The common sense Senator -- Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions made the following comments on the floor of the US Senate yesterday:  we would do well to remember them when the dust settles on this disgraceful budget debate charade/fiasco:

First, I would like to address the myth that the president has a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The only plan the White House has ever put on paper is his February budget, which doubles our national debt.

The president has never put a single spending cut plan on paper and he has no proposal to slash the deficit. If he does, it’s a closely guarded secret. And if such a secret plan does exist it should be made public this very afternoon. I’d like to see it. I’m sure millions of Americans feel the same.

We also have no debt plan from Senate Democrats. In fact, they haven’t even passed a budget in 813 days.

As of now, there is only one debt limit plan on paper. Only one plan available for public scrutiny and review. That’s the plan we are debating today: cut, cap, and balance. It cuts spending immediately, it caps it so it doesn’t go up, and it requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment to ensure Washington ends the deficit spending once and for all. The American people do not trust Washington to pass some grand budget deal with tax hikes that never go away and spending cuts that never materialize. …

Another myth I’d like to address is the idea that our current budget crisis is the result of two wars and a tax cut. Let’s consider that claim. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, over the entire last decade, is $1.3 trillion. Again, that’s over the last decade. This year alone the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion dollars. War costs represent only 4 percent of total outlays over the last ten years. The total amount of money spent since the president took office is $8.5 trillion dollars. By the end of his first three years in office we will have added $5 trillion to our gross federal debt. We are borrowing almost half of what we’re spending every single day. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has soared 24 percent. The stimulus package alone—enacted into law in a single day in 2009—cost more than the entire war in Iraq. Annual spending when President Bush took office was less than $2 trillion. Today, it’s almost $4 trillion. It will be almost $6 trillion by the end of the decade.

There is only one honest answer to the question over why our debt is rising so fast: out-of-control domestic spending.

Another myth that’s circulating which I’d like to address concerns the budget summary from the Gang of Six. The authors of the summary claim that their approach would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion. But my staff on the Budget Committee can only find $1.2 trillion in reduced spending, along with a tax increase of $1 trillion. Where does the other $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction come from? Chairman Conrad, one of the members of the Gang of Six, even says the outline has a $1.5 trillion tax cut. But this is compared against a baseline that assumes a $3.5 trillion tax increase. It’s just an accounting gimmick. The real cost of the tax changes could be an increase as large as $2 trillion.

This is why we need more than a handout—we need legislative text.

The last myth that I’d like to address is perhaps the most important of all. This is the myth that we only need about $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years.

Democrats have said—although no plan has ever been made public—that they could get behind a budget deal that reduces the deficit $4 trillion over the next ten years, half of it comprised of spending cuts. I’m skeptical that even this minimal level of spending cuts would occur. But even if it did, it’s not even close to what is needed to ultimately balance our budget. We are projected to spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. A $2 trillion cut is only about a four percent reduction in spending that is set to increase almost sixty percent.

Affirmative action revisited by J.R. Dunn of American Thinker

Helen Sargent, a southerner by birth and upbringing, has commented numerous times after visiting family and friends in Alabama, about how well the blacks are doing economically, and how comfortable race relations were in her old home town of Mobile.  This fact she attributes to the history in the south in which blacks and whites have shared space together for a long time, admittedly much of that time in a repressive, one could say evil relationship, and as such learned about each other and in many ways oddly came to be comfortable with one another.  For several decades now blacks have been returning to the south from the economically depressed mid-west and elsewhere, and seemingly are integrating comfortably in the new/old culture there.  Elsewhere in the country race relations are quite tense and can be said to have worsened under the Obama leadership.  J.R. Dunn here lays much of the blame for this condition on the polarizing effect of Obama playing the race card whenever it could possibly benefit him, and on the highly toxic effects of Affirmative Action and the inherent divisiveness of the policies, e.g. set asides, quotas, etc., of this political construct.  Objectively it is hard to see where Affirmative Action has had any positive effect.  What it seems to do quite effectively is pit race against race causing strained relations all around.  What's more the policy is the antithesis of the American can-do spirit of individualism in which each person is ultimately responsible for making his own way in life.  Liberals may agree with this thought but argue that blacks need a leg up to catch up as a result of the debilitating effects of centuries of slavery.  The downside of this latter argument is the dependency culture effect of Affirmative Action that liberals cultivate and nurture for political purposes.  Many thinking blacks agree that this construct has been counterproductive.

Bias in the media

This may be one of those seminal news series that once and for all helps people understand the hapless thought process of the liberal mind.  Once again Powerline has allowed this story to see the light of day and become a part of the record.  Were it not for the internet and the few conservative news outlets like Fox, we would never have heard a thing about this fascinating story.  The series to date are here, here, here, here, and here.

Istanbul and earthquakes

Claire Berlinski, a free-lance writer who contributes to many media outlets and who lives in Istanbul, writes here about the threat of earthquakes to metropolitan areas, specifically Istanbul.  When one of these monster quakes happens in a vulnerable city that is unprepared, such as Istanbul, Claire predicts there could be millions of casualties.  As she points out, Istanbul is no more prepared for a monster quake than Port-au-prince, Haitti, and there are 30 to 40 times as many people living there.  It is her contention that the corruption of the political parties, all of whom are in cahoots with the construction industry, is the root cause of the lack of preparation.  This could be ugly.

Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson

This post from Powerline contains a brief (less than 5 minutes) video of an interview by Sean Hannity with Gretchen Morgenson who wrote this book "Reckless Endangerment".  The book chronicles the events which led to the financial meltdown that has left our economy in shambles.  There are several other books out there on the meltdown but it appears this one is the most complete at least in terms of holding all the various players involved over many years to account.  A must read.

Acorn and Obama -- one more time yet again

Democracy is susceptible to highly organized and motivated minorities no matter how venal or destructive these groups may be.  Below is an example of how one such group, Acorn, can and did pervert the democratic process and made a highly destructive contribution to the downfall of our financial system from which we are still trying to recover.  The only way to prevent this kind of outcome is to rally the general public to the real danger these groups are to the general wellbeing of the democracy.  Herein lies the problem.  At this point in time we have in this country a media incapable, or worse yet, unwilling to fulfill its fourth estate role of informing the general public about threats presented by extralegal and even criminal organizations.  We are finding out what its like to live in a country in which the media is captive of one political party.  Until the American public wakes up to the destructive bias of the mainstream media, organizations like Acorn will have free reign to distort and corrupt our democracy.

By STANLEY KURTZ

Still pushing to protect junk mortgages at any cost: ACORN continues to march and rally to get Congress to support its radical agenda, as with this demonstration in Washington, DC, in March.

Posted: 4:09 am
October 13, 2008

TO discover the roots of to day's economic crisis, consider a tale from 1995.

That March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance.

Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, "Nuke Newt!" and "We want Newt!" Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying.

The demonstrators' target, Gingrich, hadn't yet arrived - and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN's foot soldiers cheered.

Editorial writers from Little Rock to Buffalo condemned ACORN's action as an affront to both civility and freedom of speech. Editorialists also pointed out that the "spending cuts" the protesters railed against were imaginary - Gingrich proposed merely to slow the growth in some welfare programs and turn control back to the states.

Yet ACORN had only just begun. Two days later, 50 to 100 of the same protesters hit their main target - a House Banking subcommittee considering changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that allows groups like ACORN to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers.

The CRA's ostensible purpose is to prevent banks from discriminating against minorities. But Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who chaired the subcommittee, was worried that charges of discrimination had become an excuse for lowering credit standards. She warned that new, Democrat-proposed CRA regulations could amount to an illegal quota system.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown.

When the role of ACORN and congressional Democrats in the mortgage crisis is pointed out, Democrats reply that banks subject to the CRA represent only about a quarter of the loans that led to our current troubles. In fact, the problem goes way beyond the CRA.

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose.

