Crazy Joe the Senator is hedging his bets

Did you know that Joe Biden is also running for re-election for his Senate seat?

Looks like our favorite plagiarist isn't 100% confident.

Cuban Digest: All Embargo All the Time

As we all know the yearly ritual of the UN vote against the embargo ended in the same result. This year, though, Perez Roque was particularly impassioned as he waxed eloquent, pointing out that the embargo is older than Obama. Also older than Obama is the oppression of the Cuban people by the Cuban Capos not mentioned by the same Perez Roque nor condemned by the UN. But that's nothing new.

Today's headlines, however, present an interesting proposition. Not content with the UN results, the "Latin American Leaders" at the IberoAmerican Summit in San Salvador on Friday also urged the repeal of the embargo because it hurts the Cuban people. Frankly, their concern for the wellbeing of the Cuban people has been less inspiring than conspiring.

On the very same page is a story about the Cuban regime owing Sherritt $393 million. Prospect of repayment looks shaky, although the debt will be "restructured." Sure is a lot of that restructuring going around. Sherritt is a familiar name here. As the story indicates in something of an understatement, Sherritt International is one of the "pioneers of foreign investment" in the country. Recently, they were in the headlines when they pulled out of a deal to develop Cuba's purportedly boundless offshore oil deposits.

Connect the dots. As at least one presidential candidate knows, it sure is easy to give away other people's money.

Pictue of the Buttmunch Who Stole My McCain Sign

Even though there's no Obama signs in my neighborhood, there's a lot of McCain signs. But in any event, some buttmunch decided to steal my sign.

Here's his photo .... his good side

May the ticks of 1000 mice infested with the plague infest your crotch you assmunch.

Thank you.

Race to democratic socialism

I disagree with about 95% of this oped, and I loathe the fact that the author put Marx and Marti in the same sentence, but the second-to-last sentence poses a very interesting question:

"Which country, Cuba or the United States, will make the transition to democratic socialism first?"

Predictions?

The (revised) Lord's Prayer

A modification of the original, made especially for our times:

OUR OBAMA WHO ART IN THE WHITE HOUSE
HALLOWED BE THY NAME

OBAMA

What side is inciting violence?

I didn't know Erica Jong was a conservative. Go figure.

Going...going....Gone!

First Obama promised that only the rich, those that made more than 250K a year would see a tax increase. Then he brought it down to 200K. Then Biden foot-in-mouthed it to 150K.

Today, Obama pal and ardent supporter governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico dropped that down to $120,000.

Boy, you gotta hand it to Obama, still five days from the election, and America already has more rich folks.

Obamaman Can

The Candyman cometh:

Of course, if she doesnt have to work to gas up her car and pay her mortgage, it will be your duty, as patriotic Americans, to work for her.

Obamaman Can!

Stay classy, Democrats! (Part 3,873,388)

Voter, Poll Worker Get Into Physical Fight At Kendall Poll Location

Obama: Do as I say, not as I do

Yesterday the London Times published a story about Barack Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, who lives in a rundown housing project in Boston. Aunt Zeituni is not an unknown Kenyan relative Obama just found out about, but instead an aunt he recalled with fondness and affection in his book, Dreams from my Father. Strangely enough, for a man who purports to care so deeply for his Kenyan family and roots, it is surprising to find out that Aunt Zeituni lives in a derelict housing project when she has a famous and influential nephew of considerable wealth.

Now most of us have relatives that are either better off or worse off than ourselves, and outside of a family emergency, few of us expect either to be subsidized by those relatives with more resources, or to have to support those who have less. With that said, I respect whatever the reason Obama may have for not wanting to “share his wealth” with his poor Aunt Zeituni. But where I do have a problem is that Obama wants me, and the rest of the country, to share our wealth with Aunt Zeituni, and the many others like her who find themselves in similar or worse situations. If Obama did not feel a pressing need to send his Aunt money, why should the rest of the nation be forced to do so?

This is not a question of whether this country should help those in need, but more of a question of who decides who gets the help and who is going to provide it. Obama had an opportunity to put his philosophy of “spreading the wealth” into practice with his own Aunt, yet he chose not to do so. However, he has no issue with forcing the entire nation to spread their wealth.

For his own personal reasons, Obama did not feel compelled to extend financial help to his own relative, and I will not judge him for that decision. It is his money, his wealth, and he is free to disburse it as he chooses. I will judge him, however, for his decision to pursue a tax law that will compel the citizens of this nation to share their wealth. Obama had a choice, but he is not willing to give Americans the same choice.

A real leader, an effective leader, an honest leader, leads by example. Obama should consider giving Americans the option to follow his own personal example.

This year's No. 1 Halloween costume

Pretty scary:

The Purge has begun

This may sound familiar to those that experienced a similar event in Cuba right after the 1959 revolution. Obama and his campaign have decided that there is no room on the campaign airplane for journalists whose editorial boards did not endorse him for president. With only four days left in the presidential race, Obama has effectively purged his campaign of the reporters from the Washington Times, the New York Post, and the Dallas Morning News, all of which have endorsed McCain for president through their editorial boards.

Even though this should not be a surprise, especially coming from a campaign of "Interview Nazis," the sheer brazenness of this move should send chills down the spines of all of us who value one of the cornerstones of this country's foundation: the freedom of the press.

Obama's campaign, of course, does not see this as a purge, but rather, they are just making room for some other journalists. Which begs the question: In an Obama presidency, just how much room will there be for a free and unfettered press?

You can read about the purge, HERE, and HERE.

Trick 'r Treat

The Howard Stern show went to Harlem and asked some of the locals about their support for Obama while ascribing McCain's policies to the one. The resulting responses are very interesting.

Listen to this, and you tell me why they are voting for Obama.

H/T: The Mrs.

Happy Halloween

The question I ask of you infidels as you go around evading spooks and goblins tonight, will we be freer next year on Halloween? Frankly, President Obama, or the thought of it is scarier than any ghost or goblin. At least we know there are no such things as ghosts.

