The Obama Economy: Bovine Fecal Matter On Ice

Well, the good news is that the unemployment rate went down to a seven-year low for Obama to 5.3%  Surely Obama must be doing an awesome job, Democrats say.

Okay.  Obama’s BEST MONTH EVER statistic-wise matches the EIGHT-YEAR AVERAGE for the Bush presidency that Democrats say was terrible. Although, technically, Bush’s average unemployment rate of 5.27% is still BETTER than Obama’s best month EVER.

During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate  was 5.27%

Which is another way of saying that “Democrat” and “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite” may not rhyme, but they sure mean the same thing.

The mainstream media are pathological hypocrites, for sure.  You can take a trip down memory lane and compare how they compared unemployment numbers even when they were BETTER for the Republican presidents.

The bad news is that twice as many people just gave up looking for a job as actually GOT a job this month.

The bad news is that Obama set another record.  And not in any good sense:

Record 93,626,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Declines to 62.6%
By Ali Meyer | July 2, 2015 | 8:42 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, hit 250,663,000. Of those, 157,037,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,037,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,663,000 civilian noninstitutional population, the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.

Another 93,626,000 did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one.

Of the 157,037,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,739,000 had a job, and 8,299,000 did not have a job were actively seeking one—making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 8,299,000 job seekers were 5.3 percent of the 157,037,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent which dropped from the 5.5 percent unemployment seen in May.

The number of employed Americans dropped from 148,795,000 in May to 148,739,000 in June, a decline of 56,000. The number of unemployed Americans also dropped over the month from 8,674,000 in May to 8,299,000 in June, a decline of 375,000.

The labor participation rate was 65.7 percent the day Barack Hussein Obama took office.

I like this article because it’s one of the first I’ve seen that actually gives you a notion of the statistical shenanigan that our “unemployment rate” truly is.  Nearly 94 million working-age people are unemployed, but our unemployment rate only considers 8 million of them.  I guess the other 86 million are silver-spoon trust-fund kids lounging around their mansions sipping champagne and dining on the finest caviar.  Either that or you’re an “abject imbecile” – another synonym for “Democrat” to go alongside “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite.”

As I’ve been trying to point out over and over again, Obama has been to the labor participation rate what stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer is to quality of life.  Obama has been absolutely devastating and toxic to American jobs.  And like the stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer sufferer, the patient that is the American economy is actually getting weaker and weaker measured in terms of the ALL-IMPORTANT measure of how many working-age Americans actually have a damn JOB.  The rate of Americans with a damn JOB – which for the factual record are LOWER PAYING JOBS with FEWER HOURS under Obama – has been sinking and sinking and sinking.  Thanks to the Obama presidency and the stage five cancer that is the Democrat Party, fewer and fewer Americans are working, while more and more of those fewer and fewer are working for less and cannot get decent full-time jobs.

And what is the Democrat strategy?  Well, further disincentivize employers by putting more and more burdens and obstacles on them.  You know, like treating that stage five lung and bronchus cancer patient with concentrated dosages of asbestos and then blaming the fact that the patient keeps getting sicker on Republicans.

I’ve listened to the smartest, smarmiest Democrats trying to explain why the labor participation rate is so shockingly low under Obama.  Here’s one example:

There are a few reasons why the LFPR has declined. First, the country is aging as baby boomers retire. An older country means a lower percent of the population will be in the labor force. This is a structural reason for the LFPR’s recent decline—it was going to happen regardless of the underlying economic conditions. That’s why many economists forecasted that the rate would slowly fall over time.

Here’s the problem, smart, smarmy Democrat: you’re exactly what the Bible foretold when it said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”  Consider the FACTS that blow the Democrat theory right out of the water akin to the way that the reality of Japanese torpedoes blew up the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor when Democrats also didn’t have a freaking clue what the hell was going on:

Last week, though, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis took on the notion that the drop is all about demographics and not a sign that the labor market is sicker than we think. The study looked at the labor force participation rate not just in the U.S. but in eight major developed countries, including Sweden, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Nearly all of those countries are facing the same demographic trends as the U.S. And Japan is currently dealing with an even more severe case of aging population. And yet, out of the eight nations, the U.S. is the only one where the participation in the labor force is declining.

So much for the Democrat theory that, well, shoot, you can’t blame Obama for the collapse in labor participation.  It was just selfish Republican white people retiring.  Because all the OTHER developed nations have the same demographic issues as America does -with Japan’s aging population FAR WORSE.  And yet somehow we’re doing worse than ANY of them in labor participation.

And for another factoid, it is striking that Democrats are trying to point at an aging demographic to explain our dismal labor participation rate:  BECAUSE THEY HAVE MURDERED SIXTY MILLION INNOCENT BABIES IN THEIR GOD DAMN ABORTION MILLS SINCE 1973 AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD DO TO THE AVERAGE DAMN AGE OF OUR POPULATION???  It’s akin to the classic example of the child who murdered both his parents and then asked for mercy from the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.  And so we can now document that that proverbial godawful kid is a DEMOCRAT through and through.

If you are a DEMOCRAT – which stands for DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT – you are a liar without shame, honor, decency, virtue, or integrity of any kind whatsoever.  And one of the reasons you so worship government is that your love of lies most flourishes because the best way to lie of ALL is with STATISTICS.

The article includes a rather striking graph that shows America DEAD LAST among the top developed nations but I keep looking at it:

What I particularly noticed as I stared in horror at this graph of the demise of my country was the fact that Bush was actually bringing the baby up between 2005 and the middle part of 2008.  I checked the Department of Labor chart and the actual numbers back up the graph: the labor participation rate was actually going UP.  Clinton left office just before a TERRIBLE RECESSION PLUS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF THE 9/11 ATTACK struck America as a result of Clinton’s leaving America weak and blind in the face of our enemies.  That recession was called the DotCom Bubble collapse.

Here’s an example of how I’ve pointed out these stubborn things called FACTS in the past:

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again recently: if you are a Democrat, you are a LIAR at home with LIES.  You are a BAD PERSON.  You have one middle finger stuck up in the air at the God of the Bible you rabidly despise and the other middle finger shoved up your rectum because you are a DEPRAVED PERVERT.

The above quote is about how Bill Clinton led America straight into the vicious  gut-punch of a giant recession that the pathologically dishonest propaganda mill that is the mainstream media refused to credit him with even though there is no question that the economy was clearly going into recession as Bill Clinton was still in office which then exploded under George Bush.  But we’ve also got to consider the knockout-punch to the head that was the 9/11 attack as a result of Bill Clinton leaving America both weak and blind and with a reputation for withdrawing from conflict.  You know, just as Barack Obama has now done to America.  Obama isn’t just the first president since Kennedy to beg for spacecraft rides because he’s pissed away our space capability; he’s now actually having to beg for ships to deploy our Marines!!!  In a time when our enemies are building up their militaries and becoming stronger, America under Obama is becoming weaker and weaker.  Which is why we’re getting bullied around – by Islamic State, by China, by Russia, by Iran, just to name a few enemies – like we have never been in my entire lifetime.

We are ripe for an attack by emboldened enemies.  And no nation has EVER deserved to be attacked more than this wretched Obamanation.

Another thing I noticed as I look at the above graph is that the liberal explanation that the labor participation rate was highest under Bill Clinton fails to consider a key fact (not including the fact that it was actually much higher under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush than it ever was under Bill Clinton): I notice that the labor participation rate PLUNGED under Bill Clinton for the first years of his presidency when he was playing the role of liberal president with a Democrat Congress.  But then in 1994 Clinton had his ass handed to him by the American people who put REPUBLICANS in charge of both the House and the Senate.  And Bill Clinton ultimately uttered the famous words, “The era of big government is OVER.”  And it was under the REPUBLICAN policies OF reducing the giant jackboot of federal government power that the economy managed something of a rebound.  At least until the DotCom bubble and the 9/11 attack both of which Bill Clinton was solely responsible for, which forced George Bush to build it up all over again.

I’ve patiently explained why the economy collapsed under the Bush presidency.  It was the Democrat-constructed housing bubble enacted by the Democrat-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (otherwise known as GSEs, which is the acronym for the blatantly leftist fascistic crony capitalist monstrosity of Government Sponsored Enterprises).  I end the second of the above articles I link to with this:

What did Democrats do with the mainstream media’s culpability?  They falsely dropped the crisis at the feet of “greedy” Wall Street.  But while examples of Wall Street greed abound, the liberal intelligentsia deliberately overlooked the central and preceding role of Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

And the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased.  What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, any intelligent observer should note a primary conflict that amounts to a fundamental hypocritical contradiction: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency.  What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.  This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle.  Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate.  And then to explode.  It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments.  This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’.  And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats.  And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

Anybody who wants to see “right wing Republican policies” in that 2008 collapse is what I call an idiot.  Democrats under Jimmy Carter enacted the Community Reinvestment Act – which insanely and immorally forced banks to make loans to poor minorities who couldn’t afford to actually pay for them – that was expanded under Bill Clinton at the tail end of his presidency; and Democrats then used the expanded GSEs to pound the crack in the economic wall that the CRA fiasco created wide open.  George W. Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to install sane regulations to control Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats rabidly refused to allow ANY controls for their out-of-control GSEs.  These are just FACTS.  Bush’s failure was that he shrugged his shoulders while Democrats planted a giant bomb in our economic engine; George Bush’s failure was that he failed to hunt every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.

The fact of the matter is that when Clinton governed left, the economy floundered and was failing.  The American people went right, elected a rightwing Congress, and Clinton went with them for the greater part. Things that Bill Clinton gives himself sole credit for were actually platforms from the Republican Contract with America.  Now we’ve got this demonstrably false myth that Clinton was a liberal who governed as a liberal and that is why the economy flourished.

I’ve got to end somewhere, although I can literally go on all day.  Because the actual facts prove that Democrats are basically the cause of everything that is evil or ruinous in America.  So let me just end with something that George Will said a few weeks ago (when the labor participation rate merely matched the horror of 1978 rather than beat it for being even WORSE as it just did):

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: We could continue this conversation and I’m sure we will, but let’s turn to the economy and some really disappointing numbers on the economy this week. Here they are. Only 126,000 jobs were added in March. That’s the weakest hiring in 15 months. Labor force participation dropped to 62.7 percent, matching the lowest since 1978. And the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta estimates first quarter growth at zero, zero percent, flat. George, what’s going on here?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, for the second year in a row they’ve blamed poor quarterly growth on insufficient global warming, that is on winter, on an unusually cold winter. Let your mind go back to November last year. There was job creation of 321,000 jobs and the administration said this is a miraculous achievement and a harbinger of things to come. It wasn’t a harbinger and it wasn’t miraculous. During the Reagan recovery there were 23 months of job creation over 300,000. Reagan had a month of job creation of 1 million and this was at a time when there were 75 million fewer Americans. Now, never mind zero growth. We are now being told really that two percent growth may be the new normal. If so, that’s a disaster because every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, every day between now and 2030, 10,000 more baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we have two percent growth, the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the private sector being able to throw off the revenues, to pay the bills for the promises we’ve made to ourselves becomes impossible.

WALLACE: Just tell again that the labor force participation stat that you have, if it were what it was at the beginning of the Obama administration.

WILL: If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent, we wouldn’t be complaining about the bad recovery because we wouldn’t call it a recovery.

It takes the Holy Bible to explain the sheer idiocy that is a Democrat voter:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20

.

 

 

Fascist Criminal Thug-In-Chief Obama Turns On Citigroup (But If Citigroup Did Something Wrong, Why Is Jack Lew Who Ran Citi Unit Not In JAIL?)

According to lawthug Eric Holder, Citigroup is a reckless criminal enterprise that ruthlessly preyed on helpless little people to such a whopping extent that it required a $7 billion settlement to balance the scales of justice.

This fits into the narrative that clearly the government was not at fault in our financial meltdown (well, except Bush and the Bush administration, which are Republican and therefore can be blamed for everything that goes wrong).  Government is inherently and intrinsically good as long as Obama is running it rather than a Republican president, you see.  And so we can’t blame the Community Reinvestment Act – which forced lending institutions to make loans to people any fool knew would not be able to make their payments.  Even though it clearly led to a six-plus TRILLION dollar balloon that HAD to burst as Democrats used the CRA as a means to reward their supporters at the skyrocketing cost of everyone else:

And which Republicans very clearly WARNED would burst:

Nope. It’s Bush’s fault, no matter how much to blame Democrats clearly WERE.

We can’t blame Barack Obama for his own particularly egregious role in those forced loans to high-risk individuals.  We can’t blame Democrats for forcing “adherence to that act [which] led to riskier lending by banks.”  We can’t blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which came up with the incredibly risky strategy as I document in quite a few articles such as this one:

Why do I mention the Government Supported Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Because they were at the very heart of the mortgage meltdown.

The LA Times writes on May 31, 1999 that:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

LaVaughn M. Henry, Ph.D. Director, U.S. Economic Analysis The PMI Group, Inc. December 9, 2008, pointed out:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

It was steps 3-5 that messed us up.  Fannie and Freddie bought mortgages – including many mortgages that poor and minority homeowners couldn’t begin to afford under the mandate of the Community Reinvestment Act – bundled them such that no one could assess their risk, and then sold them to private companies such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.  Fannie and Freddie were exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulations.   The GSEs could bundle up mortgages, which would then be rated AAA, with no requirement to make clear what was in the bundle.  Private companies believed that the bundled securities were guaranteed, since they were essentially being sold by the federal government.

But there were many who predicted that this system – created and maintained by Democrats – could explode.

From the New York Times in September 30, 1999:

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.“

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.” . . .

And that is precisely what happened.  There was a downturn (and there will ALWAYS be downturns, won’t there?), and Fannie and Freddie were so leveraged that they collapsed and caused the collapse of the entire industry.  Financial experts anxiously pointed out that a decline of only 1.3% would bankrupt Fannie and Freddie because they were leveraged to the tune of 60%? to 78%.

Democrats were the priests and acolytes of the GSE system.  They protected it, and they were the ones who pressed all the buttons and pulled all the levers.

Keven Hasset concludes an article titled, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“, concludes by saying:

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons.  Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices.  Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

Watch this video showing how George Bush and John McCain repeatedly warned of the economic collapse (length=4 min):

Watch this video of Democrats protecting and covering for Fannie Mae (length=8 min):

Here’s a video entitled “Burning Down the House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?” (length=11 min)

And then we find that Barack Obama was in bed with Fannie and Freddie and their shockingly risky policies:

Who really exploded the economy in 2008, liberals or conservatives? Who do you think?  The liberal mainstream media allowed Democrats to blame George Bush simply because he was president at the time, never mentioning that the Democrats who controlled both the House and the Senate relentlessly opposed everything Bush tried to do; and it allowed Democrats to not have to account for the fact that they’d been in complete control of both the House and the Senate.  But remember that the economy went from outstanding to collapsed during the two years (2006-2008) that the Congress was under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  The unemployment rate was 4.4% when Republicans last ran Congress.  What is it now, three years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid later?

Few people understand how huge Fannie and Freddie are, or how deeply burrowed they are in the mortgage industry.  But let me put it to you this way: the federal government now underwrites 9 out of 10 residential mortgages.

John McCain tried to warn us in 2006:

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

But he was ignored.

When George Bush first tried to regulate an already out-of-control liberal bastion of Fannie and Freddie, Barney Frank led the united Democrat opposition and said:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And just before Fannie and Freddie collapsed and brought down the entire housing mortgage industry with it creating the economic meltdown, Barney Frank – continuing to stop any regulation of Fannie and Freddie – said this:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went completely bankrupt shortly after Barney Frank testified that they were “fundamentally sound,” and had to be bailed out by the government.  It had been Fannie and Freddie which had the sole authority to buy mortgages, bundle them into the mortgage-backed securities which ultimately exploded, and sell those securities to private companies (as I have already shown).  Just as it was Fannie and Freddie which had been the seller of subprime loans.

Three top Democrats, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson and Jamie Gorelick “fundamentally transformed” Fannie Mae into a liberal Democrat exploitation machine and made MILLIONS in illegitimate bonuses cooking the books.

I could go on and on.  But one thing is crystal clear to anyone who wants to know the truth and who isn’t demon-possessed: Democrats forced banks to do something incredibly stupid, and banks did the very best they could to operate in a Kafkaesque system that Democrats created and cynically exploited and Bush tried seventeen times to stop.

I mock you Democrats now, because every single ONE of you is a future permanent resident of the fire of hell.  You demonize Republicans as “obstructionists” and “terrorists” for preventing Obama and Democrats from running roughshod over America.  But when Bush was president you OBSTRUCTED him at virtually every damn turn.  You fascist hypocrites without shame.

Let me get back to Jack Lew and our Fascist-in-Chief Obama.

Citigroup gets this massive fine.  They were criminals, Obama and Holder say.

So why is the man who ran the unit that performed all the criminal actions our Treasury Secretary???

That’s the question the Wall Street Journal is asking:

The Citigroup ATM
Jack Lew and Tim Geithner escape mention in the bank settlement.
The Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2014 7:37 p.m. ET

The Department of Justice isn’t known for a sense of humor. But on Monday it announced a civil settlement with Citigroup over failed mortgage investments that covers almost exactly the period when current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew oversaw divisions at Citi that presided over failed mortgage investments. Now, that’s funny.

Though Justice, five states and the FDIC are prying $7 billion from the bank for allegedly misleading investors, there’s no mention in the settlement of clawing back even a nickel of Mr. Lew’s compensation. We also see no sanction for former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who allowed Citi to build colossal mortgage risks outside its balance sheet while overseeing the bank as president of the New York Federal Reserve.

The settlement says Citi’s alleged misdeeds began in 2006, the year Mr. Lew joined the bank, and the agreement covers conduct “prior to January 1, 2009.” That was shortly before Mr. Lew left to work for President Obama and two weeks before Mr. Lew received $944,518 from Citi in “salary, payout for vested restricted stock,” and “discretionary cash compensation for work performed in 2008,” according to a 2010 federal disclosure report. That was also the year Citi began receiving taxpayer bailouts of $45 billion in cash, plus hundreds of billions more in taxpayer guarantees.

While Attorney General Eric Holder is forgiving toward his Obama cabinet colleagues, he seems to believe that some housing transactions can never be forgiven. The $7 billion settlement includes the same collateralized debt obligation for which the bank already agreed to pay $285 million in a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Justice settlement also includes a long list of potential charges not covered by the agreement, so prosecutors can continue to raid the Citi ATM.

Citi offers in return what looks like a blanket agreement not to sue the government over any aspect of the case, and waives its right to defend itself “based in whole or in part on a contention that, under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines Clause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, this Agreement bars a remedy sought in such criminal prosecution or administrative action.” We hold no brief for Citi, which has been rescued three times by the feds. But what kind of government demands the right to exact repeated punishments for the same offense?

The bank’s real punishment should have been failure, as former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and we argued at the time. Instead, the regulators kept Citi alive with taxpayer money far beyond what it provided most other banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Keeping it alive means they can now use Citi as a political target when it’s convenient to claim they’re tough on banks.

And speaking of that $7 billion, good luck finding a justification for it in the settlement agreement. The number seems to have been pulled out of thin air since it’s unrelated to Citi’s mortgage-securities market share or any other metric we can see beyond having media impact.

If this sounds cynical, readers should consult the Justice Department’s own leaks to the press about how the Citi deal went down. Last month the feds were prepared to bring charges against the bank, but the necessities of public relations intervened.

According to the Journal, “News had leaked that afternoon, June 17, that the U.S. had captured Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a key suspect in the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi in 2012. Justice Department officials didn’t want the announcement of the suit against Citigroup—and its accompanying litany of alleged misdeeds related to mortgage-backed securities—to be overshadowed by questions about the Benghazi suspect and U.S. policy on detainees. Citigroup, which didn’t want to raise its offer again and had been preparing to be sued, never again heard the threat of a suit.”

This week’s settlement includes $4 billion for the Treasury, roughly $500 million for the states and FDIC, and $2.5 billion for mortgage borrowers. That last category has become a fixture of recent government mortgage settlements, even though the premise of this case involves harm done to bond investors, not mortgage borrowers.

But the Obama Administration’s references to the needs of Benghazi PR remind us that it could be worse. At least Mr. Holder isn’t blaming the Geithner and Lew failures on a video.

We now live in a time when a fascist Hitler-style leader simply “invents” something he calls “justice.”  Whose to blame and who is absolved?  It’s no different than Stalin randomly signing death warrants for the execution of “criminals” whose “crime” was whatever the hell he happened to say it was.  All you have to do is substitute the word “tea party” for “kulak” to get the essence of Stalinist thug Obama.

Consider that Citigroup was SEVENTH on the donor list for the Obama campaign.  Oh, the top people – the Citi execs like Jack Lew who GAVE Obama that money that enabled him to forever afterward screw up our political system by being the first candidate to bypass the federal matching funds system so he could raise over a BILLION DOLLARS from the filthiest rich – got off the hook and got their huge bonuses for doing their dirty work for liberals.  Jack Lew was the chief operating officer of the Citigroup unit that profited from the loans that Obama is now saying are evil and suing Citigroup for making.  He is as much to blame for those loans as any human being dead or alive and he’s not only off scott free but he’s Obama’s damn TREASURY SECRETARY!!!  And of course if God – oops, I mean liberal secular humanist Government – giveth in the form of bailouts it can surely taketh away.  Just like it’s takething and takething from US now to giveth to illegals who everyone knows will soon be voting Democrat.

Only a Democrat can be rat bastard enough to assert that a company can somehow do $7 BILLION worth of wrong but the man who led the wrongdoing should be lavishly rewarded so long as he’s a loyal-enough Obama stooge.

Jonathon Turley, the nation’s foremost LIBERAL constitutional scholar, testified yesterday that Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to our Constitution.  He pointed out “a shifting of the balance of power … in favor of a now dominant Executive Branch” and describes “the rise of a type of uber-presidency.  Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way.”

Meanwhile, Obama thug Hilda Solis is clearly heard on tape pressuring a subordinate – in crystal clear FELONY violation of the Hatch Act – to support the Obama campaign.  That’s when you put pressure on somebody who works under you for the government to support a political campaign.  It’s a CRIME.  Not that violating the Hatch Act is a big deal to Obama or any of his thugs, as Kathleen Sabelius also demonstrated when she did it too.

And at this point, if you do not believe that Barack Obama ORDERED the thugs at his IRS to violate the rights of conservatives by using the tax system as a political weapon to target his enemies, I can only conclude that you are either stupid or demon-possessed or both.  Because the pattern of guilt and corruption is simply beyond overwhelming at this point.

This is the most criminally corrupt and fascist administration that has EVER been.

 

 

 

 

Is Obama Able To Finally Keep A Damn Promise And Turn America Around? Mr. Disbarred ‘It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Word ‘Is’ Is’ Says Yes He Can!

