ROBIN HOOD = UNCLE SAM?

“Spanish police arrested a self-styled Robin Hood in Madrid Friday. He took out millions of dollars in loans and gave the money to the poor, and now he refuses to pay it back. He had to sit in jail for two hours before he was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.”

-- Argus Hamilton --

FAILURE (AND BITTER CLINGERS)

“Merely voting ‘present won’t do it [to confront and conquer today’s financial mess]. The people in all 57 states, clinging bitterly to God, guns and now to their life’s savings, deserve nothing less.”

-- Wesley Pruden --

FAILURE AND PERKS - WHAT COULD BE BETTER?

“It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. [Sen. Chris] Dodd said the crisis was ‘entirely foreseeable and preventable.’ Then why didn’t he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he’s the Senate’s no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.”

-- Cal Thomas --

FAILURE AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL

“Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism.”

-- George Will --

DECEPTION OF FAILURE

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.”

-- Thomas Sowell --

FAILURES

“So, yes, our recent financial turmoil does suggest failure—a failure to truly practice capitalism and a failure to accept and believe in the value, appropriateness and morality of a limited government and maximum personal responsibility.”

-- Larry Elder --

A TRIP BACK IN TIME.....

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
New York Times
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring."

How prescient Mr. Holmes was in 1999 when he also included this in his column:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

Amazing isn't it? Read the 1999 column here.

Hunting Mr. Good Will

Jack Kelly
toledoblade.com

WHO is "Will, Good"?

Mr. Good Will - who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" - has contributed 1,000 times to the Barack Obama campaign.

All the contributions have been in amounts of $25 or less. But they add up to $17,375 - far more than the legal limit of $4,600. That's $2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns.

Kenneth Timmerman, a reporter for NewsMax, a conservative Web site, discovered Mr. Good Will when he reviewed 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest Federal Elections Commission master file for the Obama campaign.

Mr. Good Will said he was from Austin, Texas. When I called directory assistance, they could find no listing for him.

Mr. Doodad Pro made 786 contributions for a total of $19,500. Like Mr. Good Will, Mr. Pro lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You." Mr. Pro said he is from Nunda, N.Y. Directory assistance found no listing for him either.

Mr. Obama has raised a whopping $223 million in contributions of less than $200. Candidates are not required to disclose the names of those who contribute less than $200, and Mr. Obama has not. John McCain has made his complete donor database available online.

But the Federal Elections Commission does require ..... [Read more]

Joe Biden and the Truth: An Unlikely Combo?

Jack Kelly
RealClearPolitics

"All you have to do is go down Union street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years," said Sen. Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate to bolster his assertion he's in touch with the concerns of the middle class.

That answer suggested otherwise.

"It came as a surprise to us in Delaware that Joe Biden recently had a meal and talked with patrons at Katie's Restaurant on Union Street in Wilmington," said an email to National Review Online.

"Katie's Restaurant closed years ago. It was on Scott Street in Little Italy."

The people who fill up at his neighborhood gas station can't pay for a full tank of gas, Sen. Biden said. Sen. Biden lives in a 7,000 square foot estate on a four acre lakefront lot in Greenville, which is described as "northern Delaware's priciest area."

Sen. Biden says things which are not true with passionate conviction.

[Full story]

EXTERMINATE THAT PLAGUE OF PIRATES

By Ralph Peters - New York Post

SOMALI pirates got a shock last week: The ship they seized carried dozens of Russian-built tanks, along with a wealth of heavy weapons and ammo. It was more than they'd bargained for.

As I write, the Faina sits at anchor off a notorious pirate port, its crew held captive by 30 or more Somalis. US Navy warships circle the vessel. Our helicopters buzz its deck.

We don't want that weaponry falling into terrorist hands. The Somalis lack the facilities to unload 40-ton tanks, but the smaller weapons aboard would delight the local al Qaeda franchise.

But we don't know what to do next. Neither do the pirates, who caught a whale by the tail. We'd like them to drop their $20-million ransom demand. They'd like us to go away. Meanwhile, the pirates may have killed a number of their own for opaque reasons. [Read more]

TIME TO RELEARN THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM

Tony Blankley:

There is nothing new under the sun. The United States has endured major financial panics in 1837, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929, 1933 and now in 2008. Most of these economic events had ideological and political consequences -- as well as the inevitable economic play-outs. And if history is any guide, contrary to the hope of some and the fear of others, this is not the end of capitalism as we have known it.

