DC Conservatives: “Bailout Is Un-American Socialism Of The Worst Kind” – With Video

“Big Bro” Threatens TV Stations About The NRA Ads

McCain Says There ‘Never Was A Deal’ On Wall Street Bailout


McCain Says There ‘Never Was A Deal’ On Wall

 Street Bailout

WASHINGTON (AFP)–Republican White House hopeful Sen. John McCain denied Thursday there ever had been any deal in place between Congress and the White House on a $700-billion Wall Street bailout plan.

McCain said on ABC News after talks at the White House that also included his Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama that he still hoped to go to the scheduled presidential debate Friday night in Mississippi.

But his senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt accused Obama of putting himself before his country, by continuing to run campaign ads while the high-stakes political drama over the economic crisis was playing out.

McCain said he knew going into the White House meeting called by President Bush that there was no deal, after having said Wednesday the debate should be canceled if a bailout wasn’t secured.

“I knew going in, because I had been over on the House side with my House Republican colleagues, there never was a deal,” McCain said. “But I do believe the meeting was important to move the process along.”

Democrats accused McCain of unhelpful grandstanding and poisoning the process with presidential politics by putting his campaign on hold and returning to Washington, with a deal apparently almost in place.

But Schmidt said McCain was working to persuade enough lawmakers to support the package.

“The problem right now is that any rescue package has to pass by a majority vote,” Schmidt told reporters outside McCain’s campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va.

“There is not yet a majority of Democrats or Republicans who are willing to vote yes for anything,” he said. “The votes at this hour do not yet exist.”

Schmidt also accused Obama of buying up time vacated by McCain on TV networks for campaign advertisements, when the Republican made up his mind to pull down his ads Wednesday.

“It is an example once again of Sen. McCain putting his country first, while Senator Obama puts Senator Obama first,” Schmidt said.

Status Quobama

Status Quobama

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Media caricatures make John McCain the tired, old candidate of standing pat and Barack Obama the agent of change. But it’s becoming ever clearer that Obama is the typical politician.

Read More: Election 2008


Sen. McCain suspended his campaign because he thought his place as a U.S. senator was in Washington during a big financial crisis. The Republican presidential nominee also said he wouldn’t be showing up for the first debate.

Call it a gimmick if you like, but you can bet Sen. Obama wishes he’d thought of it first. Instead, the Democratic nominee lamely retorted that the debate, set for Friday at the University of Mississippi and focusing on foreign policy, should not be delayed because “it makes sense for us to present ourselves before the American people” and “we’ve both got big planes.” But that falls flat.

McCain long ago challenged Obama to 10 freewheeling debates without the usual constraints. Obama, who is clearly ill at ease in the absence of a teleprompter, refused. Why didn’t it “make sense for us to present ourselves before the American people” then?

Was it Obama who reached out his hand to McCain and President Bush to meet and, along with congressional leaders, come to agreement on legislation to put an end to the crisis?

No, it was the Republicans who were building bridges between the parties this week — even if the ultimate solution is too light on budget cuts and reform and too heavy on increased debt and, ultimately, higher taxes.

Repeatedly, it has been McCain, not Obama, who has exhibited creativity and a willingness to adapt to events.

At the instant the establishment media’s talking heads were revving up to spend days waxing on about the greatness of Obama’s acceptance speech, he was upstaged the next morning by his GOP opponent’s naming of Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket.

Unlike the last female running mate for a major party — little-known three-term House member Geraldine Ferraro, who ran with Walter Mondale in 1984 — McCain’s choice for veep actually has experience running a government and won’t put you to sleep with her speeches.

It’s in regard to the global war on terror that the difference between McCain and Obama really hits you. McCain bucked the Washington establishment of both parties by insisting that we must win and we can win in Iraq. Both he and the president resisted the defeat-with-dignity notions contained in the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, and the resulting surge strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus fundamentally transformed the conflict there for the better.

Obama, by contrast, continues with little alteration the Democrats’ years-old mantra that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan so we can catch the ailing Osama bin Laden.

With an electorate sick of the status quo, the choice in November is between the same liberal ideology Democratic presidential candidates have offered us for years and an open-minded, maverick Republican.


“we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession”

September 25, 2008 9:28 AM
Posted By:Pam
Filed in: Economy, Subprime Crisis

Read it and send it to eveyone you know!

When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks. But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.

Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”

Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home. I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).

Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically? It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.

People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.

If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent. If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).

As Our Rome Burns, “Senator” B. Hussein Obama Wants To Read “My Pet Goat”

Obama grant being probed

Obama grant being probed

$100,000 DEAL | State to charity: What happened to garden money, other cash?

September 25, 2008


A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.

The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.

Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan — a Democrat who is supporting Obama’s presidential bid — is investigating “whether this charitable organization properly used its charitable assets, including the state funds it received,” Cara Smith, Madigan’s deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday.

In addition to the 2001 grant that Obama directed to the housing association as a “member initiative,” the not-for-profit group got a separate $20,000 state grant in 2006.

Madigan’s office has notified Obama’s presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama’s actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.

Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama’s campaign against John McCain.