Boo!

Another wonderful endorsement for Obama

Heh heh heh. This is a beauty. It seems a white supremacist is supporting Obama.

Tom Metzger, Director, White Aryan Resistance

Likes: White people, karaoke, environmentalists

Dislikes: Race-mixing, Jews, the federal government, capitalism

Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980; appeared on the episode of Geraldo Rivera’s show in 1988 when Rivera’s nose was broken in a brawl.

"The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make much difference who's in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a warmonger. He’s a scary, scary person--more dangerous than Bush. Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists. I’ve got the quote right here: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.' The problem with Obama is he’s being dishonest about his racial views. I’d respect him if he’d just come out and say, 'Yeah, I’m a black racist.' I don’t hate black people. I just think it’s in the best interest of the races to be separated as much as possible. See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person."

Oy vey.

(H/T STACLU)

Ominous

Via Gates of Vienna comes this report from Israel National News about a possible Iranian nuclear weapon test last weekend.

A weekend 5.0 Richter earthquake in Iran was actually a nuclear bomb test, says an Iranian nuclear scientist claiming to be working on the project.

The report is an Israel Insider exclusive.

This past Saturday night, southern Iran experienced what was reported as a significant earthquake - a seismic event measuring 5.0 on the Richter scale. Its epicenter was just north of the strategic Straits of Hormuz, which separates Iran from Abu Dhabi and Oman and which is the gateway to the Persian Gulf.

I guess we Obama now more than ever to talk to 'em and convince 'em of the error of their ways...

Why?

I spoke on the phone today with a friend, Juan Amador Rodriguez. Some of you may know the name. He's a guy about my age that came from Cuba in the 1990s. He participated in the famous Maleconazo of 1994. He was also a political prisoner in Cuba. He often appears on Radio Mambi and when he does, he invites Alberto de la Cruz and I to come along and give the Cuban-American perspective. Juan Amador has a way with words. It's a shame he doesn't speak much English because he's very articulate.

Anyway, today we were talking about the election and he said to me:

Henry, Barack Obama is the son of a black man and a white woman who was born during a time of incredible discrimination. He was raised mainly by his grandparents and despite their modest lifestyle he was afforded the opportunity to attend the best universities. He became a lawyer and a politician and now is a step away from being president. He's a testament to the greatness of this country. So why does he want to change it so badly? I just want my daughter to have the same chance he did. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does he want to change that?

Fascinating Obama Audio

Read about it here.

Then listen to it here.

Go Back Home, Peter Frampton!!

These lame Limey pinko millionaires flee to America to evade socialist Britain's confiscatory taxes--then they campaign to convert the U.S to socialism! If "you--you-YOU--feel Like I do!" Then let's "show him the way"--back across the big water, where he can hob-knob with his fellow Fabians.

And by the way: Joe Perry's burning riffs stomp your lame strumming ANYDAY, Frampton!

Check it out here

No shit! Really?!

You just figure that out Sherlock? One more liberal theory lie down the toilet...

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

DUH!

The 31 years of failed Democrat economic policies

Over the last month I've had to explain the sub-prime mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of various investment banks and the culminating bailout to a wide variety of family members, friends and acquaintances. As someone who for 18 years was in the belly of the beast that was (and is) the financial services industry, I know a little about the subject. One of the main canards I hear from the preternaturally stupid people on the left is the mantra of "Bush's eight years of failed economic policies" have led us to where we are today. In addition to being a lie, it is also indicative of the blind, cultish fanaticism that pervades the left. When I attempt to compare the economic realities that existed in 2006, when Dems were voted into a majority in the House and Senate, versus where we are today, none of it filters through. None. There is no reasoning, no talking, no exposition of facts detailed enough to convince these people. It is a seemingly impossible task.

In The American Thinker on October 26, M. Jay Wells wrote what I think is a definitive essay on the real reasons for our financial crisis, going back (as I stated in a post a month ago) with the passage of a little law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In "Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened," Wells details the history of the crisis from the tipping point of CRA, and the organizations like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and ACORN, who took full advantage of it, doing their level, mostly unintentional, best in almost destroying our banking system with trillions of dollars of bad loans. Wells writes that "[c]ontrary to the Obama narrative [...] it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism [he] hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear."

The entire article is included below the fold. Read it and keep it close. Facts are stubborn things, Ronald Reagan was fond of saying; they can't be denied. The sad fact is that the country is witnessing the consequences of failed Socialist policies -- and possibly heading further into the abyss with its eyes closed and its mind, such as it is, made up.

Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened
By M. Jay Wells

Obama's economic narrative of the mortgage crisis ignores the facts. He has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in that market.

On September 15, with banking giant Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection, Obama was given the opening to begin weaving his anti-capitalist storyline. And that he did. Artfully blurring the mortgage industry crisis with generalized tax policy, Obama declared,

"I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

The words were carefully chosen. That day in Colorado marked his return to the teleprompter and a strictly refocused campaign message intent on surreptitiously fusing the mortgage industry woes and free-market capitalism in general. Confident the American people are primed for his socialist brand of "change," Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme, "What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."

His chat with a Toledo, Ohio, plumber showcases his socialist, redistributionist ideology:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

He had already said as much at an April debate where he said his plan was to "look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness" (after having just admitted that raising the tax would reduce revenues!). For Obama, increased federal revenue be damned, tax increases are nonetheless necessary for redistributionist "fairness."

Contrary to the Obama narrative, however, it is not free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry crisis, but rather the very socialism Obama hawks. The historical record makes this fact unmistakably clear.

The Growing Government Hand

1933-1938

President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of "New Deal" reform programs designed to affect the mortgage market and homeownership. Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was established to facilitate liquidity among lending institutions.

1968

As part of President Johnson's Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a private owned yet government chartered company, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) providing authority to issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys home mortgages in order to preserve liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the Federal government.

