Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Pinocchio Sestak

Sestak's nose is surely growing due to all of his rampant dishonesty.  Apparently, Sestak has potentially violated House ethics rules barring earmarks going to for-profit groups.  But, now Sestak & Co. is spinning this story in an effort to explain away such dishonesty.

From NRO: At issue is whether Sestak’s congressional office was aware that Devitt, who requested a $350,000 earmark as chairman of the Thomas Paine Foundation, also heads a for-profit group called New Way Energy, LLC., which would have “partnered” with his foundation to develop a potentially for-profit wind prototype.

The problem is: The Thomas Paine Foundation exists only on paper. Calls from Battle ‘10 to the foundation were unsuccessful. An automated message noted that the number had been disconnected. The foundation hasn’t filed a federal tax return in six years. In 2004, its most recent filing year, its budget totaled $195, with “program expenses” amounting to $65.

The Thomas Paine Foundation “partners” with the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, an atheist advocacy group, though in comments to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Devitt said the latter advocacy group had “nothing to do with the request.”

April Mellody, spokeswoman for Sestak’s campaign, blamed Devitt for misleading congressional staffers when applying for his earmark. But Devitt told the Tribune-Review, “I don’t believe I misled them.”

Nachama Soloveichik, Pat Toomey’s communications director, told Battle ‘10, “Either Congressman Sestak isn’t telling Pennsylvanians the whole truth about his latest earmark violation, or his office is guilty of gross incompetence.”

Critics have emerged, including Pennsylvania Republican Chairman Rob Gleason, who have questioned how thoroughly Sestak’s congressional office researches earmark requests.

The earmark request has been rejected by a House appropriations subcommittee. But that it was even proposed by Sestak raises the question of what Sestak’s office considers “due diligence.” What would qualify a foundation — with no prior research and development experience and whose most recent programs budget totaled $65 — for a $350,000 wind-energy grant?

With his involvement in "jobsgate" and this new accusation, Sestak is certainly proving himself to be an extremely untrustworthy candidate for the Pa Senate seat.  This is why as many Pennsylvanians as possible must get out and vote for Pat Toomey, who is trustworthy, in the November election.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Three Things You Should Know About Islam

A Prayer: St. Albert the Great on Conscience

I recently came across this prayer from Tantamergo at A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics:

O Lord Jesus Christ, Who seekest those who stray and receivest them when returning, make me approach to Thee through the frequent hearing of They Word, lest I sin against my neighbor by the blindness of human judgement, through the austerity of false justice, through comparing his inferior status, through too much trust in my merits or through ignorance of the Divine Judgement. Guide me to search diligently each corner of my conscience lest the flesh dominate the spirit.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Liberals and Muslims Paths Converge

I have been thinking about how much both liberals and Muslims have been working together lately.  Both of their paths seem to converge and now they are working in concert to impose intolerance on other religions such as traditional Christianity and the Jewish faith or those religious peoples' that do not follow the religion of Islam. I mean before this Ground Zero Mosque debate, when have you ever heard or seen liberals defending any person's right to religion?  Liberals are usually attacking Christianity and shouting "separation of Church and State" from the rooftops, pushing the secularization of America to the enth degree, but for some reason now they are defending the Muslims and the religion of Islam when that particular religion was either perverted or correctly applied when 19 Muslims murdered 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001 only a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.  But, separation of Church and State means absolutely nothing to liberals in this intance.

Liberals want to "transform" America and destroy all that America is from within, while Muslims want to destroy the West, especially America, from the outside and create a Caliphate.  Both liberals and Muslims want to destroy America and make it their own -albeit in different ways- but they are committed to working together to destroy America. And, that is where their paths converge, to destroy America by working together to dismantle any trace amounts of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, and our Republic.    

Just recently I found an article written by Michael Youssef that exposes a writer on an Arab website who proceeded to explain to her Arabic readers about the Unitarian Church and many “other Christian denominations,” referring mainly to mainline denominations, and why Muslims should be supportive of them.

She said they are not like those “traditional Christians” who believe in the divinity of Christ. They, like us “Muslims,” believe that Jesus was just a good prophet: ‘To be sure, they do not believe in Mohammad as the true prophet of Allah, but we can get along with them.”

Then, Michael Youssef points out, yet, one more reason why both Muslims and liberals, or Muslims, Unitarians and the liberal mainline denominations are working together -- they all reject Biblical truth.

We must stop both liberals and Muslims
from destroying America!!!

