Posts Tagged ‘Liberals’
Scientists at UCSD, Harvard have determined what I have suspected for a long, long, time. A given individual’s tendency to adopt liberal values with the accompanying mindset is based upon a genetic predisposition.
According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, ideology is affected by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.
The researchers determined that people “with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” However, the subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
The study was led by UCSD’s James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.
The conclusion is that without this gene, a person’s tendency to adopt conservative thinking and the accompanying values are not predisposed by genetics; they are based solely upon life experiences, observation and education. By extension, a liberal’s reasons for becoming a Democrat is based less upon these reasons, driven by their genetic predisposition.
In short, liberals can’t help themselves. In addition, there is no use in trying to reason with them as their genetic makeup prohibit them from changing their minds, which is not totally their own to change.
While this study is only the latest, there have been others, some even conducted by clinical psychiatrists who describe them as having “strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.”
Dr. Rossiter compares liberals to “spoiled, angry children,” who are rebelling against “the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
You can read about Dr. Rossiter’s research and evaluation of the liberal mind here.
This might give a clue.
Massachusetts may be one of the most liberal states in the U.S. today. Some would argue for alifornia and they might be right, but most would agree Massachusetts ranks right up there at or near the most liberal.
So it really is no surprise that a school board in Massachusetts unanimously votes to offer free condoms to all students in the district without parental consent, sparking national outrage.
If that weren’t outrage enough, and to show there are other states vying for that number 1 slot of “Most Liberal”, the Fayetteville, Ark., Gay Pride Parade will be led by a young man who has made a career out of fighting for gay rights. That young man is 10 years old.
So what’s so wrong with the left, anyway?
Certain liberals of late have worked hard to label Tom Tancredo as a racist. The boneless finger pointing comes as a result of recent comment which he made at a Sarah Palin gathering where he spoke to the audience. The liberals use his comments about the number of uneducated voters who cannot speak English as their evidence.
I do not support Tancredo, but I find it difficult to leap to the same conclusion. While the Dems cry long and hard, getting their panties in a wad and frothing at the mouth while casting this baseless accusation, they have no problems affiliating themselves with a political party whose legacy on racism is appalling.
If liberals actually believed in what they spew, they would distance themselves from it, but they won’t.
So, let’s look back at the Republican Party’s record.
Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments which he made. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.
Being the hypocrites they are, Democrats used the Lott affair to paint Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. “Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are,” Senator Daschle said. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.
Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?
In both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, historically and enduring even today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.
The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln who often referred to the Declaration of Independence. It can be said the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. Those principles clearly state that people have rights and that the only role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.
When Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.
Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.
Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the “n” word on national TV?
“Ah, but this is all in the past,” say the Democrats. “Now we push a pro-African-American agenda.” But the reality differs significantly from the claim.
Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and “in-kind” support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.
“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.
THIS is a Democrat’s idea of democracy in America, 2010.
He will not be missed as his behavior represents just what is wrong with congress today. Indeed, he is a scumbag.
This idiot can’t determine the difference between “there” and “their”. T-shirt says it all.
On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.
Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.
Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.
Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.
“This is the free speech crowd, right?” Tancredo joked.
“Fascists are fascists,” Tancredo said. “Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what’s wrong with America today. … When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt.”
UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. “He was not able to practice his hate speech,” said Oakley. “You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak.”
A former congressman is invited to speak on a very important topic for all of us only to be shouted down by oppressive, emotionally immature, idealistic youth agitated by their professors to disrupt. Very nice.
Tancredo spoke about the shout-down on Fox News and said their professors were in the audience and incited and participated in the ensuing mini-riot.
So what are our professors teaching our youth? Is it that it’s acceptable to oppress free speech? Or perhaps it is to use emotion and violence as a tool of debate instead of engaging in intellectually driven dialog and – oh God – usher in real and meaningful change?
Folks, we are at a cross roads here. These kids – these morons taught by intellectually lazy professors bent on saving their tuition-driven salaries are our future. Some of them will even find their way into politics. These are our future leaders.
To know what this brings, we only have to look at the White House.
International Herald Tribune: “Democratic takeover of Congress was major victory for Fannie and Freddie … Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage finance giants, which have been recovering from accounting scandals, had faced the possibility of tight new oversight laws pushed largely by Republicans. But some powerful Democrats had resisted, preferring to promote the companies’ housing mission over tighter capital standards and portfolio limits. (International Herald Tribune, 11/8/06)
American Banker: “Democrats Oppose White House plan to strengthen Fannie and Freddie oversight.” In late summer Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. began an effort to reach an agreement in the Senate, where Democrats oppose a White House-favored provision that would force Fannie and Freddie Mac to slash their mortgage portfolios. (American Banker, 12/1/06)
Origination News: “Until recently, the administration and Sen. Shelby have pushed for limits on the size of the GSE portfolios, which Democrats opposed. Now it appears that Secretary Paulson will insist on language that would allow the new GSE regulator to use systemic risk considerations in determining proper size of the portfolios. But the Democrats see systemic risk as a code word for portfolio limits.” (Origination News, 12/1/06)
I have just read about an experience of another blogger here at WordPress. Their post was about the reaction of an individual who took issue with the banner the blogger had hung from the front of his home with a message encouraging voters to “Vote yes on proposition 8″. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would “change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.”
You can read the post here
His experience was the same as mine whenever I have engaged in “discussion” with liberal “thinkers”.
In my case the topic was about national and foreign policies. While I had given facts, figures, documented quotes, studies, charts, graphs, etc. etc. I was always met with tirade, rant, yelling, name calling, hateful remarks and also being accused of being narrow minded. Clearly they were shooting the messenger.
In the end I am always left with the thought that I am arguing with an emotional 4 year old throwing a tantrum in the middle of the grocery store. You can’t win with emotionally charged and intellectually lazy individuals who go out of their way to tear down traditional institutions. When confronted with facts they can’t repute they unleash their emotions and launch into personal attacks. Your case is no different.
In my final analysis I blame the lazy voters who stays home the first Tues. in November. We get what we deserve.
The way our country is evolving, in a few more decades Islam will be well established and their leadership will deal with the types who visited your neighborhood.
In the meantime, brace yourself. If Obama gets in office, nothing is sacred.
A Secret Service agent called charges that a man yelled “kill him” in reference to Barack Obama during a Sarah Palin rally “unfounded” .
The summary of the story goes as follows: After an October 14, 2008 Sarah Palin rally the Scranton Times reported that “one man” in the audience yelled something offensive and incendiary. The story reports there were remarks of “terrorists”, “kill him” and “off with his head”.
This was the basis for Representative John Lewis’s remarks which accused Mr. McCain of race-baiting and xenophobia. Mr. Lewis’s remarks referenced earlier years in America and recalled events of mob lynchings, churches being torched and deaths. In essence, Mr. Lewis pointed an accusing finger at Mr. McCain to label him as an unabashed racist.
The accusation advanced by Mr. Lewis is intellectually putrid. Mr. Lewis judges John McCain and Sarah Palin to be guilty by association to a single audience member, a stranger who harbors ill-will. Mr. Lewis holds Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin personally responsible. It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Lewis got to be where he is by being so obtuse, but there is a part of me that wants to point to affirmative action, but I won’t; that would be “wrong”.
If this wasn’t enough to enrage any thinking American wanting nothing more for his country than righteousness and fairness there is now a new element of this story to ponder.
The FBI got involved. Threats of the nature reported by the story are not ignored by the FBI. They did their job to discover the truth and to possibly bring charges against these radicals. (I will even call them terrorists.) People like this who seek to cripple our political process and to injure and kill need to be put in jail. Rightly so.
However, there is a problem. The FBI interviewed their own agents to discover what they may have heard. They stand and mingle among the people in and around the audience. They are alleged to be everywhere. Certainly they would have heard these reported remarks and would have converged on the idiot(s) to be shepherded away for questioning. The agents heard nothing. The FBI also interviewed other members of the rally with the same result. It appears no one heard the reported remarks. The FBI then interviewed reporter David Singleton / STAFF WRITER who is the only one to have heard and reported the alleged remarks emanating from the audience. All he can say is that he heard it… allegedly.
The FBI’s investigation is on-going. As it looks now the reporter “invented” the incident and placed it into his story. At best, it was dishonest. At worst, sinister.
So – there we have it.
- We have the press injecting into their reporting lies and falsehoods designed to do what, incite? agitate? slander? victimize? influence thinking? This is not only wrong – it is dangerous to this country and to her people.
- We have Mr. Lewis who then used the mainstream press to launch emotionally loaded swill against Mr. McCain and his campaign and to call him a racist and agitator wanting to herald in the dark days of an earlier America. It is presented to America as if it were fact. (Meanwhile, we cannot get a valid birth certificate of Mr. Obama. Even as I write this there are investigators in Hawaii who are not being allowed to put down their 10 dollar fee to acquire a public document recording Mr. Obama’s birth. In fact, it is Mr. Obama who is denying their access to it. What on earth is there on a birth certificate that is so sensitive that Mr. Obama does not want anyone to see? )
- We have the press eager to advance the reporter’s fabricated event as fact at a time when Americans are getting set to cast their vote for the man who will occupy the most powerful seat in government, yet we cannot get the press to even adequately dig into Mr. Obama’s associations with William Ayers, Acorn, his associations with officials in pre-meltdown Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or to even report on where Mr. Obama was born.
Don’t look now, but the press is attempting to employ that old Jedi Mind Trick, waiving their hand across our collective faces and uttering “These aren’t the issues you are looking for. Move along.”
The liberals should be as concerned. They should know that if the press can skew stories in such a way as to paint a group of Americans in a certain light they should know that it can happen to them, too. Ah, but the press is staffed with people of the same ilk, so we know that can not happen.
If the press did their job, they would have discovered the truth as did the FBI but like so many times before, the press fails the people…. intentionally.
There is a double standard flowing through our mainstream media. It is fomented by ABC, CBS, NBC, MS-NBC, PBS (funded with tax dollars), The New York Times, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Harold, et. al. Some of us know about this double standard while others choose to ignore or deny its very existence. Some of us know it has existed in this country for a long, long, time.
And the beat goes on.
Representative John Lewis reacts to audience members divisive comments at campaign stop by blaming McCain. Keep in mind all that Mr. McCain did was cite fact. No more. No less. Just the facts. He can no more be held responsible for reaction to those facts than I can be held responsible for Mr. Lewis’s obtuse viewpoint on the matter.
As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.
During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed one Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.
As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.
This is simply an example of hypersensitivity. How does anyone raise facts about the behavior of any given person without being attacked from an emotional level and in the process having to defend against irrelevant accusations?
Say for a moment a young boy sees his four year old sister set fire to the family cat and he reports the event to his mother who retorts, “Leave your poor sister alone. She would never do such a thing. You’re just picking on her! Now go to your room young man!!!”
The attack from the mother comes from an emotional level and chooses to ignore an accusation firmly based upon fact. A conscious choice is made to dismiss an allegation because of a strong emotional attachment and a general disbelief that the little girl is capable of doing wrong.
Don’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message, especially when the message is based upon fact. Doing so only makes you look like an over protective and emotional mother.
Further, If McCain and/or Palin are at the podium to deliberately bring the crowd to a froth ready to lynch then that is one thing which should never be defended. However, again, this isn’t the case.
The fact there are a few idiots in the crowd should be viewed by any thinking American as being just that and should not serve to detract from the facts presented by McCain and Palin.
In my opinion, Mr. Lewis who owes McCain and Palin an apology after his vile attempt to link them to rioting in the streets and organizing lynch mobs and should seek out the members of the audience to address his grievance.
This story ran in late September 2008, but I find it even more relevant today than before. You can take the title above as is and perform a search and the story will come up. The opening couple of paragraphs read as:
Corporate India is in shock after a mob of recently fired workers bludgeoned to death the chief executive who had dismissed them from a factory in a suburb of Delhi.
Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, the head of the Indian operations of Graziano Transmissioni, an Italy-based manufacturer of car parts, died of severe head wounds Monday afternoon after being attacked by scores of laid-off employees, police said.
Back in the ’90s and during the opening years of 2000, the United States, and the world, too, no doubt, outsourced just about anything it could.
With the GSE meltdown, the subsequent drop in everyone’s 401K and watching some CEOs walk away from their orchestrated fiasco with millions of dollars in bonuses, to say sentiment in the U.S. toward these events and CEOs is disgusting falls a bit short of accuracy.
I wonder if the U.S. can outsource CEO flogging to India. I feel pretty confident saying we probably have a pent-up demand right now.
My first nominee would be Barney Frank, but something tells me he would actually like it and scream like a little girl.
Just a thought.
Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Chairs of the House and Senate committees, respectively, must resign their positions on these committees and impeachment proceedings against them must begin immediately.
Both Frank and Dodd have demonstrated their incompetency as the Chairs of these committees, engaging in economic policies which bring the U.S. closer to centrally planned economies such as Marxian economies. Frank and Dodd are making decisions this country can literally not afford and threaten the world’s economies.
Our government must not be in the business of being in business and therefore must bring its involvement with the Government Sponsored Enterprises known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to an immediate end.
Socialism has no future in the United States, unless of course, you vote for Barack Obama.
… an alternate title might be …
Barney Frank and boyfriend Herb Moses, executive at Fanne Mae, are just the tip of the iceberg of a larger underlying problem.