1970

President Nixon chartered Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as a GSE to compete with Fannie Mae. Designed to help grow the secondary mortgage market, Freddie Mac purchases mortgages from lending institutions to either be securitized as MBS and sold in the secondary market or held by Freddie Mac. At this time the secondary market for conventional mortgages was small.

1977

Sen. Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) introduced a "creeping socialism" community reinvestment Senate bill. Opponents argued the bill would allocate credit without regard for merits of loan applications, thereby threatening depository institutions. Proponents countered that it was only to ensure that lenders did not ignore good borrowing prospects in their communities. The bill's sponsor stressed it would neither force high-risk lending nor substitute the views of regulators or those of banks.

President Carter, pressed by grassroots organizations -- though opposed by the banking industry, signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In the years following the Act has undergone several revisions.

To boost community development laws, CRA was a provision designed to stem bank "redlining," the practice of drawing a red line around low-income communities and denying lending in these areas. The original intent of CRA was to encourage banks to foster homeownership opportunities in these underserved communities in which the lending institutions are chartered.

According to Section 801 of title VIII, "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs [i.e., credit and deposit services] of the communities in which they are chartered to do business." Accordingly, "regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation" to meet these needs. Moreover, the title required each "appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions."

1980s

With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what "affirmative obligation" might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the "discrimination" provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.

August 1989

To deal with the savings & loan fallout of the 1980s, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. In a move with ominous portent, FIRREA mandated public release of lender evaluations and performance ratings, resulting in added pressure on the banking industry. Such public oversight enabled bullying abuses of community organization groups like ACORN to further influence bank lending practices.

1990s

With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.

The agitators could now stall or hijack bank mergers by filing complaints of non-compliance against the institutions. Lawsuits alleging redlining and racism began flooding the court system. With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as ACORN litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.

Initially the GSEs resisted purchasing these risky mortgages but eventually the Clinton Administration instructed them to substantially increase the percentage of these mortgages in their portfolios. The government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Clinton reforms became "a feeding trough," in the phrase of Peter Ferrara.

The poor communities and their exploitive leaders benefited from the capitalization with a surge of homeownership, at least on the surface. Wall Street benefited from increased sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, as the housing market benefited from new capital channeled from Fannie and Freddie. And the GSE heads profited, with political support in Washington in the form of campaign contributions.

In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.

February 1990

Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, who responded that they were being bullied into irresponsible "affirmative-action lending policy."

1991

ACORN interfered with a House Banking Committee meeting for two days protesting a move to bring CRA reform.

1992

Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants." Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because "community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities."

According to the Times, however, "the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against."

Frank Quaratiello, writing in the Boston Herald, cites Stan Liebowitz, "My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result." Said Liebowitz, "Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it."

According to Quaratiello, Syron became Freddie Mac CEO and chairman in 2003 and "faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed's guide had, in effect, served to legitimize." Regarding Syron's total compensation in 2007 of $18.3 million, Liebowitz reportedly quipped, "Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending."

September 1992

The Chicago Tribune described the ACORN agenda as "affirmative action lending." And, writes Kurtz, "ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities."

October 1992

Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to "amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development." The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to "ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely." It also "established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas."

Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was "hamstringing" the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a "weak regulator." Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."

September 1993

The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN's Talbott with five area lenders "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.

July 1994

Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had "intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction," calling their action "racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices."

November 1994

President Clinton addresses homeownership: "I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before."

June 1995

Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.

As Kurtz notes,"ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond." What resulted was the broadening of the "acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis."

The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed "to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000." The plan was "to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership" which was "amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities."

Kurtz concludes, "Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system -- far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness' -- and the contagion spread."

Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, "We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears." With the new policy in full force, "No loan is exempt; no bank is immune." "For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement," reiterated Reno.

1997

HUD Secretary Cuomo said "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas . . ."

1998

By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.

April 1998

HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, "discrimination isn't always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that's hidden behind a smiling face."

Before the camera, Cuomo admitted the mandate amounted to "affirmative action" lending that would result in a "higher default rate." The institution would "take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes; to give families mortgages who they would not have given otherwise, yes; they would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes. It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes. . . . With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio."

May 1999

The LA Times reports that African Americans homeownership is increasing three times as fast as that of whites, with Latino homeowners is growing five times as fast, attributing the growth to breathing "the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act." This breath of "life" mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages with deviant down-payments and debt-to-income ratios which allowed lenders to approve mortgages for lower-income families that would have been denied otherwise.

By now all pretense had disappeared, lending practices were based upon concerns of discrimination in the banking system regardless the consequences. The administration threatened to veto a bill passed by the Senate which had "shortsightedly voted to retrench" CRA, as the advocative Times put it.

Under pressure, Fannie Mae was resisting increased targeting, arguing that the result would be more loan defaults. Barry Zigas, heading Fannie Mae's low-income efforts, argued, "There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can't push [the banks] to produce," the Times reported.

Fall of 1999

Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned, "Debates about systemic risk should also now include government-sponsored enterprises, which are large and growing rapidly."

September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "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," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "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." The danger was known.

September 1999

A study by Freddie Mac, confirming earlier Federal Reserve and FDIC studies, contradicts race discrimination arguments for CRA. The study found that African-Americans with annual incomes of $65-$75,000 have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000, showing that the difficulty in qualifying was not because of race but because of bad credit records. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas accordingly entitled a paper "Red Lining or Red Herring?"

2000

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition instructed on how to exploit the new CRA regulations, "Timely comments can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating." NCRC asserted, "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." That is, the mere threat to intervene in the CRA review process had equipped the ACORN groups for the massive shakedown.

Moreover, ACORN had been given a compelling incentive, as CRA allowed the organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee had estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of the organizers.

Winter 2000

City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1 trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through the community organizers.

March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Treasury Undersecretary Gary Gensler testified in favor of GSE regulation. He argued that the bill would promote private market discipline, increase transparency and preserve market competition, reducing the potential for subsidized competitors to distort financial markets.

Fannie Mae spokesmen responded by calling the testimony "inept," "irresponsible," and "unprofessional."

Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute testified to the subcommittee that the bill was "a milestone in Congressional efforts to gain control of the Government Sponsored Enterprises." He added that the "political courage and stamina that was required to introduce this bill and to continue to press it forward cannot be overstated." He emphasized that the bill was only an "interim step in the necessary process of dismantling the GSEs and eliminating both their threat to the taxpayers and to the private financial sector of our economy."

Wallison explained why Fannie and Freddie "pose a serious problem for both the public and private sectors." First, they contain an inherent contradiction. "It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits."

He sounded an alarm on a "vicious and dangerous cycle." "Fannie and Freddie must grow in order to maintain their profitability and hence their high stock prices, but there is no countervailing check on their growth - no effective competition, no required government approvals, and no fear in the financial markets that there is any risk associated with financing this growth. Moreover, their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders require them to exploit their subsidy to the fullest extent possible. These are agencies that are - in the fullest sense of the phrase - out of control."

Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives vigorously attacked any such criticism. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets," rebuffed Sharon McHale, Freddie Mac spokeswoman. Congressional Democrats and GSE representatives prevailed.

June 2000

Fred L. Smith Jr., writing in Investor's Business Daily, recalls testifying before the House Financial Services Committee that GSE "special privileges create a serious hazard to the market, to taxpayers [and] to the economy." He warned that these GSEs were "strange organizations, neither private-sector fish nor political-sector fowl" and that "as a result, no one is quite sure how these entities should be evaluated or held accountable." These new debt portfolios "will certainly increase the likelihood of a Fannie-Freddie default."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania): "Mr. Smith, that is almost a fallacious argument," adding that rapid growth of GSE debt holdings was nothing to worry about as it simply reflected "inflation and the growth of population. "Everything, proportionately, is that much larger."

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.

April 2001

Fiscal Year 2002 Budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity," says a White House release.

July 2001

Subcommittee hearing on a bill proposed by Rep. Baker to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and abolish the OFHEO.

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania) responded: "This bill would dramatically restructure the current regulatory system for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my opinion, it also represents a solution in search of a problem. Nearly a decade ago, Congress created a rational, reasonable, and responsive system for supervising GSE activities, and that system with two regulators is operating increasingly effectively. H.R. 1409 would unfortunately interrupt this continual progress."

March 2002

Business Week interview with Fannie Mae Vice-Chairman Jamie Gorelick about the prospects for the coming year:

Gorelick: "we are expecting a very, very strong 2002."

Gorelick: "We believe we are managed safely. . . . Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions. . . . . And we have consistently exceeded every standard that the examiners have set for us."

May 2002

In an OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, the President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.

2003

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee with GSE oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was informed by OFHEO "on the salaries paid to executives at both companies," according to the Washington Post. Reportedly, "Fannie Mae threatened to sue Baker if he released it, he recalled. Fearing the expense of a court battle, he kept the data secret for a year." "The political arrogance exhibited in their heyday, there has never been before or since a private entity that exerted that kind of political power," he said.

June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.

July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.

September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers. These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

The New York Times reports that the Administration recommended "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," calling for new supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury Department. Reportedly, Congressional Democrats "fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements, says a White House release.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. . . . I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. . . . I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Rep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina): "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.

Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE," says a White House release.

February 2004

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator," reports a White House release.

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

June 2004

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System," the White House reports.

September 2004

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up." Again, GSE pressure prevailed.

October 2004

Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: "Then there's the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it."

Baker adds, "Although their bonds bear the disclaimer ‘not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,' the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies' risk strategies to the taxpayers' pockets."

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): "It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure. . . . The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "And as well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): "What would make you, why should I have confidence? Why should anyone have confidence, and uh, in, in you as a regulator at this point?"

Armando Falcon, OFHEO Director: "Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It's about Freddie Mac."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the ‘34 act, they weren't under the ‘33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I'm tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can't hire them."

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): "So the concern that I have is you're making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You've imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a 48-hour ultimatum on them without having any specific regulatory authority to put that kind of ultimatum on ‘em. Uh, that sounds like some kind of an invisible line has been crossed."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. And for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that's got to be the minimum not the maximum."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "I find this to be inconsistent and a and a rush to judgment. I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae as OFHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): "And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn't be satisfied with 3%?"

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "Because banks don't, there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans."

Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: "These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%."

January 2005-July 2006

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."

April 2005

Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system," from a White House release.

May 2005

At AEI Online, Wallison warned that "allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

January 2006

Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS "creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators." He stated, ". . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie's and Freddie's investment portfolios."

March 2006

Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.

May 2006

After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be "enacted this year" to avoid "the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

May 2006

Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ‘illusions deliberately and systematically created' by the company's senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. . . . OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."

McCain stressed, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

April 2007

Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.

April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."

September 2007

President Bush: "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."

2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Today 2008

The narrative is of another socialist experiment failed, this time a massive federal effort, imperiling the whole US banking industry. Facing this economic disaster, will an informed American people put their trust Obama's socialist ideology to bring remedy? To do so is to trust in an acetylene torch to put out the fire.

Over Hill and Tale

The ending of this article which posits San Juan Hill as emblematic of US-Cuba relations could have been written by the regime. Oh, wait, it probably was, at least indirectly. I'll dispense with the usual explanations, except to say that the comparison is oversimiplified and not quite accurate. Still, there is truth there, particularly the notion that the perspective of American History is different than that of even precastro Cuba.

Like many of my generation, the Cuban history I know is a mix of American textbooks, familial retelling, and research. That's why the earliest chapters of Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause by Tom Gjelten which focus on the family and its ties to Santiago prove valuable. Mr. Gjelten attempts to convey the Cuban view of the American intervention and its results within the context of telling the story of los Bacardi. Doubtless a delight for students of history and Bacardiphiles, I've been unable to finish it in the one week time frame decreed by my local public library, even with fines. Still from what I've managed to read in the interim, it strikes me as an important book.

Translation: I can't vouch for his treatment of the brothers castro. I leave you with this excerpt from the author's website:

Over many tellings, the Cuba story has hardened around a few stale themes—Havana in its debauched heyday or Fidel [c]astro and his dour revolution—and it has lost much of its vitality and wholeness. This book originated in my search for a new narrative, with new Cuban characters and a plot that does justice to this island that produced the conga line and “Guantanamera” as well as Che Guevara’s five-year-plans. I have tried to give a nuanced view of the nation’s experience over the last century and a half. Cuban history was not preordained. There were choices made and paths not taken, and the men and women who were excluded and then exiled deserve to have their contributions recognized, if only to understand why so many became so angry. The Bacardi saga serves all these purposes.

If anyone's read it, I'd love to hear your impressions.

Cross-posted at ninetymilesaway

The Streak Continues

This just in...

the United Nations has voted against the "embargo" for the 17th straight year.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Rich? Who's rich?

Dear Mr. Obama:

An Iraqi war veteran explains to Obama why he is voting for McCain. The end left me speechless, and is more powerful, real, and moving than any rhetoric Obama could ever eloquently recite from a teleprompter.

SoFla Sports Journo voted for Obama and Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Omar Kelly, the Dolphins beat writer for the Sun-Sentinel was a guest on Sid Rosenberg's show and asked Sid who he's voting for. Sid responds that he's voting for McCain. Then Sid asks Kelly who he's voting for and Kelly, who is African American, responded that he voted for Obama. At the end of the segment, Sid asks Kelly about Raul Martinez and Kelly says:

I actually, I know Diaz-Balart so I actually voted for him...I'm an independent thinker... Raul Martinez has got a little too much dirt underneath his nails for me.

It's a lose-lose proposition for Obama's supporters

On November 4th, Barack Obama just might win the presidential election. But regardless of whether he wins or loses, the vast majority of his supporters will lose. If McCain wins the election, they will feel the sting of watching the candidate they placed all their hopes in be defeated. But it stands to be much worse for them if their candidate wins.

By placing their hopes and aspirations in the hands of Obama, they have in effect transferred the individual faith they have in themselves to another person. A person who has promised to make their dreams come true for them. No longer will they have to fight, or struggle, or even work to achieve their dreams; Obama promises to do it all for them. But sooner, rather than later, they will realize that Obama can never deliver on this impossible promise. It is then when they will experience a pain much greater than they can imagine; the pain of realizing that you gave up not only your most sacred dreams and hopes to someone else, but that you gave up hope on yourself so that someone else can do it for you.

Fouad Ajami has an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He sees a disturbing similarity between the throngs of Obama supporters and to what he used to see in Egypt during his youth.

My boyhood, and the Arab political culture I have been chronicling for well over three decades, are anchored in the Arab world. And the tragedy of Arab political culture has been the unending expectation of the crowd -- the street, we call it -- in the redeemer who will put an end to the decline, who will restore faded splendor and greatness. When I came into my own, in the late 1950s and '60s, those hopes were invested in the Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser. He faltered, and broke the hearts of generations of Arabs. But the faith in the Awaited One lives on, and it would forever circle the Arab world looking for the next redeemer.

America is a different land, for me exceptional in all the ways that matter. In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination.

* * * The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat -- by now unthinkable to the devotees -- will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won't be solved by a leader's magic.

Unable to deliver anything of substance, Obama has built his entire campaign, and for that matter, his career, on addressing only the ethereal. This gives him the latitude to be everything to everyone. To the steelworker, he portrays himself as a blue-collar man; to college students, he talks of intellectual hypothesis; to the regular Jane and Joe on the street, he transforms himself into a regular Barry. He accomplishes all of this not by providing substance but by instead providing himself as the vessel, the incarnation for all these people to realize their dreams.

It will be a sad day indeed when Obama’s supporters realize he is really just merely a mortal.

The inimitable Mark Steyn

Funny and on-target, as usual.

This is an amazing race. The incumbent president has approval ratings somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the ebola virus. The economy is supposedly on the brink of global Armageddon. McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama's burning through $600 mil as fast as he can, and he doesn't really need to spend a dime given the wall-to-wall media adoration. And tonight Chris Matthews' doctors announced that his leg tingle has metastasized leaving his entire body like a vibrating cellphone whose ringtone is locked on "I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love With A Wonderful Guy." And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange.

(H/T The American Spectator)

If we vote for Obama will you stop calling "racist"?

No. Sorry. Can't do it Sally.

Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at a recent panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.

Election Fatigue from Marta's Cuban American Kitchen

I apologize in advance. Yes, I know it's Thursday, but no, there’s no recipe today.

With all the tension we’ve been experiencing this election season, I, like many of you, have lost my appetite for the moment. (Only for the moment.)

But fear not, I do have plans to post some more of my wonderful recipes very soon; like boliche, and my croquetas and even an awesome sopa de chicharros. For you non-Cubans, that translates to a Cuban-style pot roast, croquettes, and split pea soup.

And I swear to you, my Split Pea Soup is to die for. I will be posting those recipes soon after the election.

So until then, my fellow Babalúsians, “visualize whirled peas.” =D

Keep the faith.
~ Marta

Mc Cain Rocks a Rocker's Vote!

So the Dems get the hag Streisand and the fruity pretty- boy Bon Jovi. We get Joe Perry from the absolute Ass-Kickingest (American) rock band, Aerosmith!

Sweet Emotions-- INDEED!

Check it out!

The Song That Liberals Love to Hate

Yes folks, has your party been crashed by audacious liberals who won't keep their traps shut? Or are you minding your own business only to have a liberal rip you for not agreeing with them? Or are you tired of being called stupid by tight ass leftists?

Well, here is the cure. You play this song, and you play it loud, and liberals will cringe. They will run away faster than banshee from hell. You play this song and you play it loud and liberals will cry for mercy.

This song is like kryptonite to leftists.

Don't believe me? Try it.

See you at the polls infidels.

Cold War 2.0

My latest column for Pajamas Media.

McCain's Miami

"Comunismo," said Michael Garcia, 30, the son of Cuban émigrés who works at his family-owned accounting business.

"I shouldn't have to pay more taxes because I work harder than other people," he said. "The things that Obama say scare me because that's everything that Fidel said. These things are associated in my mind with going down the path to communism."

More on McCain's Miami visit at Gateway Pundit.

A Paper Every American Should Read Including the Pinhead Obama

Just who is Austan Goolsbee? He is a top economist from the University of Chicago. He is also an Obama advisor. One would think someone like Obama, who knows about economics as well as say perhaps George W. Bush knows about theoretical physics, would pay attention to Professor Goolsbee.

You see infidels, Professor Goodsbee wrote an interesting paper in 1999 entitled: "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAX THE RICH? EVIDENCE FROM EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION."

In his paper, which can be found here, the professor notes:

This paper examines the responsiveness of taxable income to changes in marginal tax rates using detailed compensation data on several thousand corporate executives from 1991 to 1995. The data confirm that the higher marginal rates of 1993 led to a significant decline in taxable income. Indeed, this small group of executives can account for as much as 20% of the aggregate change in wage and salary income for approximately the one million richest taxpayers; one person alone can account for more than 2%. The decline, however, is almost entirely a short-run shift in the timing of compensation rather than a permanent reduction in taxable income. The short-run elasticity of taxable income with respect to the net of tax share exceeds one but the elasticity after one year is at most 0.4 and probably closer to zero. Breaking out the tax responsiveness of different types of compensation shows that the large short-run responses come almost entirely from a large increase in the exercise of stock options by the highest income executives in anticipation of the rate increases. Executives without stock options, executives with relatively lower incomes, and more conventional forms of taxable compensation such as salary and bonus show little responsiveness to tax changes.

The article is technical but not a difficult read. But this article like many others have proven that raising marginal tax rates results in less taxable income. As you will recall from the Democratic debate, Charlie Gibson hammered Obama on the capricious rationale of raising tax rates if they produce less revenue. The dimwit's response was "fairness."

You see infidels, fairness in Obama's mind, is akin of punishing success. Or as the lefties like to say, "sticking it to da man." These pud whackers are so capricious and arrogant that in the name of "fairness and equality", folks have to be patriotic by paying higher taxes, even though it will result in less tax revenue to the US Treasury. I'm sure this makes sense to those dingbats who love to rip us and call us "wingnuts", but as George Carlin used to say, you can call shit shineola, but at the end of the day, it's still shit.

You see infidels, no matter what label or what tag you want to call Obama's plan, it is still shit my friends. Those that peddle it are simply shit salesmen. What he wants to promulgate on the American public has not and will not work. But simply because this dude is a slick hipster from Harvard, we should somehow trust him.

Liberals somehow think that Obama's shit don't stink. Wake up people. It's not chocolate mousse he's peddling out there.

UPDATE: I'm sure even our favorite blogger on the left, Mr. Whoopee, who proclaims that everyone who does not agree with him is a clueless idiot, might learn something by reading this as well. Picture of the anonymous professor seen below.

Los Bobs

Yoani has been nominated in two categories for this year's The Bobs: Best Blog and Best Reporter without Border.

Please take a few moments of your day and vote for Yoani - Generacion Y, right here.

Obama ain't no Billy Mays (Updated)

Last night I missed Barack Obama’s half-hour long televised political ad. Well, in all honesty, I should say that I did not exactly miss it; truth be told, I simply ignored Obama’s infomercial. I find Billy Mays and his plethora of outstanding household product commercials to be more informative, honest, and entertaining—and at least Billy demonstrates how well the products he is selling work.

Obama, on the other hand, just talks, and talks, and talks… a never-ending stream of nebulous concepts and buzz words intended not to pique the conscious and intellectual parts of your brain, but instead to trigger that tingling-feeling-down-my-leg reaction. Well, I like that tingling-feeling-down-my-leg as much as the next guy, but not from a presidential candidate.

According to what I have read and heard, Obama said nothing new last night. He did an exceptional job of reading a teleprompter, as he always does, and he spent thirty minutes saying many words without actually saying anything. He repeated what he has been saying for the past two years; he will solve all of America’s problems. But with less than a week left before Election Day, he still has not explained how he intends to do it other than to say he will bring change and hope. We are all still waiting to hear just what Obama intends to change, and it seems that the hope he is referring to, is the hope that no one will ask him what he is talking about.

Perhaps to the few who are satisfied with that tingling-feeling-down-my-leg feeling, such details are superfluous. But the majority of America needs to see how things are going to work. If they did not, Billy Mays would not have to show those stains lifting right out, or that adhesive putty pulling a 7-ton, fully loaded tractor-trailer.

Interestingly enough it seems that, of all people, the AP found Obama’s infomercial quite lacking in substance, too. This morning I found this headline:

Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Say what you will of Billy Mays and his annoying loud voice, but if he were running for president, he would show you exactly how things would get done.

UPDATE

It seems that I am not the only one underwhelmed by Obama's infomercial skills.

TV'S TOP AD STARS PAN BAM

By SALLY GOLDENBERG

Posted: 3:56 am
October 30, 2008

Two leading infomercial stars agree: Barack Obama's half-hour self-promotion last night was a flop.

"I don't see enough smiling. Doom and gloom totally," said Anthony Sullivan, one of the biggest names in infomercial history.

"I feel depressed right now," added Sullivan, an Englishman famous for his infomercials touting the Swivel Sweeper and Smart Chopper. The only thing saving Obama, Sullivan said, was when the candidate appeared live at the end speaking at a rally in Florida.

"I think it needed it. I was about to throw myself through a window because it was depressing," Sullivan said.

He and AJ Khubani, who has produced infomercials for 25 years, said Obama also fell short of offering solutions to the dire problems he laid out.

"I didn't see a payoff. Classic infomercial is you show the before and you show the after. I didn't see the music or the crashing waves of the Pacific," Sullivan said.

He joked the producer "needs a spanking" for lacking optimism.

Khubani said: "Every infomercial lays out common problems, whether it's a flabby belly or acne, and then it gives a solution. In this case the solution is Obama."

But Obama didn't pitch the product - himself - convincingly enough, he argued.

"We always spend much more time on the solution than the problem and he did the opposite," Khubani added.

Payback

If -- and it's a big if -- Obama is elected next Tuesday, one of the more pleasant things for me will be to see, borrowing a phrase from Minister Wright, liberal's chickens coming home to roost. Take your 401(k) for example. No really. I meant that. They're thinking about "nationalizing" your 401(k). Read this:

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

The joy of seeing the look on the faces of these morons, these ignorant, uneducated clowns, when their wonderful, compassionate party takes their retirement cash away from them, is almost worth the price for conservatives to lose theirs.

You idiots want change? Well, you may just get it.

Three must-reads from The American Thinker

"Red Diaper Baby" is particularly good.

• "Do-it-yourself Fact Checking"

• "Obama: Red Diaper Baby"

• "Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis"

Kindred spirits

I've been receiving Martin Kramer's postings on the Middle East for quite a while now. They are never less than interesting and always illuminating. Like this entry received this morning:

Khalidi and Obama: kindred spirits
Thursday, 30 October 2008

"He has family literally all over the world. I feel a kindred spirit from that." —Rashid Khalidi on Barack Obama

The link between Palestinian-American agitprof Rashid Khalidi and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has finally been picked up by the mainstream media. It's something they should have looked at long ago, and even now, they aren't really digging. They're simply reporting the demand of the McCain campaign that the Los Angeles Times release the video of Obama's praise of Khalidi, at a farewell gathering for Khalidi in 2003. Obama and Khalidi (and their wives) became friends in the 1990s, when Obama began to teach at the University of Chicago, where Khalidi also taught. In 2003, Khalidi accepted the Edward Said Professorship of Arab Studies at Columbia; the videotaped event was his Chicago farewell party. The Los Angeles Times, which refuses to release the tape (and which endorsed Obama on October 19) reported last spring that Obama praised Khalidi's "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." Other speakers reportedly said incendiary things against Israel. Whether or how Obama reacted, only the videotape might tell.

That Obama spoke on this important occasion suggests that his attachment to Khalidi wasn't a superficial acquaintance. As Obama admits, the two had many "conversations" over dinner at the Khalidis' home, and these may well have constituted Obama's primer on the Middle East. Yet Obama has given no account of these conversations, even as he has repeatedly emphasized other ones which would seem far less significant.

For example, Obama, in an interview and in his spring AIPAC speech, recalled conversations with a Jewish-American camp counselor he encountered—when he was all of eleven years old. "During the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted." (In the same interview, Obama said Israel "speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus.")

Of course, the story of someone like Khalidi could have just as readily spoken to Obama's history of uprootedness, exodus, preserving a culture, and longing to return home. (So too would the story of the late Edward Said, who was photographed seated at a dinner with Obama in 1998, and who entitled his memoir Out of Place. Obama has never said anything about the impact, if any, of that conversation.) And indeed, it stretches credulity to believe that a two-week childhood encounter at a summer camp was more significant to Obama that his decade-long association, as a mature adult, with his senior university colleague, Khalidi.

Nor does it seem far-fetched that the sense of "kindred spirit" felt by Khalidi toward Obama was mutual. One particularly striking parallel deserves mention. Obama, it will be recalled, was born to a nominally Muslim father (a Kenyan bureaucat) and an American Christian mother, which has created some confusion as to the religious tradition in which he was raised. Khalidi's father, a nominally Muslim Palestinian (and a bureaucrat who worked for the United Nations) married his mother, a Lebanese Christian, in a Unitarian Church in Brooklyn, where Khalidi would later attend Sunday school. For such people caught between traditions, Third Worldist sympathies often serve as ecumenical substitutes for religion. (Obama himself allows that as an undergraduate, "in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy." One wonders how Israel fared in those conversations.)

Were we to see the videotape, it might give us some sense of how far down the road Obama went in that direction—and not all that long ago. It would be interesting to know, for example, if there was reference to Iraq. In 2003, when Khalidi's friends gave him his goodbye party, he was deep into propagandizing against the Iraq war. Among his arguments, he included this one:

This war will be fought because these neoconservatives desire to make the Middle East safe not for democracy, but for Israeli hegemony. They are convinced that the Middle East is irremediably hostile to both the United States and Israel; and they firmly hold the racist view that Middle Easterners understand only force. For these American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts, sad to say, the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend: It enabled them to draft the United States to help fight Israel's enemies.

This argument against the war was not at all unusual on the faculty of the University of Chicago at the time. Another professor of Middle East history, Fred Donner, gave it blatant expression on the pages of the Chicago Tribune, calling the Iraq war "a vision deriving from Likud-oriented members of the president's team—particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith." So perhaps it is not surprising that Obama, in his October 2002 antiwar speech, declared: "What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." No mention of Cheney or Rumsfeld—and no need to mention them, to a constituency that knew who was really behind the push for war, and why. (Later, the same argument would figure prominently in The Israel Lobby, co-authored by another Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer.)