Nobody denies that Bill Clinton is able to give a great speech.  If anything, Clinton’s speeches make Obama look mediocre by comparison.  Particularly when Clinton talks about his record and you’re a sentient life form who has any consciousness of reality as to Obama’s economy after four years of his failed policies.

But ultimately, Bill Clinton’s speech amounted to this: “Trust me.  Obama is the man to lead us to shared prosperity.”

I could point out that “shared prosperity” didn’t work in the U.S.S.R.; it didn’t work in Maoist China; it didn’t work in Cuba; it didn’t work in North Korea.  It didn’t work pretty much anywhere it has ever been tried.  It is bankrupting Europe as we speak.  And it won’t work here.  But I’m more fixated on Bill Clinton’s “Trust me” thing.

How many intelligent people don’t understand that Bill Clinton gave his speech as a career Democrat who was loyally trying to rally Democrats?  Probably zero.  But unfortunately, there simply aren’t a lot of intelligent people any more, thanks to what liberals have done to our government schools over the last forty damn years.

It comes down to this: Bill Clinton was a president who got his ass historically kicked for his party’s failures in 1994.  And as a result of that asskicking, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate.  And as a result of that repudiation, Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over,” and began to govern NOT as a liberal like Obama but as a moderate who compromised and worked with the Republican Party.  And as a result of that “era of big government is over” governance, America got a balanced budget and began to thrive under grand tax cuts like the capital gains rate that Clinton cut from 28% to 20%.  That Republican-style tax cut unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to MORE THAN TRIPLE.

That, for the record, is because Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

It is a deliberately forgotten fact that Clinton ended his presidency as a success because he benefitted from the policies of a completely Republican-controlled Congress.  Bush ended his presidency as a disaster because he was plagued by the policies of a completely Democrat-controlled Congress.

It is a national disgrace that this nation is controlled by a mainstream media propaganda machine that keeps pumping the message that Obama couldn’t succeed because of Republican obstructionism.  Because they will NEVER be consistent or honest and tell you that our economy melted down in 2008 thanks to the policies of Democrats who controlled both the House AND the Senate, whereas Obama benefitted from complete control of both branches of Congress for his first two years in office and now still has Democrats controlling the Senate.  George Bush would have LOVED to have enjoyed as little “obstructionism” as he was burdened by his last two years in office under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why every single time I hear a Democrat mention “Republican obstructionism” I can know that I am dealing with a completely dishonest human being and that it is time to move on.  Because you have got to be an abject lying hypocrite to say that after George Bush tried not once but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the collapse of those two institutions which triggered the mortgage-market meltdown in 2008.  When you look at the FACT that conservative economists literally PREDICTED the collapse when Democrats empowered Fannie and Freddie to give mortgages to people who could not possibly afford to pay their loans; when you look at the FACT that Fannie and Freddie were the ONLY entities that were empowered to create the subprime-based mortgage backed securities that became the “toxic assets” that poisoned the portfolios of suddenly bankrupted firms like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch; when you look at the FACT that as this disaster was building and building and building after Bill Clinton expanded the disasterous loan program, and that Democrats in Congress rabidly refused any kind of reform of these suicidal policies when there was still time to fix what was broken, you are simply a fool if you don’t acknowledge that it was DEMOCRATS who were the obstructionists.  And all you people are for whining about Republicans is DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.

And somehow Bill Clinton managed to completely omit the FACT that he created a financial collapse and resulting serious recession of his own in the DotCom Bubble collapse that resulted in George Bush watching $7.1 trillion in wealth vaporized while the 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio valuation was annihilated.  And the only reason that recession isn’t well-remembered is that the 9/11 disaster that resulted from Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and the CIA and our intelligence apparatus and leaving us both weak and blind even as he emboldened Osama bin Laden to view America as a weak “paper tiger” that was “ready to be cowed by an attack.”

Bill Clinton omitted the fact that he left George Bush in a hole that wasn’t a lot less deep than the hole Bush left Obama in.

So should we trust Bill Clinton when he rallies to his fellow Democrat and says, “Trust me, Obama is the only man who can lead you to a better future?”

How about not?

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Barack Obama is a wildly failed president.  And he is a failure for the very reason that Bill Clinton was ultimately a successful president: because while Bill Clinton compromised and negotiated and bargained with Republicans, Barack Obama surrounded himself with radical leftist ideologues and has steered America left like no president ever has before him.

Obama is going to make a bunch of promises to turn America around and cut the deficit and create jobs, etc. etc., blah, blah, blah.  They’re the same promises he failed to keep four years ago and he’s going to demand more of the same failed policies that failed to fulfill those promises that he demanded the last four failed years.

Why Does Obama Blame Bush For HIS Economy (After FOUR YEARS Of Failure) When Obama Takes Credit For Every Good Bush Achievement?

OSAMA BIN LADEN RAID

Obama takes the credit for getting bin Laden.  Was it Obama who rebuilt  the national security apparatus following 9/11 to reshape it from the Cold War emphasis that had characterized it for the previous sixty years?  Was it Obama who first announced the mission to get bin Laden dead or alive?  Was it Obama who used water boarding to secure the key intelligence breakthroughs that bin Laden was relying on couriers for his communication (rather than phones, computers, etc.) and that he was living in the city of Abbottabad which allowed intelligence to zero in on him?

The key intelligence breakthrough occurred when US intelligence discovered two key facts: 1) that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan; and 2) that bin Laden was relying on a courier who could then be identified and tracked to bin Laden’s specific location in that city.  Both of these key facts were discovered under the Bush presidency by means of waterboarding:

Liberals outrageously lie when they talk about how waterboarding was used.  CIA professionals did NOT ask a terrorist a question and then waterboard him until he gave them whatever answer they wanted.  Rather, they used this incredibly painful – but completely medically safe under supervision – procedure of simulated drowning to “alter the perception” of the terrorist.  The terrorist was confronted with his new reality in a cold, painful way: “We own your ass; we can do whatever the hell we want to you; and we will ultimately break you down.  Get used to the idea that you WILL tell us what we want to know.”  The point of waterboarding was to break their will to resist, not to torture immediate answers out of them but rather to inexorably bring them to the point where they would ultimately crack.  The fact of the matter was that the CIA experts didn’t even bother to ASK terrorists any questions while they waterboarded the three terrorists who ended up singing like canaries.  But it is a simple FACT that waterboarding was the essential background component that led to the breaking of these hard, hateful men: because the terrorists we waterboarded were the very same terrorists who told us about Abbottabad and the courier.

Democrats talk about “torture.”  I say if we catch a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we waterboard him until he grows gills and then we take the water away so he’ll flop around like a dying fish.  And repeat it over and over again until the same man who tried to destroy us becomes the very man who tells us how to destroy his hateful organization.

I recently watched a 2 hour documentary about the 2006 terrorist attempt to use passenger jets as bombs titled “Stopping the Second 9/11” on the National Geographic Channel.  The thing that most struck me was the fact that British intelligence recorded the terrorists talking to each other on phones.  The terrorists planned to bring their own wives and their own BABIES on the flights that they planned to destroy in order to reduce the likelihood that they would tip off law enforcement by boarding the planes as “family men.”  That ought to scream about the determination of these men to kill and destroy.  You simply are not going to get men like this to open up with courtesy and niceness.  Islamic terrorists by their culture, their religion, and their brutal nature as mass murdering killers respect only superior force, not peaceful overtures, which they see as a sign of weakness. Anyone who thinks you can “nice” a terrorist into betraying his worldview, his ideology, literally his religion, and his movement is simply a naive fool.

The question then becomes this: Why would anybody but a radical leftist ideologue give Obama credit for the intelligence breakthroughs that led to killing bin Laden when Obama was the very guy who most viciously demonized the very procedures that led to those breakthroughs?

There is a fascinating analogy that comes out of the talk about the moon landing that happened as a result of the discussion about the passing of Neil Armstrong (who by the way went on the record criticizing Obama before his death).  The anology begins with this: We give John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon:

Nixon gets ZERO credit even though he was the president sitting in the White House when the Apollo 11 mission landed on the moon.  You will not read an article written by a liberal giving Nixon any credit for landing a man on the moon and bringing that man safely back to earth.  Why?  Kennedy had been DEAD for six years prior to that moon landing.  Why isn’t Nixon “the president who put a man on the moon”?  Because it was JFKs vision and the fulfillment of that vision just as getting bin Laden was the fulfillment of George W. Bush’s vision:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

But again, that meme about the first man on the moon merely reinforces the pathology of the left to take full credit for every good thing and avoid any blame whatsoever for any bad thing.  The media gives John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon because JFK was a Democrat; the media gives George W. Bush ZERO credit for getting Osama bin Laden because GWB was a Republican.  It’s really that simple.

Was Obama’s decision to send the SEALs into Pakistan to kill bin Laden really that amazing?  Let me ask you this: what would have happened to Obama’s political fortunes if he had refused to kill bin Laden and a bunch of pissed off CIA and military professionals leaked Obama’s abject refusal to kill the world’s worst terrorist monster?  How many people think Obama could have been reelected as “the man who refused to kill bin Laden”???

Bottom damn line: if Obama had tried to kill bin Laden and failed, he would have been criticized for that failure.  And to insulate himself from that possibility, he set up Admiral McRaven as the fall guy by giving McRaven responsibility.  It was ultimately McRaven who made the “courageous call,” not Obama.  That said, if Obama had refused to even try to kill bin Laden, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE POLITICALLY.  Does anybody seriously think for one second that the men who had devoted YEARS to getting bin Laden would have just rolled over if Obama had refused to issue the order to get him?  In fact, I will bet you that Republicans would have brought up and article of impeachment due to Obama’s refusal to protect the citizens of the United States, and Democrats would have voted for it.  Because otherwise, this election would have been the worst disaster in the history of politics for the Democrat Party as the weakling coward treasonous bin Laden Party.

So spare me about Obama’s “incredibly courageous decision” to kill bin Laden as George W. Bush had promised the world that the United States would do.  Spare me the idiotic rhetoric that if George W. Bush had still been president he never would have had the guts to kill bin Laden.  Just spare me all your blathering idiocy, liberal.

IRAQ WAR

Let’s talk about the Iraq War.  Let’s talk about the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.  Do you know which president won that war?  Do you know which president negotiated that withdrawal of American troops?  I do.  In answer to both questions, the name is George W. Bush.

But who claims credit for the success of Iraq?  Listen to Vice President Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Two words come to mind: they are “evil” and “hypocrite.”  Obama demonized the Iraq War again and again while Bush was trying to fight and win there.  Obama demonized the incredibly successful surge strategy that allowed us to break the back of the insurgency.  But now that same Obama claims credit for what he opposed.

AFGHANISTAN WAR

That same Obama dragged America FAR deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan than anybody could ever dream blame on Bush.  Because Obama and the Democrat Party didn’t want to appear weak on national security.  So they created a contrast between Iraq (which Bush won) as the “bad war” and Afghanistan (which Obama massively expanded) as the “good war.”

You wait and see: when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’s going to frame it as his courageously getting us out of the last of “Bush’s wars.” When Obama massively expanded America’s involvement in Afghanistan and very obviously used Afghanistan as a political device to give Obama a cover from charges that he was a cut and run coward:

As I pointed out before, Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq. In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.” It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

There’s more about how the Democrats – including Democrat voters – did a “cut and run” on their “good war” here.

The thing is that Obama’s “good war” aint going so good.  The thing is that if you examine the casualties of Obama’s “good war” since Obama took it over, Obama is responsible for more than 70 percent of the casualties for the entire war (i.e., compare Obama’s 1,477 casualties in less than four years to Bush’s 630 casualties over eight years of fighting.