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Albert Pujols Receives Badge of Hope at Beck's Restoring Honor Rally

Rule 5 -- Jessica Biel

I love this Rule 5 idea that Stacy at The Other McCain started to entice the eyes, in order to increase the traffic to our blogs.  It is cool. Hope all of you enjoy my rule 5 today featuring Jessica Biel.

Here is a video of Jessica Biel in a couple of pool scenes:

Jessica Biel Pool Scenes. Watch more top selected videos about: Summer Catch, Jessica Biel

Friday, August 27, 2010

Racial Demagoguery by the Left Five Years After Hurricane Katrina

I found this great article by Michelle Malkin on the Left's infatuation with using the race card for political opportunistic purposes five years later, after Hurricane Katrina. 

This weekend, on the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, civil rights activists and hip-hop stars will hold what they call a “healing ceremony” to commemorate the disaster. President Obama will speak at a separate event in New Orleans on Sunday.

But don’t expect any of these reconciliation-seeking leaders to confront the indelible stain of racial demagoguery left by the left in Katrina’s aftermath. Hating George W. Bush means never having to say you’re sorry.

The Olympic gold medal for racial grievance-mongering went to rapper Kanye West, who railed during a supposedly nonpolitical nationwide telethon that the government was shooting “us,” that “those are my people down there,” and that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” West’s vulgar exploitation of a charity drive—which was meant to unite America—left most viewers with the same aghast, frozen expression as the one on comedian Mike Myers’ face as he tried to rescue their fundraising segment from the sewage.

Not to be outdone, the Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference to blast news reporters for describing Katrina victims as “refugees.” Yes, really.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson echoed their complaint: “It is racist to call American citizens refugees.” Refugees are, by dictionary definition, “exiles who flee for safety.”

How this could be construed as bigoted remains as much a mystery as the source of unhinged Huffington Post blogger and self-proclaimed “social justice advocate” Randall Robinson’s bogus claim “that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive.”  CONTINUED

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

"Hallelujahs" (by Chris Rice) Sung by Kenneth Cope

Russian Hacker, BadB, Arrested

Thank goodness this criminal hacker has been caught by authorities, and arrested. Now, he can do no more harm to any of our computers anymore.

MOSCOW — On the Internet, he was known as BadB, a disembodied criminal flitting from one server to another selling stolen credit card numbers despite being pursued by the United States Secret Service.

And in real life, he was nearly as untouchable — because he lived in Russia.

BadB’s real name is Vladislav A. Horohorin, according to a statement released last week by the United States Justice Department, and he was a resident of Moscow before his arrest by the police in France during a trip to that country earlier this month.

He is expected to appear soon before a French court that will decide on his potential extradition to the United States, where Mr. Horohorin could face up to 12 years in prison and a fine of $500,000 if he is convicted on charges of fraud and identity theft. For at least nine months, however, he lived openly in Moscow as one of the world’s most wanted computer criminals.

The seizing of BadB provides a lens onto the shadowy world of Russian hackers, the often well-educated and sometimes darkly ingenious programmers who pose a recognized security threat to online commerce — besides being global spam nuisances — who often seem to operate with relative impunity.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Friday Funnies!

I am heading out of town for a couple days and won't be able to post again until Monday.  I hope everyone has a great, fun, and relaxing weekend!! Here are a couple funny baby videos and a funny Mr. Bean video. Enjoy!

Dismantling America

Thomas Sowell on Shredding the Constitution and thus dismantling America:
"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.  CONTINUED

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

You Just Might Be a Dhimmi If . . .

You just might be a dhimmi if…you believe in “tolerance” and “openness” to Muslims while displaying the opposite to Christians.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you believe that Islam is a religion of peace

You just might be a dhimmi if…you are in favor of a mosque being built just a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero where 3000 innocent people were murdered.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you are in favor of being sensitive to Muslim beliefs while advocating the ultimate act of insensitivity toward the families of the victims of 9/11.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you take this Imam’s word at face value, trusting him more than the common sense suspicions of your fellow concerned Americans.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you see a mosque being located just two blocks from Ground Zero as being good.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that Sharia law is compatible with our constitution.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that Sharia law wouldn’t be covered under religious freedom.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you think that these insensitive Muslims who are trying to build a mosque very close to Ground Zero are trying to “build bridges” with between Islam and Western culture.

You just might be a dhimmi if…you don’t want a background check on the imam to insure that absolutely no funds are coming from organizations with ties to terrorism.

If your dhimmitude emboldens and leads to Islamic extremists committing another terrorist attack, the dead will be so thankful for all your tolerance and openness toward the religion of peace.

Stop the dhimmis!

We must stop the dhimmitude!

Sunday, August 15, 2010

A Terrific Explanation on the Assumption of Mary

Fr. James has a very interesting and most informative explanation on The Assumption of Mary.  Enjoy!

Not everything was clear for the Blessed Virgin Mary. Just as in any manifestation of the divine, there is often a profound moment of light followed by long and trying times of darkness. Mary was enveloped in the light of God's presence during the Annunciation. However this brilliance of clarity was followed by the night of faith. She fulfilled her unconditional yes within the many trials and difficulties of her journey towards eternity.True devotion to Mary gives us the answer to all of the challenges of our times: fidelity to God's will.

Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Mary is that perfect disciple. As the ever-virgin Mother, she gave birth to the Incarnate Word, but as the perfect disciple, she gave birth to all of the sons and daughters of Jesus Christ.

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - Mary is a young, beautiful, pure and humble woman chosen before the beginning of time to be the Mother of the Incarnate Word. This calling is announced to her by the Angel Gabriel who appears to her. Mary, although she has been chosen, could have said no to God's will; however, it is her profound love of God that allows her to say yes unconditionally. "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1: 38).

It is clear that the mysteries of the Annunciation and the Incarnation indicate man's relationship with God. God is our creator and our relationship with him is through our response of loving obedience to his will. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the most perfect embodiment of this relationship between God and man. Through faith, she listens to the voice of God and freely submits her entire being to the plan of God over her life.

The word obey comes from the Latin ob-audire which means to hear or listen to. It is Mary's faith, humility and simplicity that allow her to listen to God and to put his plan into practice.

Today we celebrate the Assumption of Mary into heaven. What exactly does this mystery of our faith mean? In order to answer this question, let us turn to the solemn infallible proclamation made on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII.

"In their homilies and sermons on this feast the holy fathers and great doctors spoke of the assumption of the Mother of God as something already familiar and accepted by the faithful. They gave it greater clarity in their preaching and used more profound arguments in setting out its nature and meaning. Above all, they brought out more clearly the fact that what is commemorated in this feast is not simply the total absence of corruption from the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also her triumph over death and her glorification in heaven, after the pattern set by her only Son, Jesus Christ.

Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more full conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."

Sometimes people get confused when they do not understand the difference between the assumption of Mary and the ascension of Jesus. Jesus ascended into heaven by his own divine power because he is true God and true man. Mary is human and not divine. Therefore, she is assumed into heaven by God's power.

The dogma of the Assumption is directly linked to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. Since Mary, through a special privilege of grace did not have any sin, including Original Sin, her body did not suffer the normal consequences of death that we do. The Tradition, both of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church maintain that Mary died in the presence of the Apostles. Thomas was not present. When he did join them a few days later, they took him to her tomb. When the Apostles opened her tomb, her body was not present. Moreover, in the subsequent years of Church history, no relics of Mary's body were ever venerated. However, it is recorded that at one time the veil and the belt of the Virgin Mary were venerated in Constantinople.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary in the womb of her mother was defined as a dogma of our Catholic Faith by Blessed Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. In the solemn proclamation, the Pope said: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

As we contemplate the mystery of the Assumption, we also contemplate the tremendous number of challenges in our own country and throughout the world. More and more people tell me that they have stopped reading the news, fearing what they will read next.

True devotion to Mary gives us the answer to all of the challenges of our times: fidelity to God's will.There will be no solutions to the unraveling and disintegration of everything around us until we all become good disciples of the One who came to save us. Mary is that perfect disciple. As the ever-virgin Mother, she gave ... CONTINUED

Rule 5 - Rita Hayworth

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Sacrilege at Ground Zero; Does One Really Have the Right to Build Anywhere?

I am in total agreement with Charles Krauthemmer. He is spot on! And, since Krauthammer is so eloquent and nails it, IMO, I am posting his wise words on the Ground Zero Mosque below:

By Charles Krauthamer:
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy? CONTINUED

Do the people who want to have a mosque built just a stone's throw away from hallowed ground really have a "right" to build this mosque?  If the proposed building of a particular building on a site can be refused due to zoning laws and aesthetics why couldn't the sensitivity of  the victims families of those murdered on 9/11 hold more clout and overrule the "right" for this mosque to be built? Wouldn't you think that the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims families would be considered far more important to take into account than zoning laws or aesthetics when approving the building of a particular building? I would think so, and in spades.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Reporting the Truth Gets You Fired

This is unreal. This ABC reporter actually reports the news - tells the truth - and gets fired. I guess you can't tell the truth about the Obama administration when working for the government controlled media or the lamestream media and expect to keep your job. This is outrageous!