But it is true that usually, major economic events have had political as well as economic consequences. For instance, the panic of 1893, which in some ways is similar to the current panic, was caused by overbuilding and sloppy financing of the railroads. The 1880s enjoyed dramatic economic expansion, which led to dangerous speculation. Once the railroad bubble burst, there was a run on the banks, a contraction of credit, and European investors demanded gold for payments, which forced the reduction in the value of the dollar.

Unemployment went from 3 percent in 1892 to 18 percent in 1894 -- not returning to single digits (6.5 percent) until.... [Read more]

DON'T THE POLITICIANS WHO CAUSED THIS CRISIS BELONG IN JAIL?

Richard Rahn says:

"If government agencies pressure banks to give loans to people who are poor credit risks, do you view this as a failure of capitalism or a failure of government? A number of left-wing politicians and commentators have made the assertion that the financial crisis is a result of too much deregulation under the "capitalistic" policies of President Reagan.

Those who make the assertion are either ignorant of the facts or being untruthful.

What we have seen is not a failure of free-market democratic capitalism, but another failure of a government that destroyed the normal market mechanisms for dealing with risk.

There have been many calls for the "greedy" to be punished, but the political "greed" for power and money is even more dangerous than excesses practiced by occasional business people."

Read more.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Cato Institute, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the European Center for Economic Growth.

Do Facts Matter?

Thomas Sowell:

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

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

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

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

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

BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE

What caused the housing crisis?

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Bloomberg.com:

The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by...

[READ MORE]

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

-- Ernest Benn --

MY, HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN 200 YEARS

“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

-- Thomas Jefferson --

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

-- Samuel Adams --

PALIN WINS BIG WITH A REAGAN-LIKE FLAIR

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Last night was a big, big win for Sarah Palin. She showed originality, charisma and sass - a style that is refreshing and different in our politics.

She didn't just win the vice-presidential debate, she showed that she belongs with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as among the best communicators of our modern political times.

Her sallies against big government were brilliantly conceived and well executed. Her line that she didn't understand how Washington worked because politicians vote for something right after they vote against it, for example, was just wonderful.

Another classic came when she bit back at....... [Read more]

"Those who refuse to worship the big G -- God -- will end up worshipping the small g -- government."

A Political Party to Help Lost Souls?
—Michael Medved

"Obama and Biden comprise the most unabashedly liberal ticket in modern political history, and the official party platform moves the Democrats even further to the left.

In contrast to previous planks pledging to keep abortions rare, the 2008 document twice demands federal funding for termination of pregnancies. The platform also provides the following perplexing promise: "We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who have lost their homes and people who have lost their way."

Usually, it's religion--not politics--that provides help to those "who have lost their way." The platform writers show the way that leftist true believers have formed their own substitutes for traditional faith. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin trenchantly observes, those who refuse to worship "the big G"--God--will end up worshipping "the small g"--government."

"To preserve their [the people's] independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude"
Thomas Jefferson

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
Edward R. Murrow

HEY DUDE, WHERE'S MY TELEPROMPTER?

“Meanwhile, the press continues to treat the inexperienced and gaffe-prone Sen. Barack Obama as though he is the next JFK. Among the howlers is the presumption that he is an orator of great gifts as JFK was an orator of great gifts. In truth, the Prophet Obama suffers one of the strangest oratorical disabilities I ever have seen in a presidential candidate: a dependence on the teleprompter. We know of politicians who depend on the teleprompter for fluency. Sen. Obama, however, relies on a teleprompter so that he will not be heard talking down to the electorate. If he is not lecturing with his nose in the air, he is all uhhs and ahhs. Perhaps if he had served as mayor in a small town, he would have gotten over this revealing disorder.”

—Emmett Tyrrell

The Political Nature of the Economic Crisis

From: STRATFOR
By George Friedman

Classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo referred to their discipline as “political economy.” Smith’s great work, “The Wealth of Nations,” was written by the man who held the chair in moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. This did not seem odd at the time and is not odd now. Economics is not a freestanding discipline, regardless of how it is regarded today. It is a discipline that can only be understood when linked to politics, since the wealth of a nation rests on both these foundations, and it can best be understood by someone who approaches it from a moral standpoint, since economics makes significant assumptions about both human nature and proper behavior.