Bush limited the Afghanistan War.  Obama radically expanded it.  And now the man who radically expanded the Afghanistan War is trying to A) walk away from the mess that HE created and 2) blame the mess that HE created on Bush just as he’s blamed ALL his failures on Bush.

We are NOT winning in Afghanistan.  We are not GOING to win in Afghanistan – particularly after Obama declared a “timetable for withdrawal” that told the enemy all they have to do is hang on until we crawl out with our tails between our legs and the country will be theirs.  There IS no winning in that hellhole.  As I have pointed out in the past echoing other conservatives, Afghanistan was a terrible place for the U.S. military to fight and be able to exploit our overwhelming air and ground power whereas the flat plains of Iraq was a GREAT place for America to fight and win.

I’ve said that before (just to show you I’m not boasting with 20/20 hindsight):

Bush was rightly resistant to putting too many troops into Afghanistan because he knew enough about history to understand that Afghanistan is a hell-hole. Bush understood that while Iraq – with its flat, mostly open terrain – was perfect for American equipment and tactics, and that mountainous and cave-ridden Afghanistan was most certainly NOT well-suited for American equipment and tactics. Bush knew that the fairly well-educated Iraqi people were capable of some semblance of democracy; and Bush knew that the ignorant, basically stone-age Afghani people were NOT capable of anything resembling self-governance.

Because Bush – however stupid the left wants to say he is – wasn’t 1/20th as massively moronic as Barack Obama is.

Afghanistan is also the place where Obama ignored and overruled his generals.  He was the one who declared that we needed to have a huge surge there (after demonizing Bush’s successful surge in Iraq, fwiw); and then he was the one who refused to listen to his own generals’ recommendations when they said we’d need at least 40,000 troops to do it right – and then after endless indecision finally decided to basically give them too many not to lose but not nearly enough to ever win.

Afghanistan is as much Obama’s war as Iraq was “Bush’s war.”  The difference was that Bush owned his war and accepted responsibility for how it went and how it was fought and Obama will NEVER own ANY of his massive failures.  So as I said above, when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’ll deceitfully depict it as getting America out of the last of “Bush’s wars.”  Because that’s the kind of slandering liar that weasel is.

I was wrong about one thing in my past predictions: I thought that Obama would crawl out of Afghanistan before the election in November and make the immediately above claim.  But I submit at this point that Obama can’t do that: because Afghanistan is frankly going so badly with new cases of Afghan soldiers fragging their American partners practically every day that to cut and run NOW would only serve to draw attention to just how catastrophically Obama has truly failed over there.

IRAN

Obama is the president who was mocked by Hillary Clinton for his naive stupidity in assuming he could talk Iran out of its rogue regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons status.  He is the same naive fool today that he was when Hillarly Clinton mocked him.

And Iran has doubled its centrifuges and made it all but impossible for observers to monitor Iran’s nuclear program while Obama has dithered.

Just as Iran has successfully propped up the Syrian dictatorship while Obama has done nothing.

And I have documented that when craziest nation in world history Iran gets its nukes – which it will – you can COMPLETELY lay the blame for the Armageddon that will surely ensue on Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Not that Obama will accept responsibility for his failure of leadership.

OIL

Barack Obama has also been constantly taking complete credit for being the president who has produced more oil than any other president.  Is that true?  No.  The reason that we are producing virtually ANY domestic oil at all right now is because of the Bush administration’s granting the leases that have produced so much American oil. 

“According to EIA’s short-term 2011 outlook, released last week, oil production was significantly higher in 2009 than in the years prior. Obama may have been in office for most of that year, but the oil production numbers are due to action taken before he became president. In 2010, most if not all of the production increase recorded is likely due to action that predates Obama, since Obama didn’t take any major action expanding offshore drilling his first year in office.”

But the Obama administration has taken action since then, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out on Wednesday. “Over the past two years, the Obama administration has delayed, revoked, suspended, or canceled an enormous range of development opportunities. One month after the President took office, his administration cancelled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah — once the review was complete the administration refused to reinstate a single one. . . . Last January, it announced new restrictions for onshore oil and gas exploration in the Mountain West. Last February, it denied a permit to build a bridge needed to access an oil producing field in Alaska, after the Environmental Protection Agency designated a nearby river an aquatic resource of national importance. Last April, the Administration suspended 61 oil and gas leases in Montana that were issued in 2008 — then announced that all oil and gas leases in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota would be delayed indefinitely. Last May, the President announced a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling — a moratorium that’s been repeatedly struck down in the courts.”

Bush was the president who signed the leases that Obama is taking credit for.  Obama is the president who has shut down oil production.  And yet Obama is the president who is taking credit for Bush’s success even as he refuses to stand behind his failure.  Something to consider as we face the highest gasoline prices in the history of the republic on this Memorial Day.

HEALTH CARE

ObamaCare was an unpopular fiasco the entire time Obama and Democrats were forcing it down the throats of the American people.  Obama demagogued health care costs – which were actually going DOWN before his ObamaCare boondoggle placed another one-sixth of the economy under government bureaucratic control – to pass his socialist takeover of the health care system.

Health care will be more expensive thanks to Obama and his socialism.  We’re talking $1.76 trillion more than Obama promised.  In fact, it’s already three times as expensive as Obama said it would be and we aint seen nothin’ yet.  That is a fact.

College students are seeing their health care costs skyrocket or be completely removed altogether as insurance companies decide they don’t want to pay for all the “free stuff” that ObamaCare forces them to pay for.

ObamaCare disingenuously imposes all the burden on the doctors and insurers while claiming to give all kinds of benefits.  Which is why 74% of doctors say they will quit, retire early, or see fewer patients if ObamaCare stands.  ObamaCare shennanigans, higher costs and fewer doctors mean that you will have LESS chance of actually seeing a doctor under this incredibly failed program.

Obama also swore up one side and down the other that he would NEVER raise taxes on the middle class.  And yet ObamaCare is a massive tax hike on ordinary people.  Because 75% of the 21 new tax hikes will fall on the middle class.

And where’s Obama to accept responsibility for his failed program???

ECONOMY

Question: Which president left his successor with a bubble collapse that vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portolio?  Answer: William Jefferson Clinton.  But we don’t tend to remember the terrible Dotcom bubble recession that Bill Clinton left for George Bush to inherit because of three reasons: 1) the sheer unmitigated bias of the mainstream media; 2) the disasterous 9/11 attack (that can likewise be laid almost entirely at Clinton’s feet as he gutted the military and intelligence community and left America both weak and blind such that Osama bin Laden declared America to be a “paper tiger” and began to plot his devastating attack); and 3) because unlike Barack Obama, George Bush wasn’t a pitiful whiner and accepted responsibility for the economy.

The fact of the matter is that George Bush began his presidency with a huge double whammy.  Not that the media will ever assign responsibility for it to Clinton the way they were determined to assign responsibility to Bush.  Because there is a longstanding propaganda meme according to which the mainstream media will NEVER blame a Democrat for a failure and will ALWAYS find a way to blame a Republican.

Barack Obama has demonized Bush for the “Great Recession,” literally refuses to cite statistics that consider the first year of his presidency to create the rhetorical statistical illusion that his presidency has been better than it actally was, demonized Republicans for “obstructionism“, and taken credit for his “recovery”.  The truth is that none of these things is true.

Let’s take the “Great Recession” first.  Obama has demonized Republicans over and over again for “lack of regulation” and “failed policies” causing that recession.  Bullcrap.  The single entity that resulted in this collapse was Government Sponsored Enterprise Fannie Mae and its twin Freddie Mac.  I’ve documented that fact over and over again on this blog:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/08/03/who-really-exploded-your-economy-liberals-or-conservatives/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/democrats-set-up-america-for-2008-collapse-and-barack-obama-became-their-king/

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/12/31/with-eyes-finally-wide-open-reconsider-why-the-economy-collapsed-in-the-first-place/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/democrat-lies-about-their-key-role-in-2008-economic-collapse-reaches-laughable-proportions/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/07/08/biden-we-misread-the-economy-and-its-all-the-republicans-fault/

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/video-proof-democrat-party-warned-responsible-for-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-economic-crisis-repost/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

And since Democrats took over and issued regulations up the yin yang and then up the whazoo of aforementioned yin yang, we’ve continued to have clear examples of the very things Democrats demonized Republicans over.  And Obama is setting up America and the world for an ultimate $600 trillion collapse that will make the one in 2008 look like a warm, sunny day compared to Armageddon.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed FIRST before ANY private sector entity to initiate the collapse – just as conservative economists had predicted a full decade before the collapse occurred:

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.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

And in fact the private sector entities such as Lehman Brothers that collapsed did so because they suddenly found themselves holding BILLIONS of dollars in sub-prime mortgage backed securities that had been issued by the GSEs that the Democrats created and ran into the ground and protected – and refused to allow Republicans to regulate (Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to its collapse and was stopped by Democrats every single time).  In fact Bush was trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie all the way back to 2003 when we still had time to prevent the coming collapse.  Democrats used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force the market to sell homes to people who couldn’t afford those homes; and when the bubble burst and Lehman Bros. and others found themselves holding “toxic assets” that they had purchased from Fannie and Freddie, they couldn’t cover their Democrat-caused losses and collapsed.

Nixon was president during the moon landing, but Democrats and liberals have never and will never give him credit because they wanted to give one of their own credit for the success.  Bush was president during the 2008 collapse, and that was all liberals needed to say to blame him for the entire fiasco regardless of how many Democrat shennanigans had gone into that collapse.

And here we are, nearly four years later, and all of Obama’s promises based on his anti-Bush demagoguery to: 1) not increase the debt ceiling; to 2) cut the deficit in half during his first term; to 3) cut the debt after demonizing Bush for his debt.  Obama imposed the most massive one-time spending binge in the history of planet earth and promised that unemployment would be 5.5% by now.  Instead not only has unemployment been over 8% longer than ANY time in history since the Great Depression, but in fact unemployment has actually been worse than had Obama’s own experts said it would be had we NOT wasted and pissed away $862 billion that we can never get back.

Obamanomics has been one catastrophic failure after another.  Here we are, with median household income under Obama nearly TWICE as bad than they were during the Great Recession – whether you want to blame Bush for that recession or not.  Here we are, with more poor people devastated by Obama’s economy than at any time in history.  And that didn’t happen under Bush’s watch, you liberal liars.  Somehow, it wasn’t Bush who put more people into poverty than ever before; it wasn’t Bush who devastated median household incomes as people move in with parents and relatives because the economy has failed them; it has been Obama.  It was OBAMA who made one out of every six Americans poor.

And Obama’s stimulus cost Americans an incredible and frankly insane $278,000 per job.  We can’t afford any more damn Obama jobs!!!

Obama is a liar and his “success” is based on lies – as you will see for yourself if you just try to match his rhetoric to painful American reality under his presidency:

But it’s Bush’s fault that Obama did it.  Because no president in history has ever abrogated his responsibilities or refused to claim responsibility for his failure to live up to his responsibilities than has Obama.

Obama has been the president for the last four years, people, not Bush.

I began talking about the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong.  The only “man on the moon” now – thanks to Obama’s policies – is none other than Barack Obama: because this disgraced leader will surely assume no responsibility for anything that happens on the earth that lies so far below his lofty but meaningless rhetoric.

It’s past time to hold him responsible and fire his ass.