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Celebrating: 71 Years Ago Today "The Wizard of Oz" Premiered

One of my most favorite films is The Wizard of Oz. Today, the film is celebrating its 71st anniversary.

From The Guardian: Here are 71 Facts about The Wizard of Oz:

1) So frightening was Margaret Hamilton's performance as the Wicked Witch of the West that most of her scenes were heavily edited or cut entirely.

2) When the script was written, the part of the Wizard had been earmarked for WC Fields.

3) Judy Garland's white dress was actually pink as it was easier to shoot in Technicolor.

4) A sequel using the original cast was mooted, but scrapped after Garland became such a big star and Hamilton expressed doubts over the feasibility of such a project.

5) The film has numerous lines in Premiere magazine's poll to find the 100 Greatest Movie Lines. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" came in at No 24.

6) "There's no place like home" came in at No 11.

7) "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore" was at No 62.

8) "I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!" was No 99.

9) The same magazine named it one of the 20 most overrated movies of all time.

10) Judy Garland's childlike physique was achieved with the help of a corset.

11) Several actors playing Winged Monkeys were injured when the piano wires holding them up snapped during a shoot on the haunted forest scene.

12) An unused screenplay was written by Ogden Nash.

13) Reports suggest each Munchkin earned $50 per week, while Toto bagged $125 per week.

14) Jell-O crystals were stuck over all the horses in the Emerald City palace to lend them their colour. The scenes were shot speedily, before the horses began to lick them off.

15) The running time is 101 minutes, but the original cut was 112 minutes – only audiences at test screenings have seen the additional 11 minutes.

16) MGM toned down the gore in L Frank Baum's novel, which involves scenes showing "Kalidahs" (tiger-bear hybrids) being dashed to pieces in a crevasse, the Tin Woodman using his axe to decapitate a wildcat and 40 wolves, and bumblebees stinging themselves to death against the Scarecrow.

17) The production costs came in at $2,777,000 – a vast sum for the time. On initial release, the film only earned $3m.

18) MGM head Louis B Mayer had the idea of changing the colour of the slippers from silver to ruby.

19) The song Over the Rainbow came in at No 1 on the American Film Institute's 2004 list of the 100 Greatest Songs in American Films.

20) The film is rated No 1 on the AFI's 2008 list of the 10 greatest fantasy films.

21) In their 2007 list, the AFI ranked it as the 10th greatest film of all time.

22) So scary were the costumes worn by Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley that they had to eat meals in their dressing rooms, lest they alarm other diners in the MGM cafeteria.

23) Bert Lahr's costume weighed 90 pounds

24) In 1989, a pair of real ruby slippers were made to mark the 50th anniversary. These are valued at $3m.

25) Louis B Mayer's trigger for getting the film into production was to trump the critical and commercial success of Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).

26) Five different directors and 14 writers were involved in various stages of pre-production.

27) Judy Garland won an Oscar Juvenile Award in 1939 for her role; a gong she would later refer to as the Munchkin award.

28) L Frank Baum received $75,000 for the rights to his book.

29) Standard industrial paint, bought from a hardware store several blocks away from the studio, was used to coat the bricks on the Yellow Brick Road.

30) The oft-quoted line "Fly my pretties, fly" is a falsely remembered bit of dialogue – it's actually "Fly, Fly, Fly."

31) The fire that engulfs the Witch's hands as she's trying to remove the ruby slippers is actually apple juice spewing out of the shoes – the film was then sped up to make it look more like fire.

32) The uniforms of the Flying Monkeys match those worn by the Witch's castle guards (or Winkies).

33) A recycled bit of score from the film Marie Antoinette (1938) can be heard during the castle escape film – the music for both films was composed by Herbert Stothart.

34) To show Dorothy's house falling from the sky, a miniature house was dropped onto a sky painting on the stage floor, then the film reversed to make it appear the film was falling towards the camera.

35) Jack Haley's Tin Woodsman costume was so stiff that he had to lean against a board if he wanted a rest.

