Hussein Camp Lies About McCain, But Threaten Those Who Tell Truth About Hussein – With Videos

The ‘Lost’ Palin Files

They Are Deciding How To Handle Our Money – The 50 Richest Members Of Congress

How Sarah Palin Rallied Pakistan’s Feminists

Obama And Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

Kissinger says McCain, not Obama right about Iran

Kissinger says McCain, not Obama right about Iran

Rick Moran
Henry Kissinger is none too pleased that Barack Obama seems to have misstated the former Secretary of State’s position on Iran.

Obama keeps citing Kissinger as agreeing with him that a meeting with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a good idea.

Au contraire, exclaims Kissinger:

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

(Hat Tip: Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard Blog)

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s “no preconditions” pledge is the gaffe of this campaign, hands down. There has been no more dumb, more reckless, more naive, more wrong-headed statement made by either candidate over the course of the last year. 

More than any other factor affecting Obama’s chances are people’s distrust of his instincts with regard to foreign policy. And if McCain can continue to hammer Obama on his ridiculously inapt statement that he would grant instant legitimacy and hand a propaganda victory to Iranian President Ahmadinejad by meeting with him without the Iranians having to even halt their nuclear enrichment program, he will prove to the voters that the Democratic candidate for president is a dangerous fool. 

Replenishing ACORN’s Account:Keeping the Housing Mess Going

Replenishing ACORN’s Account:Keeping the

Housing Mess Going

Clarice Feldman
Like me the WSJ thinks it’s outrageous that the Democrats are trying to find money in the bailout to keep their friends in ACORN well nourished:

Acorn has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans. Thus, we’d be funneling more cash to the groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.
This isn’t the first time this year that Democrats have tried to route money for fixing the housing crisis into the bank accounts of these community activist groups. The housing bill passed by Congress in July also included a tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise an estimated $600 million annually in grants for these lobbying groups. When Fannie and Freddie went under, the Democrats had to find a new way to fill the pipeline flowing tax dollars into the groups’ coffers.
This is a crude power grab in a time of economic crisis. Congress should insist that every penny recaptured from the sale of distressed assets be dedicated to retiring the hundreds of billions of dollars in public debt that will be incurred, or passed back to taxpayers who will ultimately underwrite the cost of the bailout.

Must-read to understand the Fannie Mae crisis

Must-read to understand the Fannie Mae crisis

Thomas Lifson
During the Clinton Administration, the New York Times celebrated the disastrous loosening of credit standards that got Fannie Mae in trouble. Brainless liberalism on display. Steven Holmes included the following fateful words:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. [….]
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

 

Mr. Holmes either is not smart enough or (more likely) honest enough to wonder why banks and thrifts were pressing. The only clue comes at the very end of the article (see below).

 

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

 

Holmes is, however, honest enough to include a warning from a smart free market-based thinker:

 

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” [….]
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s.

 

If anyone can find a record of the New York Times praising the explosion of minority home ownership that continued under Bush, please send it to me.

 

Finally, the very last sentence of the article mentions something that should have been at the top:

 

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Why Obama Will Lose

Why Obama Will Lose

By Miguel A. Guanipa

Moments of crisis have their purpose, not least of which is to witness how those weathering them will measure up to much greater challenges ahead. The recent financial market tumble afforded priceless opportunities to rate the strength of character of those to whom we may soon be yielding the power to govern. It is noteworthy that when the opportunity arose to display the desired strengths upon which voters will be counting on beyond voting day, Barack Obama — not John McCain — chose instead to mock the presumed shortcomings of his opponent.

 

This particular crisis also furnished Obama and his loyal media posse with an unparalleled opportunity to reinforce the central theme of his campaign, which casts his opponent as the proud and fated heir of the totality of George W. Bush’s legacy.  The favored three-pronged Obama strategy now consists of dissociating his own party of any shared responsibility for the debacle, refocusing the blame for the negatives on his opponent and taking front stage as the deliverer from all our calamities. But this strategy is bound for failure.

 

The first reason why Obama will be defeated is that this hour of crisis has uncovered a fierce vein of opportunism in the man. This pathological streak, characterized by a blind determination to succeed at all costs, was prominently displayed in his gleeful impetuosity to capitalize on the media’s alarmist reports of a complete financial “meltdown“.