The modern penchant to regard economics as a discrete science parallels the belief that economics is a distinct sphere of existence — at its best when it is divorced from political and even moral considerations. Our view has always been that the economy can only be understood and forecast in the context of politics, and that the desire to separate the two derives from a moral teaching that Smith would not embrace. Smith understood that the word “economy” without the adjective “political” did not describe reality. We need to bear Smith in mind when we try to understand the current crisis.

Societies have two sorts of financial crises. The first sort is so large it overwhelms a society’s ability to overcome it, and the society sinks deeper into dysfunction and poverty. In the second sort, the society has the resources to manage the situation — albeit at a collective price. Societies that can manage the crisis have two broad strategies. The first strategy is to allow the market to solve the problem over time. The second strategy is to have the state organize the resources of society to speed up the resolution. The market solution is more efficient over time, producing better outcomes and disciplining financial decision-making in the long run. But the market solution can create massive collateral damage, such as high unemployment, on the way to the superior resolution. The state-organized resolution creates inequities by not sufficiently punishing poor economic decisions, and creates long-term inefficiencies that are costly. But it has the virtue of being quicker and mitigating collateral damage.

Three Views of the Financial Crisis

There is a first group that argues the current financial crisis already has outstripped available social resources, so that there is no market or state solution. This group asserts that the imbalances created in the financial markets are so vast that the market solution must consist of an extended period of depression. Any attempt by the state to appropriate social resources to solve the financial imbalance not only will be ineffective, it will prolong the crisis even further, although perhaps buying some minor alleviation up front. The thinking goes that the financial crisis has been building for years and the economy can no longer be protected from it, and that therefore an extended period of discipline and austerity — beginning with severe economic dislocations — is inevitable. This is not a majority view, but it is widespread; it opposes governmen t action on the grounds that the government will make a terrible situation worse.

A second group argues that the financial crisis has not outstripped the ability of society — organized by the state — to manage, but that it has outstripped the market’s ability to manage it. The financial markets have been the problem, according to this view, and have created a massive liquidity crisis. The economy — as distinct from the financial markets — is relatively sound, but if the liquidity crisis is left unsolved, it will begin to affect the economy as a whole. Since the financial markets are unable to solve the problem in a time frame that will not dramatically affect the economy, the state must mobilize resources to impose a solution on the financial markets, introducing liquidity as the preface to any further solutions. This group believes, like the first group, that the financial crisis could have profound economic ramifications. But the second group also believes it is possible to contain the consequences. This is the view of th e Bush administration, the congressional leadership, the Federal Reserve Board and most economic leaders.

There is a third group that argues that the state mobilization of resources to save the financial system is in fact an attempt to save financial institutions, including many of those whose imprudence and avarice caused the current crisis. This group divides in two. The first subgroup agrees the current financial crisis could have profound economic consequences, but believes a solution exists that would bring liquidity to the financial markets without rescuing the culpable. The second subgroup argues that the threat to the economic system is overblown, and that the financial crisis will correct itself without major state intervention but with some limited implementation of new regulations.

The first group thus views the situation as beyond salvation, and certainly rejects any political solution as incapable of addressing the issues from the standpoint of magnitude or competence. This group is out of the political game by its own rules, since for it the situation is beyond the ability of politics to make a difference — except perhaps to make the situation worse.

The second group represents the establishment consensus, which is that the markets cannot solve the problem but the federal government can — provided it acts quickly and decisively enough.

The third group spoke Sept. 29, when a coalition of Democrats and Republicans defeated the establishment proposal. For a myriad of reasons, some contradictory, this group opposed the bailout. The reasons ranged from moral outrage at protecting the interests of the perpetrators of this crisis to distrust of a plan implemented by this presidential administration, from distrust of the amount of power ceded the Treasury Department of any administration to a feeling the problem could be managed. It was a diverse group that focused on one premise — namely, that delay would not lead to economic catastrophe.