More Here
Here is the link to the song "If I Only Had a Brain" (sorry, not able to be embedded)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RjXY_-PUbo&a=GxdCwVVULXfHujjTu9LZyAVmbocObdaG&playnext=1
Here is the link to the "Merry Old Land of Oz" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEUTE0K3B3o&a=GxdCwVVULXfHujjTu9LZyAVmbocObdaG&playnext=2
Here is Judy Garland singing "Over The Rainbow" :

Here is the google doodle:

Soldier Homecoming Surprise Mix

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Marxism/Socialism/Liberalism FAIL -- Democrats Policies Caused Financial Crisis, NOT Bush's Policies

Obama continues to try to deflect the blame from himself, by blaming Bush again and again, and again, meanwhile the policies of Democrats are the ones that caused this financial crisis and not Bush‘s policies. Lyndon B. Johnson, Clinton, Obama, Democrats, Fannie, Freddie, and Community Reinvestment Act epitomizes the failure of Marxism/Socialism/liberalism/ Progressivism. Yes, the problem originates all the way back to LBJ. 
LBJ created the problem! Explained here:

From AEI.org: “The peculiar structure of the GSEs--shareholder-owned companies with a public mission--reflected a serious confusion of purpose on the part of the Lyndon Johnson administration and the members of Congress who created this flawed structure in 1968. In seeking to reduce the budget deficits associated with the Vietnam War and Great Society programs, the administration hit upon the idea of "privatizing" Fannie Mae by allowing the company to sell shares to the public. This, according to the budget theories of the time, would take Fannie's expenditures off-budget, while allowing it to continue its activities with funds borrowed in the public credit markets. But turning Fannie into a wholly private company was not acceptable either. Various special provisions were placed in Fannie's congressional charter that intentionally blurred the line between a public instrumentality and a private corporation. Among these provisions: Fannie was given a line of credit at the Treasury; the president could appoint five members of its board of directors; and its debt could be used, like Treasury debt, to collateralize government deposits in private banks.”

Democrats from the time of Clinton and continuing all the way thru to Obama caused this financial crisis in their trying to “level the playing field” with instituting and promoting these sub-prime mortgages for low-income people to take on. Many of the low-income people that took on mortgages knew they couldn’t afford them. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-owned or State-owned enterprises (GOC‘s). GOC’s are companies that are created by our government to undertake commercial activities. The GSE business model faces inherent conflicts due to being indebted to the government mission and trying to compete in the private sector at the same time.

More from AEI.org

"The government mission required them to keep mortgage interest rates low and to increase their support for affordable housing. Their shareholder ownership, however, required them to fight increases in their capital requirements and regulation that would raise their costs and reduce their risk-taking and profitability. But there were two other parties—Congress and the taxpayers—that also had a stake in the choices that Fannie and Freddie made. Congress got some benefits in the form of political support from the GSEs' ability to hold down mortgage rates, but it garnered even more political benefits from GSE support for affordable housing." Peter J. Wallison explains the peculiar structure, flawed structure in more detail as well as outlines other pertinent information on GSE‘s. Since these GSE’s were government backed our government allowed the GSE’s to take excessive risks. These excessive risks were done at the taxpayers expense.

“That result--the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk--has now come to pass. U.S. taxpayers are now called upon to fill in the hole that reckless and improvident investment activity--fueled by inexpensive and easily accessible funds--has created in the GSEs' balance sheets. The special relationship was also the GSEs' undoing, because it allowed them to escape the market discipline--the wariness of lenders--that keeps corporate managements from taking unacceptable risks. Normally, when a privately held company is backed by the government (for example, in the case of commercial banks covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), regulation is the way that the government protects the taxpayers against the loss of market discipline. When Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968, however, no special regulatory structure was created to limit the taxpayers' exposure to loss. The Johnson administration officials who structured the privatization may not have realized that they were creating what we recognize today as a huge moral hazard, but when Fannie became insolvent (the first time) in the high-interest-rate environment of the early 1980s, policymakers recognized that the company represented a potential risk to taxpayers.” After recognizing the potential risk to taxpayers in 1991, Congress created their first time regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) but unfortunately the OFHEO had only limited regulatory authority and it was housed under HUD which had no regulatory experience whatsoever.

“… and it was funded by congressional appropriations, allowing the GSEs to control their regulator through the key lawmakers who held OFHEO's purse strings.”

"In congressional testimony on September 23, James Lockhart, the director of their new regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, cited these loans as the source of the GSEs' ultimate collapse, as reported in the Washington Post:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased and guaranteed 'many more low-documentation, low-verification and non-standard' mortgages in 2006 and 2007 'than they had in the past.' He said the companies increased their exposure to risks in 2006 and 2007 despite the regulator's warnings.

Roughly 33 percent of the companies' business involved buying or guaranteeing these risky mortgages, compared with 14 percent in 2005. Those bad debts on mortgages led to billions of dollars in losses at the firms. 'The capacity to raise capital to absorb further losses without Treasury Department support vanished,' Lockhart said."

In 2003, the Bush administration tried to create a new agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie but unfortunately no reform bills materialized. Many Democrat members of Congress expressed faith in the solvency of Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, at the time stated that they were "not facing any kind of financial crisis."

None other than Jimmy Carter instituted the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 which was designed to meet the needs of borrowers from all economic backgrounds, including those that live in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Then, in 1994 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton enacted the Community Reinvestment Act in such a way that it basically put the Housing and Community Development Act on steroids, and this is what caused our country’s financial collapse in 2008. This kind of tinkering with the free market - forcing banks to make risky loans to those that in all actuality couldn’t afford their mortgages - is what caused the financial crisis. This kind of combination of Marxist/Socialist/liberal policies that started with Lyndon Johnson and ended with Clinton is what has turned out to be toxic for our economy. Bush was left with a raw deal and the Democrat’s toxic economic policies just happened to fester, surface and eventually burst while he was in office. One can disagree with how Bush handled this financial fiasco but the fact is that Bush was dealt a very bad hand by the Democrats. Plus, the Democrats blocked him from being able to cut off the problem at the impasse before the problem morphed into the financial disaster . Bush, and Capitalism were NOT the cause of this financial meltdown.  The Democrats, who are beholden to the philosophies of Marxism/Socialism/liberalism and who in their misguided compassion endorsed and encouraged low-income persons to take on these sub-prime mortgages, all the while many of these people couldn't afford these mortgage loans in the first place, was in fact the cause of the financial crisis.  Marxism/Socialism/liberalism is the cause of this financial crisis.  The Dems compassion has resulted in economic mayhem which has continued under Obama with extremely slow job growth (if at all in the private sector) and other policies which hurt small business owners, the unemployed, such as higher taxes, a higher deficit due to the passage of the Stimulus, and Obamacare which is going to cause mega-rationing and higher health costs.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Christianity and Voting for Obama: Compatible?

We are big fans of the Quinn and Rose morning show out of Pittsburgh. On the 28th of July, Rose read an email from an old acquaintance who was taking her to task for a particular controversial position she has aired in recent weeks - that a person cannot be a true Christian and an Obama voter, and that people of faith who voted for Obama need to repent and apologize for their lapse. On the surface, it is easy for a conservative pro-life Christian to agree. But what does Rose really mean by that? On one level, it seems clear that support of abortion is incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ and His teachings. But it is not so clear that every person of faith who voted for Obama was thinking “The hell with the babies, I want government-run health care,” or “Who cares about murdering infants in the womb - we need a black president.” It’s just possible that a person of faith who voted for Obama might focus their thoughts on the second halves of statements like that without considering the abortion issue at all. One might judge their action in this regard as terribly irresponsible and imprudent, and we would not disagree. We might even go as far as to call it a sin - of omission if not one of commission. And there is a limited sense in which any sin is incompatible with faith. But in a broader sense, one which allows for people who love our Lord but still fall into sin on occasion, there remains some doubt whether voting for Obama is on par with driving a pregnant girl to an abortion clinic. Is it really an excommunicable offense? Or is Rose saying something else? I am pretty sure she is not Catholic, so it is open to question whether she believes in the traditional (and Biblical, but that’s another argument) doctrine of mortal sin, a sin that is so serious that by committing such an act a believer can voluntarily extinguish in his or her own soul the light of grace ignited by God, a light that no external force or pressure could be strong enough to put out without the saved soul’s consent. It may be that Rose embraces instead a notion of salvation that would exclude the possibility of a soul truly saved ever being able to commit such a sin, so that if someone does do something really bad, one might say that such a person was never actually saved in the first place (that position renders nonsensical the Protestant Assurance of Salvation doctrine that goes hand in hand with the theological position heretofore described, but, again, that is an argument for another day). In that case, she might think that someone who voted for Obama might not be a believer because that person might never have been saved in the first place. Such an assumption, taken dogmatically, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. It would also be uncharitable to assume any believer who voted for Obama committed a mortal sin. That would necessarily involve a presumption of certain subjective elements in the conscience of the voter which might not have been there and for whose absence they might not be entirely culpable. But if Rose’s assertion is understood as simply saying that no believer in Christ who voted for Obama could have done so in total moral innocence, having fully considered everything that he or she should have before casting such a vote, we wholeheartedly agree with that assertion, so understood. Regardless of whether there is a subjective innocence, there is an objective moral law by which persons who voted for Obama will be judged by God if they do not repent.

- Teresa and Kevin Rice (Teresamerica and The Naked Ontologist)

Here is the audio of that particular segment
of the Quinn and Rose Morning Show:

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Ava Gardner -- Rule 5 Posting

New Blog -- Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

For awhile I have been pondering the idea of starting an additional blog that focuses primarily on Catholic theology, catechetics, the bible, philosophy, apologetics as well as topics that mix both Catholicism with culture/ politics and so a few weeks back I started my new blog tunecedemalissedcontraaudentiorito -- which means Do Not Surrender To Evil But Proceed Ever More Boldly Against It.

Whereas Teresamerica focuses about 75 percent of the time on conservative politics and the rest on sociology, philosophy, theology etc. Tunecedemalissedcontraaudentiorito will focus primarily on all things related to Catholic theology and/or the Catholic culture debate as it relates in our society today.  My new blog will probably focus on Catholic theology/philosophy about 65-75 percent of the time. If you are interested in learning more about the Catholic faith and/or the catholic culture clash in our society today, then I encourage you to come and join me on my new blog. God Bless.

If anyone of my fellow bloggers has 2nd or 3rd blogs that I have overlooked please email me with that information and I will follow.  Have a great weekend!

Friday, August 6, 2010

A Trojan Mosque, "Settlements" & 4th Generation Warfare

I heard this article as it was being read over the radio on my way to work this morning. It's quite an interesting article. Enjoy!

By Scott Wheeler and Buckley Carlson:
                                                             Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, the two halves of the public – and outwardly, “peaceful” – face of the Ground Zero Mosque effort, have proved themselves extremely competent practitioners of modern day media interaction; soft-spoken and articulate, they are faithfully “on-message” with their aspirations to help “bridge” the cultural divide, and to be regarded as the “anti-terrorists.”

Rauf and Kahn are nimble, and seemingly non-threatening. They are also the lucky beneficiaries of a compliant and un-inquisitive media.

For who can honestly begrudge Rauf and Kahn their inability to reconcile Rauf’s post-911 assertion that America was an “accessory” to the terrorist slaughter of 3,000 of her own; their refusal to disclose the sources of the $100 Million they are raising; or their malleable condemnation of “terrorism?” And is their apparent condemnation of terrorism conditional, such as it is with many who identify with political Islam? Also, what about Rauf’s refusal to denounce the violent terrorist group Hamas as a terrorist organization?

These would seem the salient questions…and yet, these queries are never made during the “interviews” to which these two submit. If only their “mainstream” inquisitors would dig as deep within the Muslim community as they do looking for any trace or nuance that could be construed as “racism” among the “tea parties.”

Rauf and Kahn’s public retreat from the use of the term “Cordoba House” – with it’s unmistakable historical reference to an Islamic culture that celebrates military victories by eradicating all traces of its enemy (and importantly, that vanquished enemy’s religious culture) by erecting a mosque as an enduring monument to the Supreme Power of Islam – certainly bespeaks a sophistication about “communications framing” that you aren’t likely to find in many “men (or women) of the cloth.” So, let there be no doubt, these two are exceptional.

But, what if Rauf and Kahn were more than just clever media manipulators and were actually “front men” for something more insidious?

The deeper one looks, the more this appears to be a “Trojan Mosque”…and Rauf and Kahn the soft side of a larger objective to plant mosques throughout the United States, and use them as “settlements." The kind of settlements for which Muslims will justify terrorist acts when built by Jews in Israel. Seem far fetched? Just do a little reading on the history of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque's name sake….Cordoba, or the al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, or really, any one of thousands of others around the world.

Thursday, August 5, 2010


From RightKlik via Left Coast Resistance:


                                                                 Pete Stark is one of the most vile, hateful, incompetent left-wing statists this country has ever had to put up with. He is a truly disgusting man whose values (or lack thereof) are an anathema to 90% of the people in every corner of this country.

Recent videos from a town hall meeting in Pete's congressional district show that Pete's constituents are finally fed up. But to overcome the power of incumbency, Pete Stark's constituents need our help!

If we don't act immediately to help the people of CA-13, the people in Pete Stark's district will not have a serious alternative to Stark on the ballot in November. Currently Pete is only opposed by one person, Forest Baker (R), a candidate who does not appear to be running a serious campaign.

Forest Baker's campaign webpage is just that: a page. No links, no contribution button, no social media, no videos...no color! The page is monochrome! If you google hard enough, you can find a campaign Facebook page, but there's nothing serious there either.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin, we now know there's a serious candidate who is ready to run against Pete Stark, but the window of opportunity to get on the ballot is closing fast! Chris Pareja is a Tea Party independent who is working hard to get the 9,500 signatures he needs to get on the ballot. Friday is the deadline!

Chris Pareja explains:

"The signature collection team did an awesome job this weekend. Many people are sun burnt and tired. We collected 1305 signatures, which is awesome, but we still need 7500 more valid signatures by Friday. If you believe in miracles, please pray for one."

