work or that it would be in the interest of the government and shareholders to try to keep prices above the $1 threshold.
Now lets go back to Don Bisenius comment about home owners trashing their neighborhoods, He acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.
Don Bisenius Executive Vice President Freddie Mac
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae trashed the country and now tries to lay the blame on the homeowner for a housing bust they caused wiped out $8 trillion in home equity?
If the home equity had not vanished we would not be talking about this!
Left and Right Politics aside, both are guilty was hell!
So who is the jerk in this story The Homeowner? or the Fannie & Freddie?
In the latest disaster that cannot be managed- The BP Oil Disaster
Anyone with any common sense at all could do better than the Government - My worst supervisor at UPS could have handled the oil disaster with ease, He/she would have contained the problem immediately, Manned up to handle the problem and worked 24 hours a day for a week to keep it from growing, and oil never would have touched land or if it did it would minimal. What did the government do?
Failed to act immediately.
Failed to get all equipment in place to neutralize the oil. (last count I heard 33 countries offered assistance - on Day 3 - about day 70 we accepted a tanker with the diffusion capability)
Let it get so big it is impossible to control.
I guarantee you this disaster could have been contained if private enterprise and the states would have been unleashed rather than stifled.
Oh yeah I forgot blame Bush. can't forget that, If Obama did not Have Bush to blame he might have to do something!
Whomever you choose to blame - The Government cannot run anything so bend over and hold your ankles this is not going to be fun!
Health care is the next debacle!
Michael Mack
An American
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)