From Economic to Political Problem

The problem ceased to be an economic problem months ago. More precisely, the economic problem has transformed into a political problem. Ever since the collapse of Bear Stearns, the primary actor in the drama has been the federal government and the Federal Reserve, with its powers increasing as the nature of potential market outcomes became more and more unsettling. At a certain point, the size of the problem outstripped the legislated resources of the Treasury and the Fed, so they went to Congress for more power and money. This time, they were blocked.

It is useful to reflect on the nature of the crisis. It is a tale that can be as complicated as you wish to make it, but it is in essence simple and elegant. As interest rates declined in recent years, investors — particularly conservative ones — sought to increase their return without giving up safety and liquidity. They wanted something for nothing, and the market obliged. They were given instruments ultimately based on mortgages on private homes. They therefore had a very real asset base — a house — and therefore had collateral. The value of homes historically had risen, and therefore the value of the assets appeared secured. Financial instruments of increasing complexity eventually were devised, which were bought by conservative investors. In due course, these instruments were bought by less conservative investors, who used them as collateral for borrowing money. They used this money to buy other instruments in a pyramiding scheme that rested on one premise: the existence of houses whose value remained stable or grew.

Unfortunately, housing prices declined. A period of uncertainty about the value of the paper based on home mortgages followed. People claimed to be confused as to what the real value of the paper was. In fact, they were not so much confused as deceptive. They didn’t want to reveal that the value of the paper had declined dramatically. At a certain point, the facts could no longer be hidden, and vast amounts of value evaporated — taking with them not only the vast pyramids of those who first created the instruments and then borrowed heavily against them, but also the more conservative investors trying to put their money in a secure space while squeezing out a few extra points of interest. The decline in housing prices triggered massive losses of money in the financial markets, as well as reluctance to lend based on uncertainty of values. The resu lt was a liquidity crisis, which simply meant that a lot of people had gone broke and that those who still had money weren’t lending it — certainly not to financial institutions.

The S&L Precedent

Such financial meltdowns based on shifts in real estate prices are not new. In the 1970s, regulations on savings and loans (S&Ls) had changed. Previously, S&Ls had been limited to lending in the consumer market, primarily in mortgages for homes. But the regulations shifted, and they became allowed to invest more broadly. The assets of these small banks, of which there were thousands, were attractive in that they were a pool of cash available for investment. The S&Ls subsequently went into commercial real estate, sometimes with their old management, sometimes with new management who had bought them, as their depositors no longer held them.

The infusion of money from the S&Ls drove up the price of commercial real estate, which the institutions regarded as stable and conservative investments, not unlike private homes. They did not take into account that their presence in the market was driving up the price of commercial real estate irrationally, however, or that commercial real estate prices fluctuate dramatically. As commercial real estate values started to fall, the assets of the S&Ls contracted until most failed. An entire sector of the financial system simply imploded, crushing shareholders and threatening a massive liquidity crisis. By the late 1980s, the entire sector had melted down, and in 1989 the federal government intervened.

The federal government intervened in that crisis as it had in several crises large and small since 1929. Using the resources at its disposal, the federal government took over failed S&Ls and their real estate investments, creating the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC). The amount of assets acquired was about $394 billion dollars in 1989 — or 6.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — making it larger than the $700 billion dollars — or 5 percent of GDP — being discussed now. Rather than flooding the markets with foreclosed commercial property, creating havoc in the market and further destroying assets, the RTC held the commercial properties off the market, maintaining their price artificially. They then sold off the foreclosed properties in a multiyear sequence that recovered much of what had been spent acquiring the properties. More important, it prevented the decline in commercial real estate from accelerating and creating liquidity crises throug hout the entire economy.

Many of those involved in S&Ls were ruined. Others managed to use the RTC system to recover real estate and to profit. Still others came in from the outside and used the RTC system to build fortunes. The RTC is not something to use as moral lesson for your children. But the RTC managed to prevent the transformation of a financial crisis into an economic meltdown. It disrupted market operations by introducing large amounts of federal money to bring liquidity to the system, then used the ability of the federal government — not shared by individuals — to hold on to properties. The disruption of the market’s normal operations was designed to avoid a market outcome. By holding on to the assets, the federal government was able to create an artificial market in real estate, one in which supply was constrained by the government to manage the value of commercial real estate. It did not work perfectly — far from it. But it managed to avoid the most feared outcome, which was a depression.

There have been many other federal interventions in the markets, such as the bailout of Chrysler in the 1970s or the intervention into failed Third World bonds in the 1980s. Political interventions in the American (or global) marketplace are hardly novel. They are used to control the consequences of bad decisions in the marketplace. Though they introduce inefficiencies and frequently reward foolish decisions, they achieve a single end: limiting the economic consequences of these decisions on the economy as a whole. Good idea or not, these interventions are institutionalized in American economic life and culture. The ability of Americans to be shocked at the thought of bailouts is interesting, since they are not all that rare, as judged historically.

The RTC showed the ability of federal resources — using taxpayer dollars — to control financial processes. In the end, the S&L story was simply one of bad decisions resulting in a shortage of dollars. On top of a vast economy, the U.S. government can mobilize large amounts of dollars as needed. It therefore can redefine the market for money. It did so in 1989 during the S&L crisis, and there was a general acceptance it would do so again Sept. 29.

The RTC Model and the Road Ahead

As discussed above, the first group argues the current crisis is so large that it is beyond the federal government’s ability to redefine. More precisely, it would argue that the attempt at intervention would unleash other consequences — such as weakening dollars and inflation — meaning the cure would be worse than the disease. That may be the case this time, but it is difficult to see why the consequences of this bailout would be profoundly different from the RTC bailout — namely, a normal recession that would probably happen anyway.

The debate between the political leadership and those opposing its plan is more interesting. The fundamental difference between the RTC and the current bailout was institutional. Congress created a semi-independent agency operating under guidelines to administer the S&L bailout. The proposal that was defeated Sept. 29 would have given the secretary of the Treasury extraordinary personal powers to dispense the money. Some also argued that the return on the federal investment was unclear, whereas in the RTC case it was fairly clear. In the end, all of this turned on the question of urgency. The establishment group argued that time was running out and the financial crisis was about to morph into an economic crisis. Those voting against the proposal argued there was enough time to have a more defined solution.

There was obviously a more direct political dimension to all this. Elections are just more than a month a way, and the seat of every U.S. representative is in contest. The public is deeply distrustful of the establishment, and particularly of the idea that the people who caused the crisis might benefit from the bailout. The congressional opponents of the plan needed to demonstrate sensitivity to public opinion. Having done so, if they force a redefinition of the bailout plan, an additional 13 votes can likely be found to pass the measure.

But the key issue is this: Are the resources of the United States sufficient to redefine financial markets in such a way as to manage the outcome of this crisis, or has the crisis become so large that even the resources of a $14 trillion economy mobilized by the state can’t do the job? If the latter is true, then all other discussions are irrelevant. Events will take their course, and nothing can be done. But if that is not true, that means that politics defines the crisis, as it has other crisis. In that case, the federal government can marshal the resources needed to redefine the markets and the key decision-makers are not on Wall Street, but in Washington. Thus, when the chips are down, the state trumps the markets.

All of this may not be desirable, efficient or wise, but as an empirical fact, it is the way American society works and has worked for a long time. We are seeing a case study in it — including the possibility the state will refuse to act, creating an interesting and profound situation. This would allow the market alone to define the outcome of the crisis. This has not been allowed in extreme crises in 75 years, and we suspect this tradition of intervention will not be broken now. The federal government will act in due course, and an institutional resolution taking power from the Treasury and placing it in the equivalent of the RTC will emerge. The question is how much time remains before massive damage is done to the economy.

Pirates seize Ukrainian ship with battle tanks, holds crew hostage

LONDON — Somali pirates have captured more than 30 Russian T-72 main battle tanks bound for Kenya.

The East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme said Somali pirates attacked a Ukrainian ship that was carrying Russian-origin T-72s. The maritime organization, based in Kenya, said the MBT shipment was headed for Kenya when it was hijacked on Sept. 25. [READ MORE]

Syria's intelligence community again hit by major car bomb

NICOSIA — Syria has been rocked by the latest in a series of major car bombing targeting terrorist leaders and security officials. [READ MORE]

Petraeus plans region-wide strategic assessment for new president

WASHINGTON — The incoming U.S. Central Command is taking a hard look at a troubled region and has formed a team to conduct a strategic assessment of the Middle East and Central Asia and ways to revise and implement U.S. government policy. [READ MORE.]