Liberals Keep Blaming Bush And Keep Sounding More and More Like DUMBASSES

I get comments like this one all the time:

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

So what can I say to such a brilliant mind?  Plenty:

Five things:

1) When George Bush took office, we had suffered the DotCom bubble collapse and Bush inherited a terrible recession (a couple of facts: America lost $7.1 trillion in wealth and the Nasdaq valuation lost 78% of its value). On top of that, America suffered the 9/11 attack because Bill Clinton had annihilated the military and intelligence budgets and capabilities in order to brag he “balanced the budget.” The 9/11 attack created an even DEEPER recession because the American people were afraid to travel to vacation or do business for a long time afterward. Bush started out in a hell hole.  But did you defend Bush, Charles? No, because you’re a demon-possessed cockroach hypocrite and you will only see the world as a leftwing ideologue.  It’s like the gas price spike: when Bush was president, the rise in prices were all Bush’s fault because Bush was president:

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all.  The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo.  At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured.  You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us.  Dumbass.  Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

As we speak, only 14% of Americans think their children will be better off than they were, versus 65% who think their children will be worse off.  That is the lowest it has EVER been.  Why is it Bush’s fault that in the fourth year of Obama Americans overwhelmingly believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction under Obama’s policies???  Even if Bush did everything terrible; shouldn’t Obama have been able to improve from terrible???  But he hasn’t; he’s made “terrible” MORE terrible.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party  And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS.  But what is your messiah doing?  He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush.  That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe.  But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

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.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Just before the bankruptcy and collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, Barney Frank said THIS:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

Dumbass, IT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT OF HISTORY THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC COLLAPSED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2008 BEFORE ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR PLAYER. Merill Lynch and Lehmen Brothers went down AFTER the GSEs and BECAUSE they suddenly found themselves holding billions of dollars in worthless Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities.  That was because Fannie and Freddie had bundled thousands mortgages together into their securities such that there was no way to separate the toxic debt from the good debt.  The entire system collapsed because the entire mortgage financial system suddenly became “toxic” due to that inability of the market to distinguish good debt and risk from toxic debt and risk.  ONLY Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to bundle those mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private sector. THAT was what caused the housing mortgage collapse that led to our 2008 economic implosion.  At the time of their collapse, the GSEs controlled 70% of all new home purchases.  It was that supermassive black hole of Democrat stupidity and depravity that imploded America in 2008.

I’ve preserved all of that and more here.

If the above isn’t bad enough, Obama has decided after demagoguing the crisis his party started in 2008 that 2008 never really even happened: he’s going right back to the policies that blew up the housing mortgage market in the first place.

If that isn’t enough, consider that between Democrat-imposed Social Security boondoggle and the Medicare and Medicaid boondoggles, the REAL national debt is well over $211 TRILLION.  Our real yearly debt under Obama is nearly $6 trillion in the red every single year until America implodes and dies when our credit rating goes down again and our interest rates skyrocket.  And when you add to that the unfunded pension liabilities of liberal states like California and Illinois, we are well and truly screwed with Democrats being virtually entirely responsible for every penny of our unpayable and unsustainable debt that will necessarily bankrupt and kill America.  And all of this government takeover has been imposed in the name of helping the poor when history proves it has done the exact opposite.

And you’re going to blame Bush, you lunatic?

So you can take your “fell off due to Bush’s policies” and stuff them right up your idiot pie hole. Bush’s policies gave us an average 5.26% unemployment rate. When your messiah lives up to his lies come back and talk to me.

4) But let’s consider that in conservative states like Texas and Nebraska and North Dakota, the economies are surging and people from liberal states are moving to red states in DROVES to get jobs they won’t ever be able to get from retards like Democrats. These red states and several other red states have balanced their budgets. So why can’t Obama balance his damn budget instead of giving us four consecutive years of over a trillion in deficit for the first time in the entire history of the entire human race???

5) Obama told the American people that his policies would result in 5.6% unemployment by now and there would therefore be millions of Americans paying lots and lots of taxes. Obama promised us his policies would generate 4.3 percent GDP growth. Where was that promised economic recovery that would have obliterated the recession, you dumbass? You wouldn’t need to be making your dumbass excuses now if your messiah hadn’t lied to the American people.  Now Obama has to rely on pure crap to sell his lies, just like you. But instead your antichrist messiah has given us the worst labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter broke America and Ronald Reagan had to put it back together again. And if you compare Obama’s policies to Reagan’s policies you can understand why Reagan GREW the economy after everything went to hell and Obama is just going from bad to worse.  So on your very “dumbass” view YOUR messiah is a “dumbass.”  Either that, or it’s now your view that Obama LIED when he said he had a solution and he LIED when he projected that his policies would turn the economy around.  I guess what you’re saying is that it’s really “Bush’s fault” that Obama is a lying fool.

The Cloward And Piven Presidency

What is Cloward and Piven, you ask?  I’ve written about it and Obama’s connection to it before.  Allow me to cite the same information I provided in 2009:

From Discover The Networks:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. […]

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

Newsmax offers a further description of Clowar-Piven, and raises the very real possibility that Obama not only studied the strategy, but in fact even studied under Richard Cloward:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly newsmedia to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth. It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

On my own view, Obama has a “win we win, lose we win” strategy. To wit, the Obama administration and the Democrat Party are pursuing incredibly risky policies across the board. If the country and the economy somehow manages to survive these measures (which I would compare to a man surviving a poisoning), Obama and the Democrats will claim victory. If, on the other hand, the entire national system collapses due to these shockingly terrible policies, the liberals believe that a terrified, hungry public will turn to the government for help – and allow the statists to restructure the nation into a completely socialist system.

I have talked about Obama directly using the Cloward and Piven strategy to implode America in the past (and see):

Politico Article Reveals Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy Backfiring

ObamaCare Just Another Leftist Attempt To Bankrupt America (Cloward And Piven Alert)

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

Cloward-Piven Alive And Well: Progressives CONTINUE To Push For Destruction Of U.S. System

I have also provided direct evidence that Obama-allied liberals are directly trying to produce the collapse of the American financial system.  And I cited the following article in my own:

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
Henry Blodget | Mar. 22, 2011, 9:44 AM

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.

The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner’s remarks. Many Americans will undoubtedly sympathize with and support them. Still, the “destabilization” plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore–the redistribution of wealth and the return of “$17 trillion” stolen from the middle class by Wall Street–is to “destabilize the country.”

Lerner’s plan is to organize a mass, coordinated “strike” on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments–thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner’s plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.

In former SEIU Lerner’s own words at this liberal think-tank event:

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

I have repeatedly documented and explained how the 2008 financial crisis was created almost ENTIRELY by Democrats who repeatedly refused to allow Bush or Republicans in Congress to do ANYTHING to avert a disaster they saw coming:

DEMOCRATS Set Up America For 2008 Collapse, And Barack Obama Became Their KING

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

Why Did Our Economy Melt Down In 2008? (Email This To Your Friends)

It Was DEMOCRATS Who Blew Up Our Economy In 2008

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

Democrat Lies About Their Key Role In 2008 Economic Collapse Reaches Laughable Proportions

How Should Democrats Eat The Half-Trillion $ Monsters Fannie And Freddie? One Bite At A Time

Barney Frank Video Proves Democrats At CORE Of 2008 Economic Collapse

AEI Article: How Fannie And Freddie Blew Up The Economy

With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

Biden: ‘We Misread the Economy’ – And it’s all the Republicans’ Fault

Selective Liberal Outrage: Fannie’s $210 Million In Bonuses A-OK

Blaming Republican ‘Obstructionism’ For America’s Economic Problems Is A Demonic Lie. Let’s Look At The REAL Obstructionists.

Who’s To Blame For The Economic Mess We’re In? Two Views.

JP Morgan And MF Global Prove That Democrat Regulations DON’T WORK. Democrats Create Disasters And Then Run By Demagoguing Those Disasters.

Barack Obama And His Fascist Crony Capitalist Connections To MF Global, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup – And A Coming $600 Trillion Collapse

With that accusation in mind, here is a liberal SEIU guy – and let’s not forget what Obama had to say about his intimate relationship with SEIU –

Obama to SEIU: “Your agenda is my agenda.” And as you shall see, their “agenda” which is being pursued by proxy is to implode America.

– saying the following.

The recorded words of now former senior level SEIU official Stephen Lerner at Pace University:

“Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

What’s changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don’t need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate.

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up.

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything.

In other words, I have often contended that Democrats created the 2008 crisis.  And I literally have them ON TAPE strategizing about trying to do the same thing again.

I’ve directly stated that ObamaCare was an example of a Cloward and Piven-style strategy that would bankrupt America and thus create the need for the government to nationalize and take over the entire health care system.

I was right.  Read the following:

Obama Admin. to Implement Parts of Health Law
CBNNews.com
Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Obama administration said will implement parts of its health care law, even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down major portions of the legislation.

The high court is set to release its decision in coming days, and it may strike down the whole law or just the individual mandate that requires Americans to buy health care insurance.

If only the mandate is struck down, that will still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid and federal tax credits to help people purchase insurance.

Critics say those policies will lead to a huge increase in the federal debt.

But the administration said it is moving forward to put those policies in place no matter what the court decides.

“We do believe it’s constitutional, and we … hope and expect that’s the decision the court will render,” senior adviser David Plouffe told ABC News on Sunday.

“We obviously will be prepared for whatever decision the court renders,” he said.

Administration officials have declined to discuss contingency plans to avoid creating the impression that the president is preparing for a high court rebuke.

If ObamaCare gets struck down, Obama – who is now being described as an “imperial president” and “another Nixon” even by the left – is going to simply ignore the Supreme Court and abrogate the power of Congress and enact it anyway.

I’ve also repeatedly pointed out that Barack Hussein Obama is a raw, naked fascist.  There is no question that Obama has disregarded both Congress and the Supreme Court and imposed himself as an emperor.  Consider that Obama made what he called “recess appointments” when Congress by its own Democrat Party-passed rules wasn’t even in recess; consider how Obama issued waivers to the No Child Left Behind LAW if states followed Obama’s policies instead; consider Obama declaring that he would simply ignore constitutionally passed by Congress and signed by the President such as the Defense of Marriage Act; consider how Obama first forced loans to campaign contributors at green firms such as Solyndra and then pressured the Solyndra Board to hold off on layoffs until it was more politically convenient for him;  consider how Obama has outright refused any and all oversight by the Congressional Oversight Committee on matters such as Fast and Furious.  All that and more in addition to what he just did ignoring the LAW on illegal immigration and imposing his own substitute for binding law by act of executive tyranny.  And I was right about that, too.  But let’s stick to ObamaCare for the time being. 

What’s going to happen if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare and Obama ignores the Constitution, the rule of law, the Supreme Court and Congress and imposes it anyway is this: it will force the private insurance industry to either go bankrupt (as he also verbally promised to do to energy providers once, for what that’s worth) or they will be forced out of the industry altogether.

If – or we can now still say “when” given what Democrats are saying Obama is going to do – that happens, the health care delivery system will completely implode and either millions of Americans will literally die deaths caused by medical neglect or the government will be “forced” to step in and nationalize health care.

I say “forced” in quotes because it will be analogous to Adolf Hitler being “forced” to attack Poland after fabricating a ruse of a Polish attack to rhetorically justify his action.  Obama will have fabricated the very conditions that would “force” him to take this action.

I state as a fact that Democrats have degenerated into the sort of weasels who will deliberately create economic or medial catastrophes and then impose their government fascism while blaming the very opposition that tried – albeit at times gutlessly – to prevent the collapse that Democrats created.

Richard Andrew Cloward would have been thrilled at the impending collapse.  Frances Fox Piven is still calling for the Arab Spring- style popular uprising and its accompanying reign of terror complete with violence, and it’s looking more and more like she’ll be getting her wish.

It is past obvious that this country can not survive as a democratic republic with this “imperial president” in power.  It is also past obvious that if Americans re-elect Obama this year, it will be “fundamentally transformed” from the most powerful nation in the history of the world to just another banana republic by the time he leaves office.

Blaming Republican ‘Obstructionism’ For America’s Economic Problems Is A Demonic Lie. Let’s Look At The REAL Obstructionists.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  So here is a picture of our blithering messiah unable to understand reality:

“The private sector’s doing fine.”

“Michael Eden is the Grand Poobah over all of the spacetime Multiverse.”

Both statements are equally true.  Or rather equally false.

Even back in April when Obama was claiming that his policies were working, the fact was that median wages for the middle class were plummeting far more than they were when Obama was demonizing George Bush over the decline in median wages.  Median wages have declined 10.2% under Obama’s regime.  It’s down by $4,300 – way over TWICE as much as it was under Bush.  Since then the bottom has fallen out of Obama’s claims, with not only the GDP revised downward, but job figures for the preceding three months likewise being revised downward.

“Revised downward” is actually a good metaphor for the entire Obama presidency: fully 63 out of the last 64 “official” jobs reports have been revised downward under this propaganda presidency.  You have to go to North Korea today to find a government that is lying to its people more than our government under Obama.

Democrats are celebrating Obama’s 27 months of job growth.  They wouldn’t be abject hypocrites had they not demonized George Bush for 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Normally, when a president calls a press conference he has something major to announce; he’s actually accomplished something.  In this case, Obama calls a press conference to do nothing more than grandstand and continue his “the one and only person who must be above blame is the president – unless that president happens to be a Republican in which case he is the only person who must be blamed.”

I remember coming across a statement from the Soviet Union not long before its collapse in which Soviet big government totalitarians actually blamed seventy-two years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine – having executed all their other viable scapegoats.  That’s the true audacity of hope: hope that the benighted people will continue to believe the utterly asinine lies of the left even after it is beyond obvious that they have failed.

While blaming Bush is a fountain that will never run out as long as Obama has one last breath of air in his lungs, apparently it is worn out enough that Obama had to find new scapegoats, such as Europe (but all Spain and France and Greece are saying is that they want to be like Obama and make other people pay for their reckless government spending) and the Republican House for refusing to pass everything Obama wants.  Never mind that explorers had actually discovered the continent of Europe even previous to the Bush years and never mind that when the U.S. economy went from wonderful to terrible during Bush’s final two years in office the Democrats not only controlled the House but also controlled the Senate as well.  And never mind that Obama had complete control of the government for his first two years given that he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to go with a massive majority in the House – and wasted it passing his soon-to-be-found unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate over an angry nation that overwhelmingly knew it was unconstitutional.

 The unemployment rate was 4.4% when the Democrat Party swept the Congress with Nancy Pelosi ruling over the House and Harry Reid running the Senate.  What about Democrat Party obstructionism?  Regarding bipartisan compromise, Nancy Pelosi, the physical embodiment of fingernails raking across a chalkboard, had this to say when she was asked when the Democrats would produce their own plan while demonizing Bush’s plan: “Never. Is that soon enough for you?”  For the official record, Pelosi was right: Democrats never DID produce any kind of plan while successfully filibustering Bush.  The Democrats governed entirely by demagoguing Bush over everything under the sun and blocking him in everything he tried to do.

By the way, Barack Obama was one of those obstructionist Democrats.  On the debt ceiling, Obama took a hard-core position and not only voted against it, but demonized Bush as a failed leader for needing one.  And this is the same cynical lying weasel who has since demanded the three largest debt ceiling increases in the history of the entire human race.

The Democrats actually blockaded Bush time and time again.  Do you know why our economy collapsed in 2008?  You can answer the question in three words: “Fannie and Freddie.”  As much as Democrats want to demonize the private sector and George Bush, the fact of the matter is that Fannie and Freddie – which controlled over half of the mortgages in America – were the VERY FIRST entities to collapse and triggered the collapse of firms such as Lehman Brothers for the primary reason that Lehman suddenly found itself holding Fannie Mae-bundled mortgage backed securities that were suddenly known to be toxic.  Barney Frank in 2005 brushed off a question of whether the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates might result in people buying more home than they could afford and inflating the housing market by barking, “We’ll deal with that problem if it happens.”  But we find that not only would Democrats NOT deal with it, but they wouldn’t let Bush or Republicans deal with it either.

We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

In that year 1999 you had financial experts clearly warning that this new DEMOCRAT policy was going to have a bad end:

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.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

George Bush began trying to seriously deal with the looming housing bubble which was guaranteed to create a mortgage meltdown as early as 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

You can read how Barney Frank responded in that same article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

We find that George Bush tried not once, not twice, but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to their collapse.  Did you read that?  SEVENTEEN TIMES.

John McCain warned that America was on the verge of an economic meltdown created by Democrats in 2006.  He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.  And now we KNOW who would actually pay for it: YOU.

Even the New York Times FINALLY began to be concerned over the impact of a collapse by Fannie and Freddie as these words from July 2008 document (I cited that in a piece available here):

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

Just before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely went belly up and started the economic wrecking ball crashing into America, Barney Frank as the powerful Democrat Chairman of the Financial Services Committee had this to say:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

I document the process by how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated here, explaining:

[That] the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a primary conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate. And then to explode. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats. And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.

I added the last link to point out that we’re looking at a $600 TRILLION problem and Barack Obama’s supporters are COMPLETELY BEHIND that $600 trillion problem.

You find that Barack Obama took more money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter period of time than any politician in history.  Fellow Democrat Chris Dodd’s money came over twenty years; Obama took all of his money from the GSEs in just three years.  And Lehman Brothers and AIG that led the private sector into collapse?  Yeah, Obama took more money from THEM than anybody else, too.

If you believe the Democrat Party, the fact that Fannie and Freddie controlled over half of all the mortgages in the United States, and the fact that Fannie and Freddie went completely bankrupt and precipitated the financial crash of 2008, and the fact that economic experts predicted Fannie and Freddie would cause an economic collapse, and the fact that even the New York Times admitted concern over a “torrent of worries” caused by Fannie and Freddie’s massive exposure shortly prior to the economic collapse, all somehow go to prove that Fannie and Freddie were in no way responsible for the 2008 economic collapse.  As insane as that is, that is what they have to say.

Let me put it bluntly: if you don’t understand that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s 2008 collapse created the financial crisis, you are a fool.  If you don’t acknowledge that the Democrat Party engineered that collapse and then refused to allow George Bush or anyone else to reform these massive GSEs to prevent that collapse from happening, you are a liar.  Which is why I routinely label Democrats as lying fools.

Democrats essentially said, “We’re going to destroy America and then we’re going to use our mainstream media propagandists to blame the Republicans for what we did.  The extent of the historic bias in the media is astonishing.

So Obama and the Democrats continually demonize Republican obstructionism and the mainstream media refuses to put that story into any kind of context of DEMOCRAT obstructionism.  Why is it a valid charge that the Republican House should be blamed as “obstructionist” given that DEMOCRATS had both the House AND the Senate when the economy went bad under Bush?  When have you heard about such a challenge in the media?  Democrats have blamed Republicans and Bush for four years now about destroying the economy.  Where has the media ever even so much as questioned that premise, let alone provide the facts I document for you here?  Further, Obama and the Democrats – in trying to demonize Republicans for their “obstructionism” – are demanding that Republicans vote for what is essentially the son of the son of Obama’s first massive and massively failed stimulus.  Remember that first massive stimulus that was officially $862 billion but which the CBO said would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION when it was all said and done?  Remember that second stimulus program for $447 billion that will likewise cost far more than that?  How many more stimulus programs should Obama get?  How many trillions of dollars in government spending is enough?  Have you heard these questions from ABC, NBC or CBS???

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, made an interesting observation.  He basically said, “The president keeps accusing the Republicans of wanting America to fail.  That’s not true.  If Republicans wanted America to fail, they would SUPPORT the president and his failed policies.”

Because they ARE failed policies.  They have wildly failed and they have even failed according to Obama’s own White House.  Obama’s team predicted that if Obama’s $862 billion stimulus was enacted unemployment would not go over 8%.  They were clearly wrong.  Obama again and again promised that his stimulus was filled with “shovel ready jobs,” only to later laugh and say that it wasn’t as “shovel-ready as we expected.”  That admission after having made repeated claims that it WAS creating all kinds of shovel-ready jobs.  Is the fact that Obama just admitted that his entire economic policy was based on lies a joke to you?  And when Obama demanded yet another of the same massively expensive policy failure as before he merely made the same bogus promises in slightly different words.  Are you really that stupid?  The Obama team predicted that unemployment would be under 6% by now if his FIRST stimulus passed, let alone his SECOND massive stimulus and now the THIRD one that he demands.  In fact unemployment is a full point higher right now than team Obama predicted it would be if we had NOT passed his stimulus, which is to say that by Obama’s own math his administration was WORSE than nothing along with costing us trillions of dollars we now can’t get back.

And what is the Democrats response to that?  A fantasy story based on counterfactual claims: if we hadn’t passed the stimulus things would have been worse.  Don’t remember what he said back then because they turned out to be a sack of lies; remember our new lies now.  And if George Bush hadn’t been president, space aliens would have destroyed the entire human race.  Prove that one wrong.  Obama’s own projections prove that to be false; but the lies they keep a changin’ because that’s what hope and change means – keep telling changing lies and hope the people buy them.

We have now repeatedly found that EVERYTHING Obama promised and predicted has been a LIE.  Obama has failed across the board.  Now he’s either telling the same lying predictions about his leadership all over again or replacing them with new lying predictions.

If you want to know what is “obstructing” jobs in America, look no further than Barack Obama and the Democrat Part and their anti-business, anti-growth policies.

The biggest “obstruction” of all facing America is the one shoved up Democrats’ rear ends.  Sorry to end on such a crass note, but the truth is invariably an unpleasant thing where Democrats are concerned.

JP Morgan And MF Global Prove That Democrat Regulations DON’T WORK. Democrats Create Disasters And Then Run By Demagoguing Those Disasters.

Democrats are saying that 2,320 pages of regulations wasn’t anywhere NEAR enough.  They say they need total dictatorial control over the economy in order to adequately regulate it.

Notice that both Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank (as in, “the Dodd-Frank Act”) are both GONE now???

And yet the monster they created lives on.

Many rules are STILL BEING WRITTEN.  That 2,320 pages will grow and grow and grow without end.

An article written a couple of days ago underscores this and a few other salient facts:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the most sweeping financial law enacted since the Great Depression, is supposed to protect investors and shield the economy from bubbles and speculation. Its promise is hard to judge; many detailed rules are still being drafted. What can be said with confidence is that Dodd-Frank has been a boon for lobbyists.

In that single sentence, we find: 1) Dodd-Frank was a complete lie and resulted in a complete fiasco; 2) the damn thing that is already a monster is growing into an even bigger monster all around us; and 3) Obama and Democrats LOVE lobbyists in spite of their sanctimonious self-righteous hypocritical denials.

We’ve just suffered the disaster of MF Global in which an EXTREMELY CLOSE ALLY AND PARTNER WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION directly led to the collapse and bankruptcy of MF Global and the disappearance of $1.6 BILLION in investor funds.

We’ve just suffered the disaster of JP Morgan – which donated HUGE campaign money to Obama, for the record (see here and here for the proof) – just lost $2 billion.  With those losses reasonably expected to exceed $4.2 BILLION.

Now, speaking of what is “reasonable,” it is “reasonable” to point out that the Democrat rhetoric demonizing George Bush for failing to regulate, etc. was a complete load of hogwash and that the Democrats’ have refuted themselves.  But that’s not the way the Democrat fascist mind works: rather, Democrats are actually arguing that their abject failure to regulate in spite of supermassive regulations requires more and MORE regulation.

There’s just no end to their stupidity.  Or to their crony-capitalist fascism.

Democrats promised that they would end “too big to fail” by preventing the movement toward getting bigger.  They accomplished the EXACT OPPOSITE: Banks are now THIRTY PERCENT BIGGER than when Dodd-Frank passed and they are in fact bigger as a direct consequence of Dodd-Frank as banks responded to the witch hunts by growing big and powerful enough to resist said witch hunts:

Two years after President Barack Obama vowed to eliminate the danger of financial institutions becoming “too big to fail,” the nation’s largest banks are bigger than they were before the credit crisis.

Five banks – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to the Federal Reserve.

Five years earlier, before the financial crisis, the largest banks’ assets amounted to 43 percent of U.S. output. The Big Five today are about twice as large as they were a decade ago relative to the economy, sparking concern that trouble at a major bank would rock the financial system and force the government to step in as it did during the 2008 crunch.

“Market participants believe that nothing has changed, that too-big-to-fail is fully intact,” said Gary Stern, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

That specter is eroding faith in Obama’s pledge that taxpayer-funded bailouts are a thing of the past. It is also exposing him to criticism from Federal Reserve officials, Republicans and Occupy Wall Street supporters, who see the concentration of bank power as a threat to economic stability.

Let’s compare that list to the list of the biggest Obama donors:

Goldman Sachs, check.  Citigroup, check.  Bank of America, check.  And JP Morgan Chase, check check.  Oh, and Wells Fargo, check.

It’s really just astonishing to anybody but someone like me – WHO SAYS ALL THE DAMN TIME THAT BARACK OBAMA IS A GENUINELY EVIL MAN – that Obama rammed a fascist crony capitalist takeover of the banking system through Congress promising to end too big to fail, and yet somehow mysteriously that legislation ended up benefitting the very list of banks that gave Obama more money than ANYBODY.

It’s the exact same damn fascist thing with Obama and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY HE GAVE TO HIS DONORS WITH THE GREEN ENERGY BOONDOGGLE. 

There’s kind of a trend there.

When a political party promises to regulate and reform to prevent collapses and bubbles and end the too big to fail mindset, and then they do the VERY OPPOSITE thing that they said they’d do, and as a result of their doing the very opposite thing that they promised they say they need more power, and you believe them and vote for them, there is something profoundly wrong with you.

Demon-possessed Democrats (“Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat,” by the way) played this game once in 2008.

It was DEMOCRATS and DEMOCRAT POLICIES that blew up our economy in 2008.  Bill Clinton radically expanded the housing-bubble-creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by dramatically expanding the program that gave housing mortgages to people who could not afford them:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
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.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

For the factual record, that was something Bill Clinton blessed George Bush with just before he left office to go along with the Dotcom bubble collapse recession that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth.  Which collapsed on Bush just before the 9/11 disaster that happened because Bill Clinton let in every single terrorist who attacked us and allowed them to get trained, organized and funded completely on his watch.  So thanks for those land mines that were guaranteed to blow up, Slick Willie.

Wicked, depraved, demon-possessed Democrats blame George Bush.  But George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but Democrats thwarted him every single time.  From US News and World Report:

Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I’ve written about this ad nauseum:

For the record, “8,000 billion” is another way of saying $8 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Democrat Party have cost us.

It was Democrats who established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has been Democrats who have controlled the staffing of both agencies for decades. It was Democrats – and particularly it was Barack Obama – who took more campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than ANYONE. It was Democrats who refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when George Bush and later John McCain repeatedly pleaded for such regulation and reform of the out-of-control agencies. It was Democrats like Franklin Raines who were running Fannie and Freddie when all the policies that led us down the road to hell were imposed, just as it was Democrats who were running Fannie and Freddie when the fecal matter started hitting the rotary oscillator.

It was a Democrat who said that everything was fine with Fannie and Freddie less than TWO MONTHS before they completely collapsed:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS, July 14, 2008: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

And I think that anybody who respects what you think is a deluded and deranged dumbass, Mr. Frank.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now in control of 96.5% of all mortgages, for those who don’t think they’re all that important in their role of creating the mortgage meltdown. It was Fannie and Freddie that bundled all the bad mortgages into mortgage-backed securities and then sold the mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors under the illusion that they were guaranteed by the federal government.

Fannie and Freddie were a $5 trillion wasted boondoggle BEFORE things got even worse. They exist only to help liberals and lose money. And there’s no end in sight.

How bad is it???

Just how bad is the news at Fannie/Freddie? On Friday morning, Moody’s downgraded their outstanding preferred stock 5 notches from A1 to Baa3 (a slight gradation above junk) and their Bank Financial Strength Ratings (BSFR) to D+ from B- (one/half notch above D, which is reserved for companies in default). […]

I’ve pointed out which entity was directly behind the collapse of our economy in 2008.  Look who see who failed first and then triggered the catastrophic chain of financial destruction:

But in short, just take a look at the following timeline of our 2008 collapse and see which (Democrat) entity led the nation into implosion:

• September 7: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.’s $12 trillion mortgage market, effectively nationalizing them. This causes panic because almost every home mortgage lender and Wall Street bank relied on them to facilitate the mortgage market and investors worldwide owned $5.2 trillion of debt securities backed by them.^[199][200]
• September 14: Merrill Lynch is sold to Bank of America amidst fears of a liquidity crisis and Lehman Brothers collapse^[201]
• September 15: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection^[202]
• September 16: Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s downgrade ratings on AIG‘s credit on concerns over continuing losses to mortgage-backed securities, sending the company into fears of insolvency.^[203][204] In addition, the Reserve Primary Fund “breaks the buck” leading to a run on the money market funds. Over $140 billion is withdrawn vs. $7 billion the week prior. This leads to problems for the commercial paper market, a key source of funding for corporations, which suddenly could not get funds or had to pay much higher interest rates.^[205]
• September 17: The US Federal Reserve lends $85 billion to American International Group (AIG)to avoid bankruptcy.
• September 18: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke meet with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout through the purchase of toxic assets. Bernanke tells them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”^[206]
• September 19: Paulson financial rescue plan is unveiled after a volatile week in stock and debt markets.

And I point out the whole process and how it happened to show why the 2008 disaster happened to prove that Fannie and Freddie failing first was no mere coincidence, but in fact the trigger that set off the entire chain reaction of 2008:

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, acting as Government sponsored enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what has allowed toxic instruments that have been sold across the world. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs. He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And of course, they could not pay their debts. Fannie and Freddie basically went bankrupt and were taken over. And they took a whopping share of the biggest financial institutions down with them. Fannie is in the process of devouring nearly 400 billion dollars of bailout money from the American taxpayer. And now – GREAT GOOGLEY MOOGLEY – Obama is planning to funnel yet another $800 BILLION through the same Fannie and Freddie who already destroyed us once.

And thus you had a financial disaster created by one William Jefferson Clinton and one Democrat Party. And now a second act of economic destruction is being planned by Barack Obama.

The 2008 economic collapse that Democrats were elected to fix was itself created by Democrats who will now continue the very policies that created the disaster in the first place.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now in control of 96.5% of all mortgages due to the corruption and fascist crony capitalism of the Democrat Party which has pretty much been allowed to run amok since 2007 (when they took control of the House and Senate) and which went completely insane when Barack Obama became president.

It was Democrats who blew up the economy with their stupid and demonic policies and it is Democrats who will make the rubble bounce by blowing it up all over again in a collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a walk on a warm sunny beach.

As a postscript, allow me to add that the problem is not and never has been that we don’t have enough regulations: we’ve got hundreds and hundreds of thousands of regulations such that the federal government has no idea how many different regulations they actually have on the books any more.  NO!  Rather the problem is that morality and ethics have disintegrated in America.

Founding father John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  His point was that a free society cannot exist unless morality and religion are cherished and taught for a very good reason: because people who do not have the foundation to self-govern must be forcibly governed by an increasingly totalitarian state.  And that view of John Adams was echoed by every single one of our founding fathers for very good reason.

The Democrat Party and the unjust judges the Democrat Party has imposed on us threw God out of America in in 1947 when they imposed a radical understanding of the Establishment Clause upon America.  In a particularly heinous maneuver, the Supreme Court ONLY considered the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church that had written expressing concern about the removal of religious liberty.  It’s not adequate to say that the Supreme Court took “separation between church and state” in 1947; they DEMANDED that the surrounding context be DENIED altogether.  The result in 1947 was an awful ruling that defied the previous 160 years of Supreme Court decisions and effectively abrogated the Declaration of Independence and the 1st Amendment in doing so.  The Supreme Court further acted on the secular humanist edifice it had artificially constructed for itself in 1962, when the Court threw out prayer in schools and threw the Ten Commandments out in 1980.  The liberal court decreed that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

God forbid that children think about God and morality.  Let’s teach them sodomy instead.

And now we have degenerated to the point in which an Obama-appointed federal judge is saying we should just get rid of the first four commandments that mention God.  Because this moral idiot doesn’t comprehend that the first four commandments commanding reverence for the Creator form the moral foundation for the six commands that ethical laws that have formed the basis of Western Civilization that emerged from the Judeo-Christian worldview.

If you are an older American who knew what this nation used to be like, and you wonder what the hell went so terribly wrong, now you should understand why: we threw God out of America; and in so doing we invited Satan in.  Pretty much every nasty thing, from violent crime, to venereal disease, to premarital sex, to single motherhood and abortion, to illiteracy, to suicide, to drug use, to public corruption, HAS EXPLODED.  We’ve become a country that is so overwhelmed with convicted criminals that it is now beyond impossible to keep them incarcerated and we literally have to let them go as worse criminals keep flooding into the system.

When I graduated from university in 1990 as a business major, I did not receive any classroom instruction on business ethics.  One professor pointed out that they had USED to teach ethics in previous years but had as a matter of policy stopped doing so.  And precisely what would have been the foundation of those “ethics” if we’d been allowed to be taught about “ethics”???  What ethics?  WHOSE ethics?  Based on what ethical system?

Not the Bible, that is for damned sure.  Not when the Supreme Court that inhabits a building whose founders and whose betters engraved images of Moses and the Ten Commandments upon them spurns the entire history of this great nation and replaces it with legally-imposed godlessness.

So the abortion society of death worship that Democrats created spirals wildly out of control.  And the amoral and irreligious people now therefore need mountains of regulations as they become more and more and more blatantly depraved and predatory.

And such a people must be controlled with more and more force.

Liberals frequently compare conservatives to some kind of intolerant Taliban; but THEY’RE the Taliban.  They are a radical secular humanist cult that has been increasingly rabidly determined to impose their agenda on this nation for the last 100 years.

What Leftists Are Best At: Socialist Obama Blames Bush For All His Problems; Socialist Greece Blames Germany For All Its Problems

Barack Obama is entering the fourth year of his presidency blaming George Bush.  Think about that; the man has never once during his entire presidency taken personal responsibility.  Not ONCE.

