President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment!

When I first read this I was not sure it was correct. After extensive checking it is TRUE! I cannot believe that this bastard of a socialist so called president would stoop so low! So All you vets who voted for this scum sucker this is your payback. You now will have to pay for your service connected disability treatments. So all you vets that are missing limbs, etc get to pay this Crumb that never wore a uniform in his life and if the truth be known is not even an American Citizen. He wants us vets to ante up $540-million so he can piss it away on foreign aid and People who have been on welfare for three generations now! Next he will be cutting our pensions To the bone. Vets do not stand by and let this piece of shit get away with this. Join the Legion, the VFW, or any other vets organization to fight this outrage!

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans
organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President
Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment
of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama
administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with
this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is
looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral
and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan
would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given
that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not
private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support
any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the
very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations
joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated
by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by
Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is
simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA
has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces
right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already
sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the
reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected
injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed
forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these
companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an
adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues
that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage
limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave
the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many
health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered.
Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to
cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are
self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-
board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers,
especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected
disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing
company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said
Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired
$540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to
VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's
financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House
Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious
ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

That's my rant for today!

Carl

Some thoughts on the bail out package.

It has been sometime since I have written anything for the Rant. I have had other irons on The fire and had to get them done.

Well, the election is over and we have our first black president. I personally do not care whatcolor his skin is as long as he can get the job done. George Bush was a complete disaster as far as I am concerned. I voted two times for him as the alternative was a complete piece of crap both times! George Bush was a good man, but it is always good men who do the most harm in the world.

Bertrand Russell in his book "The Harm That Good Men Do". Printed in 1926 says and I quote:"Among politicians good men have their uses, the chief of which is to afford a smoke-screen behind which others can carry on their activities unsuspected. A good man will never suspect his friends of shady actions: this is part of his goodness. A good man will never be suspected by the public of using his goodness to screen villains: this is part of his utility. It is clear that this combination of qualities makes a good man extremely desirable wherever a somewhat narrow-minded public objects to the transference of public funds into the hands of the deserving rich. I am told -- though far be it from me to endorse this statement -- that at a not very distant period in history there was an American President who was a good man and served this purpose". Does this remind you folks of anyone?

Now for those greedy bastards the bankers. These people are nothing but pond scum. Let's start with executive compensation. The New York state comptroller has reported that employees of the New York financial world garnered an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. This money came from the $700 billion plan that congress passed to shore up the financial Sector, one thatDrew howls of criticism about a lack of transparency. No wonder the Treasury Would not tell us Where it went. They "stole" our tax money and gave themselves bonuses and purchased executive jets with it. If anyone should have accommodations in "Gitmo" these people should! President Barack Obama issued a withering critique Thursday of Wall Street corporate behavior, calling it "the height of irresponsibility" for employees to be paid more than $18 billion in bonuses last year while their crumbling financial sector received a bailout from taxpayers. "It is shameful," Obama said from the Oval Office. "And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility." He is correct in his thinking.

The bail out package is so loaded with pork that if you holler "sooeeee" it will come running. some examples are: the House included $335 million in its package for STD spending. But the Senate, not to be outdone, provided $400 million in STD spending in its bill. The Senate spending bill has $75 million for smoking cessation. Now we have to pay for people's bad habits it seems. I quit "cold turkey" so can they as far as I am concerned! The House Democrats were forced to remove a separate $200 million that had been designated to boost contraceptive coverage under Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor. That provision was removed after President Obama made a personal appeal to take it out of the bill. Republicans and some Democrats have complained that the recovery bill is loaded with items that would provide little short-term help in boosting the economy.

Some of the good things in the House bill are: an estimated $544 in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. I sure as hell can use a tax cut how about you?

Included is money for traditional job-creating programs such as highway construction and mass transit projects. But the measure tickets far more for unemployment benefits, health care and food stamp increases designed to aid victims of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Which is only right in my book BTW!

Tens of billions of additional dollars would go to the states, which confront the prospect of deep budget cuts of their own. That money marks an attempt to ease the recession's impact on schools and law enforcement. With funding for housing weatherization and other provisions, the bill also makes a down payment on Obama's campaign promise of creating jobs that can reduce the nation's' dependence on foreign oil.

The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don't earn enough to owe federal income taxes. Chump change but I will take it! LOL Well we will have to see what the final bill looks like after the joint House and Senate committees meet for the final conference on the bill.

Well, its getting on to 02:28 in the morning here in California so I have to call it a night. My cats want to go to bed. Everyone be safe and keep your stick on the ice.

That's my rant for now.

Carl

Merry Christmas to all!

I just wanted to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a very good 2009!

We are going through some very trying time in this country but we will survive. Americans are survivors, we roll up our sleeves and start over if we need to.

I am going to keep this short because frankly there is way too much stuff that I could start a diatribe on and write for an hour! LOL

So my friends be safe and enjoy the holiday

Carl

A Liberal Supermajority!

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

After the messiah wins the white house this is what you will be getting. ENJOY!

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Credit:

The Opinion Journal forum.

That's my rant for today!

Sleazy Obama and his minions.

Do Facts Matter?