I'm sure Chris Pareja would prefer to get a few hundred extra signatures to buffer against the legal challenges that would surely come from Stark and his allies if Pareja only gets the bare minimum number of signatures.

I urge all bloggers who read this to put up a post to draw attention to Chris Pareja so he can get the signatures he needs.

Spread the word through all social media avenues.

Friends, we can make this happen...but we have to act now!

Pareja on Facebook

Chris Pareja on Twitter

Pareja's campaign website

Chris Pareja for Congress:


Pete Stark: "I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg"

Pete Stark: "The Federal Government can do most anything in this country."

Pete Stark: Refusing to hire illegals might be unconstitutional.

Pete Stark: Sending kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.

"There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit."

Ronald Reagan

H/T Left Coast Resistance

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

My Rant on the Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich is spot on!! We are asked or told to bend over backwards for Muslims and Islam, which is a so-called religion, and yet they won’t respect a majority of the 9/11 families' wishes to stop the building of this mosque, along with a majority of the citizens of the United States who are against this mosque being built so close to Ground Zero  -- 2 blocks from Ground Zero -- where Islamic extremists murdered close to 3000 innocents. If these Muslims really wanted to build bridges and truly respected people of other faiths then they would offer to build the mosque at a different location, further away from Ground Zero or just abandon the building of the mosque altogether. This is pouring salt on the wounds of the 9/11 victims’ families.  This is totally making my blood boil and has me crying inside for both the 9/11 families and our country. This is going to cause many families mental anguish. These Muslims are claiming that they are building this mosque so that they may build bridges with citizens of other faiths but by forcing this mosque down our throats and having this mosque built so, so, so close to Ground Zero they are doing the exact opposite -- breaking bridges and causing tensions to mount.  If these Muslims really respected American citizens they would follow Pope John Paul II's example of how he strove to build bridges in Auschwitz and across Europe.  While I disagree with the notion that there is a similarity between Carmelite nuns and Muslims or Islamic extremists since I don't think any Carmelite nuns murdered innocents, I do think that there is an apt comparison between the Ground Zero Mosque and the abandoned building which was used as a convent in Auschwitz. The Muslims who want this mosque to be built need to reveal all sources of funding and prove that they are getting absolutely NO funding from any terrorist organization.  Then, in my book, it would also be a must for them to change their date that they have planned for opening the mosque, from September 11 to any other day of the year. Just because these Muslims may have a "right" ( which I don't think they do, since they would be building this mosque in a war zone) to build a mosque in this particular location doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do.  It is simply not right for a mosque to be built so close to Ground Zero.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Alexis de Toqueville "Speaks" To Obama & American People

From PowerBlog: Here is an open letter from Alexis DeToqueville to President Barack Obama and the American People:

I think that the oppression threatening democracies will not be like anything there has been in the world before….

I see an innumerable crowd of men, all alike and equal, turned in upon themselves in a restless search for those petty, vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls….

Above these men stands an immense and protective power which alone is responsible for looking after their enjoyments and watching over their destiny. It is absolute, meticulous, ordered, provident, and kindly disposed. It would be like a fatherly authority, if, fatherlike, its aim were to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks only to keep them in perpetual childhood; it prefers its citizens to enjoy themselves provided they have only enjoyment in mind. It works readily for their happiness but it wishes to be the only provider and judge of it. It provides their security, anticipates and guarantees their needs, supplies their pleasures, directs their principal concerns, manages their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances….

Thus, it reduces daily the value and frequency of the exercise of free choice; it restricts the activity of free will within a narrower range and gradually removes autonomy itself from each citizen. Equality has prepared men for all this, inclining them to tolerate all these things and often even to see them as a blessing.

Thus, the ruling power, having taken each citizen one by one into its powerful grasp and having molded him to its own liking, spreads its arms over the whole of society, covering the surface of social life with a network of petty, complicated, detailed, and uniform rules through which even the most original minds and the most energetic of spirits cannot reach the light in order to rise above the crowd. It does not break men’s wills but it does soften, bend, and control them; rarely does it force men to act but it constantly opposes what actions they perform; it does not destroy the start of anything but it stands in its way; it does not tyrannize but it inhibits, represses, drains, snuffs out, dulls so much effort that finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherd.

I have always believed that this type of organized, gentle, and peaceful enslavement just described could link up more easily than imagined with some of the external forms of freedom and that it would not be impossible for it to take hold in the very shadow of the sovereignty of this people.

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1840.

Democracy in America, pp. 805-6.