Obama and Kenny Smith announced the “Englewood Botanic Garden Project” at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden — planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place — fell outside of Obama’s Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district’s borders.

Obama vowed to “work tirelessly” to raise $1.1 million to help Smith’s organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo.

In a previous interview, Smith said the state grant money was legitimately spent, mostly on underground site preparation.

But no one ever took out construction permits required for such work, city records show. And a contractor who Smith said did most of the work told a reporter all he did was cut down trees and grade the site with a Bobcat.

Citing the garden’s failure to take root, NeighborSpace — an umbrella group for dozens of community gardens citywide — moved Sept. 9 to return the site to the city. Its action followed a July 11 Sun-Times report on the grant.

Obama spokesman Michael Ortiz said Wednesday the senator’s staff in Washington will monitor the Madigan probe and an additional review under way by Gov. Blagojevich’s administration to make sure “the taxpayer funds allocated for the construction of the garden are recuperated from CBHA if the agencies determine that the funds were not properly spent.” Obama’s goal is to ensure the site “be used in a way that benefits the community and that any taxpayer dollars allocated are spent wisely,” Ortiz said.

The relationship between Smith and Obama dates to at least 1997, when Obama wrote a letter that Smith used to help the housing association win city funding for an affordable-housing development near the garden site. Plans called for more than 50 homes; a dozen ultimately were built.

Smith also has donated $550 to Obama campaign funds.

The Sun-Times learned about Karen Smith’s involvement in the project through an Aug. 12 Freedom of Information Act response from a lawyer for Blagojevich¹s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The department, according to the lawyer, had ³discovered² 52 pages of ³additional documents² ommitted from an initial response in May to a Sun-Times¹ Freedom of Information Act request about the grant. 

Neither Smith nor his wife has been accused of any wrongdoing. Smith and his lawyer did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

In an interview in July, Smith said he was never able to raise the money needed for the garden. But the state grant awarded by Obama was spent properly, he said, on the underground work, with most of the work done by a contractor whose name Smith got wrong.

The Sun-Times tracked down the contractor, Rodolfo Marin, in Austin, Texas, where he now lives.

“What I was hired for was: Clean up the area and cut the trees — that’s all,” Marin said. He said he rented a Bobcat — a sort of small bulldozer — for the project.

And how much did Smith pay him? “If he spent about $3,000 with me, that was too much.”

Chris Fusco and Dave McKinney

Absurdity of the day: President Peres To The UN – Ahmadinejad Is A Disgrace To Islam,

This has to be the absurdity of the day. Who is Peres, an Israeli Jew,  to decide what is or is not a disgrace to Islam???  Why are there no Moslems who are calling Ahmadinejad a disgrace to Islam??? Surely, Moslems have more credibility in the question that Peres! As for Ahmadinejad being a disgrace to the United Nations, where is the Secretary General of the UN?


A Danger To The Entire World


Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Shimon Peres lashed out at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling him a disgrace to Islam and a disgrace to the United Nations, and its basic principles and values.

Peres speech came a day after the General Assembly clapped Ahmadinejad after his speech before the assembly in which he rebuked America and declared that “the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool it has created itself.” The only countries to vacate their seats while Ahmadinejad spoke were the representatives of the United States and Israel.

Addressing the Assembly Peres declared that Iran is at the center of all violence and fanaticism . “”It built a danger to the entire world. Its quest for religious hegemony and regional dominance divides the Middle East and holds back chances for peace while underming human rights.”

“Iranian support for Hizbullah divided Lebanon. Its support for Hamas split the Palestinians and postpones the establishment of the Palestinian State. Their despicable denial of the holocaust is a mockery of indisputable evidence, a cynical offense to survivors of the horror. Contradictory to the resolutions adopted by this assembly. “

“Iran continues to develop enriched uranium and long range missiles. They introduce a religion of fear, opposing the call of the lord in respect of life. The Iranian people are not our enemies. Their fanatic leadership is their problem and the world’s concern. Teheran combines long range missiles and short range minds. It is pregnant with tragedies. “
“They introduce a religion of fear, opposing the call of the lord in respect of life. The Iranian people are not our enemies. Their fanatic leadership is their problem and the world’s concern. Their leader is a danger to his people, the region and the world. He is a disgrace to the ancient Iranian people. He is a disgrace to the values of Islam. He is a disgrace to this very house, the United Nations, its basic principles and values.His appearance here is already shame. “

“The General assembly and the Security Council bear responsibility to prevent agonies before they take place. Israel has shown that democracies can defend themselves. We do not intend to change. Terrorism did not solve a single problem. It never has, and never will. They will make the world ungovernable. If small groups of violent killers are allowed to threaten innocent masses, the world will be without order or security. A hopeless battle ground. The free world must unite to combat it. ” 09/25/08

Could Clinton still come back? Internet buzzes with rumours Biden will be replaced by Hillary as Obama’s running mate

The FBI is investigating potential fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc.

The FBI is investigating potential fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc.

September 23, 2008 6:32 PM
Posted By:Pam


The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration.

Two law enforcement officials said the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc.

A senior law enforcement official says the inquiries, still in preliminary stages, will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them.

Officials say the new inquiries brings the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the last year to 26.

Others blogging: