“We can widen the circle of homeownership beyond anything we have ever seen,” he added.
Indeed, Clinton’s policies for the first time threw millions of previously unqualified buyers into the mortgage mix, fueling an unprecedented housing bubble.
Between 1995 and 2005, according to a new book, “The Great American Bank Robbery,” minorities accounted for nearly two-thirds of household growth and contributed a whopping 49% of the 12.5 million rise in homeowners over the decade.
When bankers resisted being saddled with the risky loans, Clinton tapped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take them off their books, freeing bankers to make more of the political loans. He directed HUD to hike Fannie’s and Freddie’s goals for underwriting affordable loans.
HUD has the power to enforce their loan programs, and required that at least half of all Fannie and Freddie mortgage purchases benefit poor and minority families — a level that remained in force throughout the 2000s.
When the mortgage giants pushed back, complaining it would be hard to meet the higher targets, Clinton had his HUD regulators encourage them to load up on subprime loans.
In a fateful move, he also authorized Fannie and Freddie for the first time to issue, guarantee or buy securities backed by bundled subprime mortgages to earn credits against the HUD goals. The mortgage giants jumped at the chance, since it allowed them to meet the onerous new goals in wholesale fashion.
For good measure, Clinton late in his second term installed several of his cronies — including White House budget chief Franklin Delano Raines — in key Fannie and Freddie board positions, ensuring they continued his affordable-lending crusade well into the next administration.
By the time he left office, Clinton had changed the rules for risk in the lending business. He had fundamentally changed the home finance market for the worse.
This untold Clinton scandal stayed hidden until the bubble burst. Now the former president is conveniently a critic of the very loans he promoted.
He was all for them before he was against them.
Interestingly, “Bank Robbery” notes that the Clinton Foundation that sponsors his global initiative has scrubbed from its website Clinton’s boasts of shaking down banks for riskier minority loans.
History should deal harshly with this former president. He didn’t just damage the dignity of the presidency with his personal failings. He may have permanently damaged American living standards.
Publicado: 09-23-2011 09:39 PM
Good Riddance, "Subprime" Banking Queen, Barney Frank
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 28, 2011
RUSH: So Barney Frank is retiring from Congress. He's not going to seek reelection. He's gonna announce it in less than an hour -- well, he's announced it. He's gonna tell us why in less than an hour. I've been looking into this, and the basic reason, well, it's partly to spend more time with the family. (laughing) What family? I don't know, folks. Figure it out. It's a redistricting thing. His district has been rewritten in such a way that he probably could not win it is what really has gone down there and that's pretty much it. I don't know what he's gonna say. He's not gonna say that as the reason. But as far as I'm concerned, good riddance. If there is a name that is singularly attached to this economic collapse via the subprime mortgage fiasco, it's Barney Frank, along with Chris Dodd as well and most elements of the Democrat Party back in the Clinton years moving forward.
If running a prostitution ring in your house couldn't make you resign, what does? Wait. Barney did not run the prostitution ring. He said he didn't know that it was going on. It was his partner at the time, Stephen Gobie. Yeah. Barney fixed parking tickets for the clientele at the house. So if having a prostitution ring being run out of your basement couldn't embarrass you to retire, you do have to wonder what it is.
I mean the media's shaken. The Drive-Bys are terribly upset about this. It caught everybody by surprise. It's gonna boil down to a redistricting thing where he, I'm sure, was not confident that he could win, pure and simple. He had a very tough time last time. He had a tough time last time, and that was in a district that was written for him. They've gone from ten to nine districts in Massachusetts, and one of the districts took a major hit and a new shape, it was rewritten, new form. Looked entirely different, it was Barney's. I also think as part of this, Barney doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wants to be part of an ongoing minority for an interminable number of years. And he's gotta know what things are looking like for the Democrat Party in not just the House but the Senate, elections nationwide.
RUSH: So I watched a little bit of Barney Frank. Folks, it was hilarious. For one thing, he's quitting, so his seat, Barney Frank's seat is now wide open. Yes siree, Bob, says he's stepping down to pursue an active life. He gave a lot of reasons for stepping down. I lost count. Among them, that he's convinced that conservative Republicans are not gonna raise taxes on the 1% so he doesn't want to be there for that. As I told you at the beginning of the program, it's a redistricting thing, and he spent a lot of time on that. And this was hilarious. He said he just doesn't want to go to a new district of people and try to tell 'em that he's gonna represent 'em for a couple years and then retire. He's represented a certain group of people for all these years, among them the fishing industry, and he said, (imitating) "I cannot walk away from the fishing industry in Massachusetts. I just can't walk away from the fishing industry." The fishing industry would not be in this new district.
What it means is, is that he would have to campaign; what it means is that he might lose; what it means is that the Democrats are gonna be in the minority for the foreseeable future, and all these years Barney never had to campaign. The last election was the first time in I don't know how many years, ten, that he actually had a viable opponent. He's never had to spend much money or time running for reelection. That's all different now. In fact, I heard, I have to confirm this, that Dennis Kucinich, his district has been rewritten, or is about to be written -- (interruption) Okay, that's what I heard, they're writing his district out of existence in Ohio, so he's thinking about moving to Seattle. Allahu Akbar.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 03:25 PM
February 14, 2012
CHICAGO (CBS) — A former Chicago alderman turned political science professor/corruption fighter has found that Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country.
He cites data from the U.S. Department of Justice to prove his case. And, he says, Illinois is third-most corrupt state in the country.
University of Illinois professor Dck Simpson estimates the cost of corruption at $500 million.
It’s essentially a corruption tax on citizens who bear the cost of bad behavior (police brutality, bogus contracts, bribes, theft and ghost pay-rolling to name a few) and the costs needed to prosecute it.
“We first of all, we have a long history,” Simpson said. “The first corruption trial was in 1869 when alderman and county commissioners were convicted of rigging a contract to literally whitewash City Hall.”
Corruption, he said, is intertwined with city politics
“We have had machine politics since the Great Chicago Fire of 1871,” he said. “Machine politics breeds corruption inevitably.”
Simpson says Hong Kong and Sydney were two similarly corrupt cities that managed to change their ways. He says Chicago can too, but it will take decades.
He’ll be presenting his work before the new Chicago Ethics Task Force meeting tomorrow at City Hall.
Publicado: 02-14-2012 06:42 PM
Why Do Democrats Want to Protect Voter Fraud?
Obama recurrió a un fraude electoral masivo para derrotar a Hillary en las primarias y mas tarde a McCain.
Suffrage: A new study finds that nearly 2 million dead people remain on voter registration rolls. So tell us again why Democrats oppose voter ID laws that would help prevent these errant registrations from being exploited?
The Pew Center on the States study found that our country’s voter registration system is “plagued with errors and inefficiencies.” That’s putting it mildly.
As many as 24 million registrations are invalid or contain significant errors, including almost 3 million who are registered in two or more states and 1.8 million dead people still listed as active voters.
Obviously this is a problem states must fix, and the sooner the better. As Pew notes, most states still use antiquated and enormously expensive paper systems ill-equipped to handle a mobile society. In an age when direct mail companies can easily keep track of you through several moves, this is entirely unacceptable.
Just as important is how this flawed system highlights the need for tougher voter ID laws. After all, if 2 million dead people are on the active voter rolls, how difficult would it be to use those registrations to illicitly tip a close election?
Yet Democrats are pummeling states trying to impose picture ID laws to protect against this kind of fraud. They vetoed such laws in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
The Justice Department blocked South Carolina’s new photo ID law. And NAACP President Benjamin Jealous attacked the reforms as “the greatest assault on voting rights ... since the dawn of Jim Crow.”
Democrats make two bogus arguments. First, that ballot fraud isn’t “widespread” enough to merit the new requirement, as though there’s such a thing as a tolerable level of fraud. Second, that picture ID laws would suppress voter turnout among minorities.
In fact, states with picture ID laws go out of their way to make sure everyone who needs an ID can get one. Plus, turnout in Indiana and Georgia swelled after their laws went into effect, and the Supreme Court already ruled that picture ID laws don’t infringe on anyone’s right to vote.
Given this, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats count on exploiting an inept and tattered registration system to help them win close elections. If that isn’t the case, they should prove it by backing a reform that would do much to protect the sanctity of the ballot box.
Publicado: 02-14-2012 10:53 PM
Eric Holder Plays Texas Hold ‘Em In Voter ID Suit
Voting Rights: The most politicized attorney general in American history takes on Texas’ Voter ID law as discriminatory and intimidating to minorities, and tries to make American elections safe for vote fraud.
The Justice Department’s civil rights division, the same group that dropped the case of a group of New Black Panthers wearing military garb and carrying billy clubs as they stood outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, has filed an objection in U.S. District Court to Texas’ voter identification law on the grounds it intimidates minorities and suppresses minority voter turnout.
Photo IDs and the requirement that they be shown are ever present in our society — from cashing a check to boarding a plane to entering Eric Holder’s own Department of Justice. Yet Holder, who once said criticism of him and his boss, President Obama, was due to their skin color, sees racism in Texas’ move to guarantee the sanctity of the ballot box.
Requiring some kind of identification to prove you are who you say you are when voting was one of the proposals in 2005 by the Commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, two individuals not known for racist inclinations.
In the objection, Thomas Perez, chief of Justice’s civil rights division who exonerated the New Black Panther thugs, said that Texas data showed that anywhere from 6% to 10% of Hispanics don’t have one of the seven acceptable photo IDs issued by the state or federal government. It completely ignores the fact that the state’s election-identification certificates are free.
The empirical evidence shows that voter ID laws do not suppress minority voting. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the 2006 midterm elections was 42.9%. After passage of photo ID laws, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4%. Black voter turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after those two states enacted their voter ID laws.
Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out that black voter turnout increased in Georgia in the presidential election of 2008, the first election under its voter ID law, by a greater percentage than in Mississippi, a state without such a requirement.
“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes,” wrote liberal Justice John Paul Stevens for the 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision upholding Indiana’s ID law, the toughest in the nation.
The Supreme Court justices said “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” The decision cited the finding of a district judge that plaintiffs had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of the law.”
A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” Not unless you are an administration willing to play the race card to **noallow** re-election.
Texas is one of 16 states or parts of states that under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act must obtain permission from DOJ or a federal court in Washington, D.C., before redrawing district lines or revising election procedures because of voting rights violations in the past. Yet there is no evidence that a voter ID requirement constitutes a voting- or civil-rights violation.
So now we have a “war on voting rights” to join the “war on women” the administration is complaining about, even though photo IDs are as easily obtainable in these states as are contraceptives by Georgetown coeds.
We suspect the DOJ action against Texas and other states has more to do in revving up the Democratic base than in correcting any injustice, real or imagined.
Publicado: 03-13-2012 10:37 PM
BAJO BUSH EN LOS PRIMEROS 26 MESES EN EL PODER LA GASOLINA SUBIO UN 7%, EN EL MISMO TIEMPO CON OBAMA SUBIO 67%
Deception: Obama claims credit for oil production increase Bluegrass Pundit ^ | Saturday, February 25, 2012 | Bluegrass Pundit
President Obama is touting an increase in oil production as one of his accomplishments. Here is the chart and info from barackobama.com. (accent is mine)
Since taking office, President Obama has called for an “all-of-the-above” approach to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, including an increase in safe and responsible oil production here at home.
Today, America’s oil production is at its highest level in eight years:
Does Obama deserve any credit for this or is it all those oil drilling permits former President G. W. Bush issued? Bush increased oil drilling permits 70%from the Clinton era. Let's see how Obama is doing issuing new offshore oil drilling permits.
The truth is there has been a 69 percent reduction in the number of offshore drilling plans approved under President Obama. It also takes 52% longer for the lucky few to get a permit approved.
Even former President Bill Clinton thinks Obama's oil drilling permit delays are ridiculous.
Under President Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44%, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39% compared to 2007 levels.
This is why Obama and Democrats must be sent home.
Publicado: 03-16-2012 12:34 PM
OBAMA/ACORN AND THE REALITY OF VOTER FRAUD
Houston — The 2012 elections will feature many close races, likely including the presidential contest. That makes concern about voter fraud and ballot integrity all the more meaningful, and a conference held here last weekend by the watchdog group True the Vote made clear just how high the stakes are.
“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”
Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats.
Catherine Englebrecht, the Houston businesswoman and mother who founded True the Vote in 2009 after witnessing an ACORN-**noallow** group registering thousands of illegal or nonexistent voters in Houston, told the voter observers from 32 states gathered for the summit: “There is nothing more important this year than your work in making sure legitimate votes aren’t canceled out by fraud.”
Liberal groups ranging from the ACLU to the NAACP oppose voter-ID laws, claiming that voter fraud is almost nonexistent and that an ID requirement would amount to voter suppression. It’s certainly true that in-person voter fraud — the type of fraud most easily fought with voter-ID laws — isn’t the whole picture. Voter-ID laws must be combined with tighter controls on absentee ballots, the tool of choice of fraudsters. But filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just last month how easy — and almost impossible to detect — voter impersonation can be: A white 22-year-old assistant of O’Keefe’s was offered the Washington, D.C., primary ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder, the most visible opponent of ID laws.
05-03-2012 08:48 PM - editado 05-03-2012 08:52 PM
Just this week in Fort Worth, Texas, a Democratic precinct chairwoman was indicted on charges of arranging an illegal vote. Hazel Woodard James has been charged with conspiring with her non-registered son to have him vote in place of his father. The only reason the crime was detected was that the father showed up later in the day to vote at the same precinct. Most fraudsters are smart enough to have their accomplices cast votes in the names of dead people on the voter rolls, who are highly unlikely to appear and complain that someone else voted in their place.
One of the highlights of the True the Vote conference was a speech by Artur Davis, who was a Democratic congressman from Alabama until last year. Davis has been an up-and-coming black Democratic leader, having been selected to second the nomination of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver.
But in 2009 he decided to vote against Obamacare because he viewed it as unworkable and too expensive. When he ran the next year in the Democratic primary for governor in Alabama, he was attacked as disloyal and defeated by a coalition of liberals, teachers’ unions, and old-**noallow** black political machines.
He told me that the voter suppression he most observed in his 68 percent African-American district was rampant fraud in counties with powerful political machines. To keep themselves in power, these machines would frequently steal the votes of members of minority groups. “I know it exists, I’ve had the chance to steal votes in my favor offered to me, and the people it hurts the most are the poor and those without power,” he said.
Davis made it clear in his speech to True the Vote that much of the opposition to voter-ID and ballot-integrity laws is a sad attempt to inject racism into the discussion and intimidate supporters of anti-fraud laws. “This is not a billy club, this is not a fire hose,” he told his audience while holding up his driver’s license. “Where is this notion that if I have a right [to vote], that I don’t have to be bothered with responsibility?” He concluded with an appeal for all sides to eschew racial appeals: “We have to be one country, but the way you become one country is you stop acting like a country that’s divided into different buckets and bases of people.”
It’s a pity that so much of the discussion about voting this fall will be drenched in race. Americans have two important rights when it comes to voting. The first is the right to vote without fear and intimidation, for which this country fought an epic civil-rights struggle in the 1960s. Those gains in voter access must be preserved. But Americans also have a right to vote without their ballots’ being canceled out by people who are voting twice, are voting for the dead or nonexistent, or are non-citizens. We can and should accomplish two goals in the 2012 election — making sure it is easy to vote, and making sure it is hard to cheat. Groups such as True the Vote will be essential to make sure both sides of that imperative are fulfilled.
— John Fund is the national-affairs columnist for NRO.
05-03-2012 08:49 PM - editado 05-03-2012 08:51 PM
Bin Laden May Ironically Be Obama's Albatross
Election '12: The president seems to think bragging about killing Osama bin Laden will help get him re-elected. But the question is increasingly becoming why the president hesitated on such a no-brainer decision.
Jack Keane, the Army vice chief of staff from 1999 to 2003, told Mike Huckabee on Fox News over the weekend that the U.S. government knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was nearly a year before President Obama gave the order to send in the Navy SEALs to his compound in Pakistan.
The retired general told Huckabee, "We had the target in the summer (of) 2010, and it took until the following May to execute the mission."
Keane was surprised at the delay "because, you know, the longer you spend on something like that, the greater likelihood is that the target will be compromised because of your surveillance, and then that target will flee."
Keane added, "I know for a fact that we had it that summer, maybe even sooner than that."
So why didn't Obama act sooner?
"My sources tell me the White House was trying to verify that the target was actually there as opposed to just relying on circumstantial evidence," Keane said. "They actually wanted a photo ... and that without that there was a lot of delay and procrastination about it, because they wanted verification."
He said those few officials who knew that bin Laden had been located "wanted to get after" him "because they realized that the target could be compromised and it took so long to actually find it. And you sort of had the sense that this was it, it was real, and let's go get it."
Keane knew this information because he was "close to somebody who had knowledge and he trusted me and had confidence in me" not to reveal it.
What Keane says may not be true. Yet a president who knew where the man who gave the order for the 9/11 attacks was, but did not act, would be guilty of serious misconduct, a near-impeachable offense.
The gaffe-inator, Vice President Joe Biden, in March claimed that if the bin Laden raid failed "this guy would be a one-term president" — a comment exposing that even the White House knows this presidency is a failure. You mean all that "hope and change" in job creation and health care policy wouldn't make up for botching the bin Laden raid, Joe?
As shown in a Time magazine-revealed memo from Leon Panetta, the defense secretary who during the bin Laden raid was CIA director, the White House was setting up Adm. William McRaven, the Special Operations commander, as scapegoat if the mission failed.
"The timing, operational decision making and control are in Adm. McRaven's hands," Panetta's memo stated. "Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration."
That wording would have made it easy to accuse McRaven of botching the mission by undertaking an "additional risk" the president supposedly didn't OK.
No wonder former and current Navy SEALs have accused Obama of politicizing the bin Laden killing.
As Montana Republican state Sen. Ryan Zinke, a 23-year veteran of the SEALs, told Britain's Daily Mail, it was a "no-brainer" to order bin Laden's elimination.
"I think every president would have done the same," Zinke pointed out.
George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney would all clearly have given the order — except much sooner.
The ghost of bin Laden may end up haunting not the GOP challenger, as many Democrats seem to believe, but procrastinator-in-chief Barack Obama.
Publicado: 05-08-2012 10:44 PM