But that’s really par for this golf course; it’s just what socialists do.

Greece thinks all of its insane spending and refusal to see the cliff rushing up on them while they stupidly continued acting like Democrats in America is all Germany’s fault.  Because, you see, Germany won’t give them more stupid money so they can keep being stupid.  The Germans have money; and of course you know the script: the rich are ALWAYS to blame.  Even if they’re in a whole other country:

Greece and Germany’s he said/she said over debt crisis
Berlin sees Athens as not living up to its end of the bailout bargain; Greece perceives a campaign of punishment by the Germans on its already-reeling economy.
By Henry Chu and Anthee Carassava, Los Angeles Times
February 14, 2012, 7:47 p.m.

Reporting from Berlin and Athens— To hear many Germans tell it, Greece is a land blessed with sunshine but cursed with a lying, cheating government that routinely breaks its promises and expects others to pick up the pieces.

The rest of Europe has doled out billions of dollars in emergency loans to keep Greece afloat, but Athens, the Germans say, has consistently failed to deliver on pledges to slash its bloated bureaucracy, sell off state enterprises, go after tax evaders and overhaul its uncompetitive economy.

Yet ask Greeks what’s happening to their country, and many respond with yowls of pain and anger — directed in large part toward Germany. Berlin, they fume, is a tyrannical taskmaster whose only motivation now seems to be to inflict as much punishment as possible on a country whose economy has already been pushed into free fall.

“What more do they want from us?” said Sophia Sigri, a 70-year-old pensioner in Athens. “This crisis has gone way beyond numbers, fiscal policies and austerity measures. Our national dignity now is at stake. Do they want to rob us of that, too?”

The divergent views have become the backdrop against which Europe’s long-running debt crisis, now in its third year, is playing out. And the fact that such attitudes appear to be hardening in Berlin and Athens, with animosity and distrust deepening on both sides, is complicating the search for a solution.

Finance ministers of the 17 Eurozone nations are scheduled to consult Wednesday in a conference call that investors hope will result in the provisional approval of a second bailout for Greece, worth about $170 billion. Without the rescue package, the country could slide into default by mid-March, with potentially disastrous consequences for the global economy.

But many in Athens believe that present conditions aren’t much better.

Though acknowledging that their government has missed some of the tough financial targets set by international lenders, they say the repeated rounds of stiff austerity cuts have resulted in a spiraling recession during which homelessness, hunger and suicide rates have all gone up.

Public outrage boiled over this week into some of Athens’ worst rioting since the start of the crisis in 2009, with dozens of buildings set afire and trashed by rock-throwing youths alongside a peaceful demonstration by thousands. Greek lawmakers swallowed hard and bowed anyway to the demands of their European partners, approving drastic cuts in wages and pensions and the elimination of 15,000 public-sector jobs this year alone, at a time when the unemployment rate already tops 20%.

German and other European officials welcomed the measures. But they warned that they are not enough for them to approve a second bailout Wednesday, insisting that Greece identify $430 million more in spending cuts and seal a deal with private investors on taking a loss on their holdings of Greek debt.

To those Germans who regard Greeks as mendacious, cavalier shirkers of duty, critics point to figures like those released Tuesday showing that, in the last quarter of 2011, Greece’s economy contracted by a whopping 7% compared with the same period a year earlier.

Many Greeks have already made heavy sacrifices as the result of one governmental austerity measure after another. The citizens of any other developed country, they say, would surely erupt in anger as well if confronted with the same calamitous drop in their standard of living.

Anti-German rhetoric and images are now a staple in Greece, where politicians mutter darkly of German jackboots and protesters call Chancellor Angela Merkel a Nazi.

“You’d think they would show some compassion for the fact that we went gentle on them after World War II. But no, they want to punish us now,” declared Fotis Stathatos, 56, an unemployed construction worker.

Germans bristle at such statements, even as they speak of the need to get even tougher on Greece. Athens is no longer a trustworthy partner but rather a huge sinkhole, many Germans say. They complain that Greek officials have happily accepted outside help while shrugging off solemn promises to lay off thousands of civil servants, privatize state assets and strengthen tax collection.

The lack of follow-through has prompted suggestions from Germany — unwelcome in Greece — that a European Union commissioner be given power over Athens’ budget and that a separate escrow account be set up to earmark government funds for repaying debt and not for frivolous spending elsewhere.

“The only thing we require is that Greece stick to its commitments,” Michael Georg Link, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, said in an interview in his Berlin office. “Nobody was forced into the European Union, and we will force nobody out of the European Union or the Eurozone. But once you’re in, you have to stick to the rules.”

Link said that Italy, Spain and Portugal have also made commitments to difficult reforms.

[…]

In Athens, residents stretched to the breaking point have grown tired of being repeatedly told to do more to atone for their financial sins. Further rage of the kind that broke out this week could await a country already teetering on the brink of economic ruin, some analysts warn.

“Greeks feel like they are being spanked for behaving badly. They’re still feeling the pain of that,” said Dimitris Mavros of the MRB polling company. “But once that beating stops or subsides … then they may strike back.”

Damn rich Germans who won’t keep pouring their hard-earned money down a sink-hole to fund liberals in their moral and mental insanity.

Of course, liberals call Republicans horrible stuff too, like “terrorists” and “demons.”  Because if you try to stop a Democrat from spending other peoples’ money, they get real nasty the way crack addicts get nasty when somebody is standing in the way of their crack.

But of course it’s even easier for Greeks to call Germans who won’t give Greece more of Germany’s money “Nazis.”

When you see all the rioting and burning and violence, you know that it’s just around the corner here as “Occupy” fascists plot the same kind of crap the Greek fascists are plotting now.

For the left, violence has ALWAYS followed the demonizing.

Let me tell you something: Greece didn’t have to come to this.  The problem was they kept seeing warning signs and kept on ignoring them.  Just as the Democrat Party and Barack Obama are doing right now in America.

If Greece had taken responsibility a few years ago and made relatively small and simple changes, they could have averted all of this terrible pain now.  But liberals in Greece demonized such modest reforms, just as liberals in America have been doing.  And as a result nothing got changed and then all of a sudden it was too late.  The same way that one day real soon it’s going to be too late here in America.

We either get these liberal vermin out of office, or we’ll be in the sad way that Greece is because IT didn’t bother to get rid of its liberals until it was way, WAAAAAAY to late.

Consider Social Security and Medicare: America’s actual debt is over $211 TRILLION.  There is no way in a thousand hells we can possibly ever pay that back.  Democrats cursed us with this mess; conservatives tried to warn them.  If you go back to the 1930s when FDR was ramming his political boondoggle ponzi scheme through Congress, you’ll discover that even DEMOCRATS warned it would ultimately be a disaster. Meanwhile, Medicare – the socialist takeover of health care began in the 1960s that Obama wants to now replace with his even BIGGER socialist takeover of health care – WILL go bankrupt no later than 2017 and cause catastrophic death in the population of seniors who depend on it.

Republicans have tried to propose fixes that would save both programs, but this is the thanks they get:

Democrats demonize Republicans – I mean LITERALLY demonize, given the whole “demons” thing – whenever we try to do the right thing.  They call us “terrorists” for trying to slow down the insane rush to spending.  I mean, how DARE we block the “progress” they’re trying to make.

They count on the American people with pathetically stupid brain-dead zombies with no intelligence and no memories so we won’t remember what Democrats were like when Bush was in power and he was trying to push through much-needed reforms:

The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

Did you know that George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES in one year to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  You know, when reforms and regulations of the out-of-control GSEs would have actually prevented the implosion we had in 2008 that Republicans and conservatives had repeatedly warned us about???

We’re going to be Greece soon for the same reason that Greece is Greece now.  Because we’re just too damn stupid and depraved to get rid of our liberals.

Democrat Lies About Their Key Role In 2008 Economic Collapse Reaches Laughable Proportions

In 2008, our economy collapsed.  So Americans elected the people who had engineered the collapse.  Because apparently we have the same nihilistic desire to go the way of the Dodo bird that every single other great culture in history degenerated to before their collapses.

Barney Frank: The Community Reinvestment Act Was a ‘Republican Failure’
By Jim Geraghty
Posted on October 12, 2011 9:19 AM

In today’s Wall Street Journal:

Asked who was to blame for the 2008 financial crisis and whether any bankers should have been prosecuted, Mrs. Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put the onus on the federal government, with Mr. Gingrich suggesting that former Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, should both be jailed.

“It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans . . . that pushed the community reinvestment act,” said Mrs. Bachmann, citing what she considered the causes of the housing meltdown.

Mr. Frank released an emailed statement in response: “In fact, Chris Dodd and I were in the minority from 1995 until 2006, so Gingrich is blaming us for Republican failures.”

So panicked is the response from Congressman “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing” Frank that he forgets that from May 2001 to the end of 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate and Dodd was the second-ranking Democrat on the committee after chairman Paul Sarbanes.

It is also revealing that Frank believes that Bush-administration assent to policies he supported means that the consequences of those policies are, ipso facto, “Republican failures.” As Peter Wallison lays out on the Journal’s op-ed page, you can blame Wall Street for reckless gambling on mortgage-backed securities all you want, but the risk of the mortgage-backed securities never takes off unless the federal government starts pushing lenders to lower their standards for worthy borrowers. Sure, the big-bank investors never should have gone dancing in the minefield, but the minefield was set up by federal policies that encouraged massive loans to “borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.”

It is rather amazing that with laughably inaccurate defenses like this, Frank is still considered a significant voice in the Democratic party today.

First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 during the Carter administration the last time Democrats controlled EVERYTHING.  For the Democrat control of the House, see here; for the Senate, see here).  It is yet another of so many other examples of the clear and present danger that Democrats pose to the United States of America.

The Community Reinvestment Act was radically and insanely expanded in the last two years of the Clinton Administration.

The problem that Republicans had in doing away with the atomic bomb buried in the underbelly of the once-free market mortgage system was that to do away with CRA would have been decried as “racist.”  Because Democrats are vile cockroaches and that is basically the only play in their playbook.

For his part, Barney Frank was successful SEVENTEEN TIMES in shielding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulation (at least in part so his homosexual lover could have a job).  The article I link to includes an interesting image:

The Fact of the matter is that Democrats were crawling all over this economic collapse:

Bill Clinton admitted:

“I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

But the same Democrats who refused to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” became hard-core obstructionists in blocking Bush from doing ANYTHING to save our economy even as Republicans like John McCain repeatedly warned that America was the Titanic and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two giant icebergs.  And then after the collapse that Democrats did everything they could to cause, they were ready to demonize Bush and the very people who had warned of the impending disaster and who had repeatedly tried to avert that disaster.

The mainstream media refused to hold liberals accountable for the failure of liberal policies because the mainstream media are a) liberals themselves and b) outright propagandists.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded to gargantuan proportions, controlling well over 60% of the mortgages in America.  When Fannie and Freddie collapsed FIRST BEFORE ANY OTHER BANKING INSTITUTION, that collapsed initiated a loss of confidence in the private lenders because those lenders had purchased billions in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s toxic assets.

If you EVER want to have a functioning economy again, never elect another Democrat for so much as rat catcher.  Repudiate racist race-based policies that are socialist interferences with the free market, and allow the free market to make loans to people – and ONLY to the people – who can afford to pay those loans back, regardless of the color of the applicant’s skin.

Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” America.  And he’s done so.  If you like blacks and poor people being crushed, than you ought to be happy about Obama’s “fundamental transformation.”  Because that is exactly what the man has brought with his idiotic Marxist policies.