Obama, when pressed during an appearance before a Jewish audience, admitted that "I do know him [Khalidi] because I taught at the University of Chicago." This sounds wholly innocuous; I also know Khalidi because I taught at the University of Chicago—twice, in 1990 and 1991, when I had an office on the same hall. Obama continues: "And I do know him and I have had conversations." Well, even I've had conversations with Khalidi. (A former Chicago graduate student who must keep meticulous records writes to me that he spotted me on December 6, 1990, at the Quad Club lunching with Khalidi.) Nor does it mean much if Khalidi introduced Obama to Edward Said; Khalidi introduced me to Edward Said in New York in November 1986.

The difference is that while I came away from these encounters convinced that Khalidi's purported moderation was a sham, and have said so, Obama went the other direction, maintaining their friendship right up to Khalidi's send-off from Chicago, to which he contributed an encomium. Which is why I'd really like to see that videotape. I'm just curious which of Rashid Khalidi's virtues I somehow missed, and Barack Obama saw.

Pointer: The next public sighting of Khalidi will be at a Columbia conference entitled "Orientalism from the Standpoint of its Victims—An Edward Said Conference," on November 7. Khalidi will deliver the opening address.

You can download Kramer's excellent book, Ivory Towers on Sand, as a free download here.

Just fixin' the Constitution!

More here.

Wishful thinking from castro's Canadian business partners

Sherritt International is a Canadian firm that's been in bed with castro, inc. for many years now. This is from their quarterly report which was released yesterday:

[Sherritt's] Oil and Gas [division] has historically sold all of its Cuban oil production to an agency of the Government of Cuba. As at September 30, 2008, the Oil and Gas credit risk exposure related to its share of accounts receivable with its businesses in Cuba was approximately $392.8 million...

Although the past hurricane season and the current global economic conditions have negatively impacted Cuba, the Cuban Government has stated its intention to work with the Corporation and its businesses in order to provide for the appropriate agencies to meet their respective financial obligations to the Corporation. As part of these deliberations, the Corporation believes that an acceptable framework for the orderly collection of revenues and an appropriate capital spending program will be agreed to prior to the initiation of the 2009 drilling season.

The Power [division's] credit risk exposure related to its share of cash, accounts receivable and loans associated with its businesses in Cuba was approximately $20.4 million as at September 30, 2008. Power is party to a similar series of arrangements as Oil and Gas with agencies of the Government of Cuba that provide for an orderly payment of receivables.

The Cuban government owes Sherritt just shy of half a billion dollars but "The corporation believes that orderly collection of revenue will be agreed to..."

Yeah agreed to, but agreeing and paying are two different things. Suckers!

No comment yet from Sherritt's U.S. lobbyist, Phil Peters.

From the disclaimer:

There is significant risk that predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections will not prove to be accurate, that those assumptions may not be correct and that actual results may differ materially from such predictions, forecasts, conclusions or projections. Sherritt cautions readers of this press release not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements as a number of factors could cause actual future results, conditions, actions or events to differ materially from the targets, expectations, estimates or intentions expressed in the forward-looking statements. By their nature, forward-looking statements require Sherritt to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. Key factors that may result in material differences between actual results and developments and those contemplated by this press release include business and economic conditions in Canada, Cuba, Madagascar, and the principal markets for Sherritt’s products. Other such factors include, but are not limited to... risks related to collecting accounts receivable and repatriating profits and dividends from Cuba; risks related to foreign-exchange controls on Cuban government enterprises to transact in foreign currency; risks associated with the United States embargo on Cuba and the Helms-Burton legislation...

Sherritt's shareholders? Double suckers.

Congratulations, Claudia! Oh, and the Phillies, too!

World Series Champions.

Yay.

"Hope-Nosis"

We have all seen the Obamatons. They’re our co-workers, friends, sometimes even our family members.

They walk around like zombies chanting “hope” and “change.”

We assumed that they were drinking Kool-Aid.

But now the truth comes out.

They’re really suffering from “Hope-Nosis”

We all know what the symptoms are, but no one is sure what the long lasting effects may be.

Keep your kids away from the TV.

'Twas the Night Before Elections

It's not the quite the night before the election but we could all use a chuckle today, especially at 8:03 pm.
Courtesy of Aymee

'Twas the night before elections and all through the town, tempers were flaring,

IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM--GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

The BabaluBlog Radio Hour | Special Obama Antidote Edition tonight 8:00 PM EDT

Tonight, as a public service, the BabaluBlog Radio Hour will be on from 8:00 to 8:30 PM, as a sort of antidote to the thirty-minute campaign/deification/reprogramming video that the Obama campaign will be running tonight on NBC and CBS will be running tonight. ABC News, for whatever reason, will not be broadcasting it. The call-in number is (646) 652-4506, or you can send an email to Henry and I with questions or comments. The show begins at 8:00 PM EDT. Don't miss the opportunity to call in, participate, and piss off the Obamatons!

Well, looky here

Ladies and gentlemen, the national polls are getting TIGHT.

The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama ahead by only 3 percentage points.

Gallup, using their turnout model that's based on the 2004 election has Obama ahead by only 2 percentage points. They also have an expanded model which is based on certain groups having higher than usual participation rates which has Obama ahead by 7 percentage points.

Zogby has Obama ahead by 5 points and Investors Business Daily has Obama ahead by 3 points.

Remember that if these polls are done correctly they will have a correct proportion of representation from the 50 states. The two most populous states also happen to be where many of the liberal Obamunists live. Those states are not necessary to win this election.

We need to ensure a McCain win in Florida. Things are looking up. If only the L.A. Times would release the damned tape!

Instead of Watching the Obama the Marxist Infomercial Tonight, You Can Watch Groucho Marx

It should say "well founded fears"

UK Guardian on Cubans not falling Obamunist propaganda. Unfortunately the author of the article does fall for it at the end of the piece.

The most corrupt politician you will ever see in your life

Who owns your money?

Newt Gingrich says it best, "The Barack Obama Democrats may think it’s their right to redistribute wealth, but it surely isn’t the view of the average American worker, and it’s clearly wrong."