IT struck as Roukema aired her concerns at that hearing. Pro testers, led by ACORN President Maud Hurd, stood up and began chanting, "CRA has got to stay!" and "Banks for greed, not for need!" The protesters then demanded the microphone.

With the hearing interrupted and the demonstrators refusing to leave, Roukema called the Capital Police, who arrested Hurd and four others for "disorderly conduct in a Capital building" - a charge carrying a penalty of a $500 fine, six months in prison or both. As the police arrived, two of the protesters menacingly approached Roukema's desk, still demanding the hearing microphone.

Requests to the Capital Police to release the activists from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass,) failed. Then Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) showed up at the jail and refused to leave until the protesters were released; the Capital Police relented.

Meanwhile, instead of repudiating ACORN's intimidation tactics, Rep. Kennedy berated Roukema for arresting one of his constituents and accused the Republicans of preparing for "an all-out attack on CRA." He also promised to introduce legislation to expand the CRA's coverage to mortgage bankers and large credit unions.

THIS little slice of political life from 1995 had a variety of ripple effects. Above all, ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

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. By steamrolling the GOP that March, it had crushed the last potential barrier to "change."

Three months later, the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights - regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.

WHEN the ACORN-Democrat alliance finally succeeded in blocking Republicans from restoring fiscal sanity in 1995, the way was open to virtually unlimited lending quotas - and to a whole new way of thinking about credit standards.

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.

And when financial institutions across the board saw that they could make money by trading what would once have been considered junk loans, the profit motive kicked in. But the bad seed that started it all was ACORN.

HOW does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

Later, as a young lawyer, he offered leadership training to the activists who were forcing Chicago banks into high-risk subprime loans. And when he made it on to the boards of Chicago's Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he channeled money ACORN's way.

Obama was perfectly aware of ACORN's intimidation tactics - indeed, he oversaw a Woods Fund report that boasted of managing to fund the radical group despite its shocking behavior.

And as a lawmaker, in Illinois and in Washington, he has continued to back ACORN's leglislative agenda.

ACORN's high-pressure tactics live on. And congressional Democrats are still covering for ACORN, funneling it money and doing its legislative bidding. ACORN also continues its shady ways, using a vast network of technically separate but in fact quite interconnected organizations to evade federal laws on the politicized use of government money.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the Obama campaign appears to have little more regard for freedom of speech than Reps. Kennedy or Waters did when they backed up ACORN's thugs in 1995. The campaign actually practices ACORN-style tactics, sending out "action wires" that call on supporters to block Obama critics from radio appearances (a tactic once applied to me) and demanding legal actions against unfriendly political advertisers.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promises a massive national-service program closely allied with the nonprofit sector. He wants to remove "barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs."

In other words, he plans a massive effort to funnel America's youth into volunteer work alongside the likes of ACORN. So Obama's favorite community organizers may soon be training your child.

ACORN's alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN's ways.

Pretty soon, the folks who poured into the Washington Hilton to shut down Speaker Gingrich in 1995 may no longer need to take over the microphone. They'll be in charge of it.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_2apJAuC2tslB4no8AK15iO#ixzz1SIOEJUuV

Obama -- an analysis via the Claremont Institute

How to get the truth about Obama's past and his socialist roots, which are deep and wide, is the key to defeating him in 2012.  As can be seen from this Claremont Institute series here, much of Obama's past was disguised during and since the last election, but in the meantime there have been a number of books written that actually shed some light on who this guy is and where he comes from.  To expand on this information and get it out to the public at large is going to be a very big challenge, however it can and must be done otherwise he continues on for another four years doing grave harm to what's left of the Republic.  The Powerline link here provides further access to other important articles and reviews of books that have dealthwith aspects of The One's life.  All of the information available on these sites and through these links should be required reading for anyone who intends to vote in the next election.  Also everyone should be aware that the Communists, just like the Muslims, consider lying to further the interest of each's goals, to be not only justified, but smart policy.  That's why digging out the truth and exposing ist to the public is so crucial.  We can be subjugated to this vile philosophy if we don't react to the lies being perptrated about Obama and his cohorts and where the really want to take this country.  Beware!