Watching the Debates

Hugh Hewitt:

John McCain's impressive performance on Friday's night debate underscored again and again that Barack Obama just doesn't understand the nature of America's enemies or the threats arrayed against us.

Senator Obama's cringe-inducing bracelet moment also raised deep questions about the Democratic nominee's performance abilities, long believed to be near perfect.

An incredibly close election now turns its focus to the Biden-Palin debate and--largely because of the absolutely brutal treatment she's been given by mainstream media--the odds are greatly stacked against the Alaska governor.

Senator Obama was graded on a very relaxed curve by his advocates in MSM, but Governor Palin can expect relentless criticism from the usual suspects no matter what she says. Let's hope she boldly contrasts her actual experience governing with Senator Obama's long record of talking without results--and Joe Biden's longer record of being plain old wrong on all the issues that matter."

AN IDEALIZED IMAGE: THE MAN WHO NEVER WAS

“The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct. Thus, the public image of Obama is of a ‘man who never was.’... The major media simply have not reported on Obama’s two years at New York’s Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious?... Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama’s rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley?... The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media. Perhaps that is why the National Journal’s respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, ‘The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis.’ That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama’s imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain’s image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole. The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street’s leaders currently are for their failings.” —Tony Blankley

A SPECIAL CALLING

“This election year has generated a lot of talk about the role of America’s military in the Middle East. Less frequently does the conversation turn to what’s really at the heart of the matter whether we, as Americans, are committed to a world blessed with freedom for all humankind... Our warriors understand that America has a special calling to promote freedom and democracy. In the words of one Marine, ‘the United States is a beacon of light, whether we want to admit it or not.’... Our Declaration of Independence cites freedom as an unalienable right, not just for Americans but for all human beings. Our way of life, our very right to exist, is the ‘everything’ for which our service men and women are willing to give so much of themselves. They fight to defend America’s freedoms, and they fight to grant the gift of freedom worldwide.”

--Rebecca Hagelin

We Have A Competitive Economy

“[T]he World Economic Forum has ranked the United States as the world’s most competitive economy for the last two years... Its statistics show that per-capita gross domestic product in the U.S. consistently has grown faster than in other developed economies since 1980. Looking deeper at the causes of American competitiveness shows that we score especially strongly not only in domestic market size (No. 1 in the world) but also in such areas as time required to start a business (No. 3), venture capital availability (No. 1), the cost of firing an employee (No. 1), ownership of personal computers (No. 2), university/industry research collaboration (No. 1) and quality of scientific research institutions (No. 2). The availability of venture capital might be affected temporarily by the market turmoil, and we should worry if Democrats gain control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in November because they might exacerbate what the survey found to be the two most ‘problematic’ issues for doing business in the U.S. —high tax rates and cumbersome tax regulations. But whatever happens in the next few months, most of the other advantages that have been powering the U.S. economy forward for decades will remain unchanged.” —Max Boot

Washington's Mess

By Thomas Sowell

“Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: ‘The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.’ The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to ‘privatizing profit and socializing risk,’ since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out... Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.” —Thomas Sowell

TICKING TIMEBOMB

“Under [Bill] Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001. Instead of looking at ‘outdated criteria,’ such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named ‘Caylee.’ Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke—it’s a fact. ... In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending policies as one of the ‘hidden success stories’ of the Clinton administration, saying that ‘black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.’ Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.” —Ann Coulter

Keep the Job Creators in Mind

By Michael Medved

In the midst of the crisis in the financial markets it's crucial to remember that our prosperity rests ultimately on the entrepreneurial spirit of small business, not globe-straddling corporations or mammoth bureaucracies.

John Sununu of New Hampshire, often hailed as "the smartest man in the Senate," makes the point succinctly. "Jobs in America," he says, "are not created 200,000 at a time. They?re created two at a time, five at a time, one at a time by those small businesses that drive our economy. You help those businesses not with government spending programs but by holding taxes steady. You can?t raise taxes without hurting millions of people in this country."

While too many leaders focus on ambitious and expensive new initiatives, this common sense perspective should remind us of the real source of economic growth and resilience."

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess

Mona Charen:

The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN.

ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing...... [read on]

Jewish Left Wins, Jews and Israel Lose

Dennis Prager:

For decades most of the organized left has fought against Republicans and conservatives more than against the world's greatest evils. During the Cold War, starting in the late 1960s, one heard little if anything from the left about the evils of Communism or of Communist societies such as the Soviet Union or Communist China. But one heard a great deal about the evils of American anti-Communists; Ronald Reagan was vilified much more than Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.

But last week, a new line seems to have been crossed. The organized Jewish left -- i.e., left-wing Jewish.... [read on]

Bailout Politics

Thomas Sowell:

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."

Moreover, he said that the federal government has...... [more]

Still A Train Wreck

Still A Train Wreck

By Carol Devine-Molin
September 29, 2008

In the end, the House Republicans got some of what they wanted on this bailout scheme that would ostensibly avert economic collapse in the wake of the subprime mortgage meltdown. The financial sector would have to provide insurance for their mortgage-backed securities at no expense to the taxpayers, and Leftist activist groups such as voter fraud-perpetrating ACORN would be shut off from monies in this particular bill. But rest assured, the Democrat politicos are not going to abandon their brethren.

You can bet your bottom dollar that these Leftist "community organizers" from ACORN and La Raza will find other means of accessing government slush funds thanks to their pals in the Democrat Party, who are well capable of adding provisions to other legislation that fund Leftist political action organizations. Oh, I guess we're not supposed to remind our fellow Americans that Barack Obama had close links with the reprobates over at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). But that, as they say, is a conversation for another time.

Read on...

Why Americans Can’t Get U.S. Oil
By Alan Caruba

Aside from the fact the Democrats in Congress are trying to fool Americans into believing they are “lifting” the ban on off-shore exploration and drilling for oil, the opposition to our domestic oil companies by both Democrats and radical environmental groups lies at the heart of why America is so dependent on foreign oil.........

Russia Mulls Energy Cartels With Venezuela, Iran

Moscow (CNSNews.com) – Keen to bolster its international influence amid strong disagreements with the West, energy-rich Russia is pushing for closer ties with other key producers, boosting interaction with OPEC while advocating the creation of an OPEC-style gas cartel. In its latest move, Moscow clinched a deal with the leading Latin American energy producer, Venezuela......

President of Afghanistan Thanks American Taxpayers

(CNSNews.com) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai thanked American taxpayers for much of the progress that has been made in his country since U.S. armed forces toppled the Taliban regime in 2001. Karzai, who spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center on Friday before meeting with President George Bush at the White House, listed his nation’s successes, including new highways and bridges, schools that have enrolled millions of Afghan children and medical treatment for some 85,000 Afghan children per year.....

CNSNews.com - Coburn Says 'Paulson Plan Isn’t Going Anywhere'

(CNSNews.com) - The Bush administration’s plan for a $700-billion bailout of the financial industry “isn’t going anywhere,” Sen. Tom Coburn(R-Okla.) told CNSNews.com on Friday.

Other conservative Senators also told CNSNews.com on Friday that they still have many unanswered questions about the necessity and scope of the plan.
Read full story.

And as we all know now, it did not make it out of the house.

CNSNews.com - Pence Calls on Conservatives to Oppose Bailout That ‘Nationalizes’ Bad Mortgages

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is calling on conservatives to oppose the $700 billion financial industry bailout negotiated over the weekend because he believes it will permanently change the relationship between the government and the financial sector while giving the government the power to “nationalize almost every bad mortgage” in the country.
 
The $700-billion deal negotiated by the Bush Administration and...

Bill Clinton's Interventionist Legacy
Reason.com

Obama Economics also Seen as Risky Bet
Boston Herald

What Should Be Done About the Financial Markets?
The Heritage Foundation

Greenspan’s sins return to haunt us
Financial Times

Networks, Once Silent on Fannie Mae, Blame Capitalism for Debacle

In 2005, 2008 TV journalists wouldn't criticize GSEs; now reporters blame deregulation, GOP.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute

As politicians point fingers over who created the financial mess that has taken down major Wall Street players and resulted in the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the broadcast media’s role in the disaster has been largely overlooked.

It was the TV news media that practically ignored.....

Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection

Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute

Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the