 

During this financial collapse’s most climactic moments, Obama directed his efforts at pandering to a somewhat misguided public discontent and stoking the embers of panic, rather than drafting alternative solutions for addressing the economic imbalances that precipitated the crisis in the first place. For a campaign that was pioneered on the pledge to steer off petty attacks, these types of knee-jerk reactions now define both the man and his campaign as both marked by extreme lapses of cognitive dissonance.  

 

The second reason for the coming fall of Obama is that, while bad tidings may draw some attention, they are seldom guaranteed to encourage sustained support for the messenger. Obama’s own predecessor is well acquainted with the unintended consequences of placing too much emphasis on the politics of doom and derision. Most people are eventually worn out and disillusioned by the constant drum of negativity. Other than the static mantra of “change we can believe in” — recently modified to the slightly more imperious “change we need” — Obama has little to offer in the way of any substantial alternatives to offset his ominous outlook of a future absent his wisdom and guidance at the helm, which leads one to believe that about the only thing that he can guarantee will change are his campaign slogans.

 

The third reason for Obama’s eventual defeat is that — in spite of his hopes for the triumph of image over substance — he seems not to have yet assimilated the rather basic political maxim that words and deeds which project mutually contradictory messages can easily become very powerful weapons in the hands of one’s adversary. To wit, few things appeared more contrived than the impassioned appeals on behalf of the downtrodden and the stern words of rebuke against the excesses of ruthless Wall Street profiteers still in his breath, as he boarded his personal jet to join in a $28,500 (hat tip to readers for correcting the figure) per plate fund raising fete with the most fiscally intemperate of our species: the lavish Hollywood glitterati.  Needless to say, such glaring inconsistencies leave Obama wide open to the same charges of hypocrisy he has more than once indignantly leveled against the opposition.

 

The fourth reason is Obama’s curious — but not wholly unpredictable — decision to yoke himself with Joe Biden, the gaffe-prone and mischievously wry senator from Delaware, whose core ideology is virtually indistinguishable from his own. Set against McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which brought a new level of political relevance to the office of vice-president, the democratic ticket has suddenly emerged as the one that offers the least opportunities for distinct philosophical approaches to today’s sundry economic and social issues.  It is no wonder the McCain-Palin ticket has become so attractive to a country that — contrary to the current progressive dogma — is very willing to embrace diversity.  

 

And finally, with the exigencies of the moment calling for more desperate measures will come the re-awakening in Obama’s mind of the notion that sooner or later he will have to conjure up the uncharitable verdict of racial malfeasance as the cause for this country’s hesitancy in exalting him to the lofty echelons of American politics.  No longer will he forego requiring votes from the reluctant as guilt offerings to atone for their prejudice laden indecision, or employing subsidiary bully pulpits to showcase his own personal (and mostly imagined) upheaval as a contestant of unwonted pedigree amidst what he and his minions insist on characterizing as a hopelessly racist  electorate.  And the more egregious these calls to penance for racial sins at the voting booth become, the more he will incur the disdain of those who silently feel that it should only be called racism when one votes or doesn’t vote for a candidate because of the color of his skin.

John McCain gives Barack Obama a master class in foreign policy

John McCain gives Barack Obama a master class in foreign policy

John McCain emerged the clear victor from last night’s U.S. presidential debate on foreign policy. With the swagger and aggression of an experienced prizefighter, McCain laid punch after punch on his Democrat opponent, after a shaky start discussing the Wall Street financial crisis. After recovering from the opening 20 minutes which focused on economic issues, McCain was in his element discussing the biggest international questions of the day, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the looming threats posed by Iran and Russia.

The Arizona Senator exuded confidence and experience, while pouring scorn on Obama’s pledge to sit down with Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or his failure to take an immediate strong stance against Moscow when Russian tanks poured into Georgia. McCain reeled off a long list of international leaders he had met in his long career as well as recounting his numerous trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caucasus. 

At times, Obama looked more like a freshman in his first debate at the Oxford Union than a candidate for president of the United States. His answers frequently appeared wooden, stilted and over-rehearsed. His knowledge of international affairs came across as superficial, and at times seemed nervously snatched from the pages of a college textbook. McCain spoke overwhelmingly from personal knowledge with an extensive and expansive understanding of modern history. For a 72-year old, Senator McCain looked sharper, more nimble and quick-footed than his far younger opponent.