From this article we learn that Representative Barney Frank, (D-Mass.) who is a homosexual (the term “Gay” is subversion to make the behavior palletable to the rest of us) had a boyfriend who worked at Fannie Mae. If his boyfriend, Herb Moses, worked in the mail-room that relationship might be overlooked, but Frank’s boyfriend was Director of Housing Initiatives at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, when Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie Mae.
The article states
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
“If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have – or at least what’s not in the stock market – that this would be considered germane,” added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. “But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”
Now, we have a lot of things to be angry about. If you’re fuming and can’t think straight right now, I’ll highlight them for you, since I’ve had a little time to stop the bleeding from my eyeballs.
- There is Barney Frank himself just because he is the way he is.
- There is his behavior while he is being himself.
- There is his lack of scruples and ethics (covered that, I know), engaging in questionable behavior with the head of a government body he and his committee preside over.
- There is the media, all too willing to give Democrats a pass while those Democrats screw heads of Fannie Mae and by extension, the rest of us.
For those who are now regaining their normal blood pressure and the tunnel vision fades away, you might have a few questions. Some of them might even be among the following list.
- Does anyone see a problem with our media?
- Is the media blind?
- Is the media – ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Public Broadcasting System et. al. – so busy advancing the agenda of the Democrat Party and its socialist leaning value systems that the media in the U.S. are incapable of showing America how these socialist policies – some of which are represented by the very existance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are a failure to the people and the country as a whole?
- Is the media in bed with the Democrat Party?
- Does the Democrat Party also have influence over the media just as they have over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Think about this the next time you’re waiting in line at the check-out counter at the grocery store as you ponder the cover of the National Inquirer. Think about the pablum the media wants to feed us. Think about who is directing our (voting public) attention.
Better yet, just think.
Then go vote every one of those sons of bitches out of office this November. If we do not do this, we deserve what we get, just as we have been getting for decades. Send a ripple through the psyche of America in the process, too.
Just do it.
Take a deep breath and read some of the excerpts below. If it is upsetting to you, it should be.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Through nearly a dozen hearings, where frankly we are trying to fix something that wasn’t broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.): “Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): In a hearing several years ago about a report on the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their regulator, Armando Falcon, Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Director, Falcon came under fire. Meeks said; “The GSEs have done a tremendous job. There has been nothing that was indicated that’s wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own,” adding the regulator was trying to give the two a “heart surgeon [sic] when they really don’t need it.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): “The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.): In the same hearing several years ago about a report on the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their regulator, Falcon, Frank attacked Falcon: “I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.”
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): “I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”
Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.
Richard Syron, former head of Freddie Mac: “If I had better foresight, maybe I could have improved things a little bit. But frankly, if I had perfect foresight, I would never have taken this job in the first place.”
Note: Raines was forced out of Fannie Mae in December 2004 after the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation into alleged accounting problems at Fannie Mae involving an estimated $6 bn in accounting problems. The Office of Federal Housing Oversight sued Raines in 2006, accusing him of aiding accounting shenanigans at Fannie, which allegedly involved the delay of reporting losses so top executives could earn large bonuses.
The suit attempted to recover the $50 mn Raines in pay got based on billions of dollars in overstated earnings. In total, OFHEO demanded $110 mn in fines and a clawback of $115 mn in bonuses for three executives accused, including Raines.
Raines, Fannie’s former chief financial officer and its former controller settled the case in April 2008, agreeing to pay fines totaling about $3 mn, paid for by Fannie’s insurance policies.
Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 mn of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options, though the options were worthless. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 mn of “other benefits” said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses. In the end, Raines kept most of his largesse–in 2003 alone, his compensation was estimated at over $20 mn.
Democrats have long history of stone-walling Republican efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
You’re gonna love this. It’s enough to make you want to throw up. If Voting America had a brain they would get off their McDonald’s fed fat ass an vote every fricking Democrat out of office. But they won’t. They fear that if they do, their entitlements (read as government teat) will dry up.
We are heading down the road to a socialist country. Read about the GSE meltdown time line here.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.
The Washington Times is reporting that the California Democrat’s husband, Paul F. Pelosi, owns Financial Leasing Services Inc., which has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker’s “PAC to the Future” over the PAC’s nine-year history.
Last year, Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and furndraising, but also “indirect compensation,” such as payments to companies that employ spouses.
The bill passed the House in a voice vote but died in a Senate committee.
Last week, Pelosi’s office defended the payments, saying they were legal because she is compensating her husband at fair market value for the work his firm has performed for the PAC.
Ethical watchdogs called Pelosi’s arrangement “problematic.”