By Thomas Sowell

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Credit:

Tom Sowell

That's my rant for now!

A few words of one crying in the West!

I had planned to keep out of the presidental debate, but it is just too hard to stand by and say nothing!

Like a lot of you out there I will be holding my nose when I vote for the next President. As far as I am concerned they both are not worth a bucket of warm spit!

This is how they see John McCain in Russia. Do not get me wrong I am not an Obama or McCain supporter.

The American Zhirinovsky: John McCain.

Like all nations, with multiple parties and opinions, characters in politics emerge who both entertain us and make us scared. The sincerely entertaining American ones are the likes of Al Sharpton and Jimmy Carter. Both men are made funnier by their true faith in their own righteous ways, when to all around they look like nothing but clowns. Russia's version is the former chess champ and receiver of much US monies, Kasparov. He rather takes himself very seriously but like his American counter parts, no one else does.

Then there are those who should scare us. The antics of Vladimir Zhirinovsky come to mind. The man is power mad, brutish in temper, crude in manner and ever ready to scream, threat, curse or even fist fight with fellow parliamentarians. Of course the Americans have a similar man to Vladimir, one named John, that is, John McCain.

The difference of course is that no serious person in their right mind, in Russia, would ever place Zhirinovsky in charge of the country, but half the American electorate is getting ready to do just that in America.

In one famous incident reported in a biographical work of McCain, The Real McCain, brings to light what kind of man may soon run the United States:

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

One Republican insider told Sky News: "Everyone in Washington's political circles has a McCain story - a moment when they have suddenly witnessed him losing it for a few seconds. He flies off the handle without warning."

A former Senator Bob Smith, from the Republican Party of the state of New Hampshire, opined that McCain's rage quotient "would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger."

Another American Senator from the Republicans, who has known McCain for almost thirty years, Thad Cochran, was quoted in January 2008 as saying: "The thought of his [McCain] being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and that worries me."

Just like Russia's Zhirinovsky and his visions of 18th century alliances intermixed with flights of fantasy, which is to pass for foreign policy, the American would be leader, who can not distinguish between Shiites and Sunnies and acknowledge the fact that Czechoslovakia split up, dreams of a vast Axis of Democracies, where Democracies (read Western Socialist pseudo Police States of the Orwellian flavor) will lead wars of banishment against the rest. Of course, considering that John McCain s a Trotskyte Marxist of the Neoconservative Anglo-American flavor, these delusions of world revolutions and world wars of "liberation" should not be shocking to anyone.

What of course is shocking is that Americans have gone so far as to not only lose their minds but to spit on the bones of their own founding fathers, by possibly bringing someone like this to power. Do not take this as an endorsement of McCain's opponent, another leftist and Marxist of McCain's caliber and a closet Islamic. (If he is no longer a Muslim then why is there no Fatwa on his head?)

The truly shocking fact is that the West, and America in particular, have degenerated to such as state that the choice between these Marxists is now considered a deep, moving and powerful election.

One should feel pity for America and its people but a pity guarded by a strong military as soon the bubbler in the White House will be replaced by either a Marxist Crusader (Obama) or a Marxist Berserker (McCain). While neither is an appetizing prospect, the berserker, on a day to day basis is the much more dangerous character.

But maybe in the end it's not simply rage of senility? After all, a candidate who voted for every war for the past 20 years, one of the only Republicans who was willing to give Clinton the nod to invade Yugoslavia with ground troops, who even recently sang "Bomb Bomb Iran" during a campaign town meeting, was able to turn around and with his blank stare tell Russia that in the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations.

A final quote, from a retired American military man, should leave everyone disturbed by what the future may shortly bring for humanity. A retired US Army colonel and former top aide for former Secretary of State Colin Powell described McCain as: No dissent, no opinion to the contrary, however reasonable, will be entertained [with McCain]. Hardheaded is another way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me."

This is either senility or a pure psychosis. Either way it does not bode well for world peace or America's future.

Credits:

06.10.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

That's my rant for now!

Info You Won't See in the U.S. Media.

Here is some very interesting information that you will never see in the U.S. media controlled by the liberal press.

Dominic Lawson: Democrat fingerprints are all over the financial crisis.

Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.

Neither of these two institutions is blameless – far from it. Yet when I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels – well, I can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it. These are men with sphincters of steel.

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings – to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked – by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now, members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to own their own homes.

From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans". This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between 2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards promoted by the Government."

One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco."

It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on – but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking Committee.

Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama. In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage and housing policy matters". Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to know where all the bodies are buried – there are rather a lot of them.

The saddest outcome of all this within America – apart from the crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers – is that the very people the Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages to the least well off.

In the meantime, let us praise Senator Artur Davis of Alabama, who confessed this week: "Like a lot of my Democrat colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised. I wish my Democrat colleagues would admit that we were wrong." I fear Senator Davis will not go far with this attitude – but at least he will be able to look at himself in the mirror.

Credit:
d.lawson@independent.co.uk

So you see sports fans the Democrats are into this fraud up to their necks. We need someone with the balls in the Justice Department to use the RICO Act against everyone who is involved in this fraud no matter who or what party they belong to!

That's my rant for now!

Carl