Yesterday Bloomberg News reported that mortgage-finance company Fannie Mae has asked for $1.5 billion in aid from the U.S. Treasury Department after a 12th straight quarterly loss. 

According to the article:

“The Treasury seized Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac, the biggest sources of U.S. mortgage funding, in 2008 as souring subprime loans pushed the companies to brink of collapse. Including today’s request, Fannie Mae has drawn $86.1 billion in aid. The growing tally has helped spur the Obama administration to solicit proposals to fix the companies, and prompted some lawmakers to demand their closure.”

Fannie Mae issued many of the sub-prime mortgages that were one of the main causes of the housing bubble and the recession that has followed.

Meanwhile, The Washington Independent yesterday reported that a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks, will offer potential homeowners a mortgage with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance.  Here we go again.

The article points out:

“But there are concerns and problems intrinsic to purchasing a home with almost no money down. First and foremost, if the housing market turns down even a fractional amount, the homeowner will go “underwater” immediately. If the price of the house falls by even a bit, he will owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If he needs to sell it, he needs to come up with extra cash to pay the bank back. And the fact that the homeowner only had a thousand dollars to put down in the first place implies that he does not have much financial breathing room and might default.”

Have we not yet learned from our experiences???

I really don’t have a lot of respect for the ethics of the Obama Administration and the members of it.  Generally speaking, the actions of the people in the administration back up that feeling.

Byron York posted an article today at the Washington Examiner detailing a new process that is happening in civil rights lawsuits.  According to the article:

“In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were ofter settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasure and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims.  There was then a search for those victims–people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment–who stood to be conpensated.  After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over.  That money was returned to the defendant.”

The artcle details recent changes in that procedure:

“Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan.  Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a “qualified organization” approved by the Justice Department.  And if there is not enough unspent money–that will be determined by the Department–then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the “qualified organization.””

Please follow the above link to the article and read the details of what is going on.  The good news in this is that Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is asking Eric Holder questions about exactly what is going on here.  So far Senator Grassley has not gotten an answer.  I am afraid we are seeing another example of the “Chicago shakedown” that has become the signature of the Obama Administration.

We are currently attempting to finish a war in Iraq and trying to win a war in Afghanistan.  Congress has the right to question the military leaders in charge of these wars as it is responsible for funding both wars.  Therefore, it was not a surprise to see General Petraeus, the former villain of the American left, now a hero of the left, being questioned in Congress.  What was surprising, however, was the direction of the questions from one Congresswoman.

YouTube posted a video taken in June of this year of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords expressing her concern to General Petraeus as to ‘how green our war effort in Afghanistan was.’  While I appreciate her concern for the environment, I really wonder if that is a valid line of questioning when American soldiers are at risk.  One of the impressive things about the video is the amazing manners of General Petraeus.  He handles the question honestly and respectfully.

In another Congressional oversight hearing in April, Congressman Hank Johnson, commenting on the influx of an additional 8,000 American troops in Guam, told the gathered members of Congress and military officials, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”  Admiral Willard, who was being questioned by the Congressional Committe managed to keep a straight face as he stated, “We don’t anticipate that.” 

As a close relative of a military officer currently on active duty, I have met a lot of our current military.  I have been thoroughly impressed by the character, dedication, poise, intelligence, and manners of our armed forces.  Needless to say, the Congressional committees that periodically question them are lacking in many of these traits. 

This is from the website SpendingRevolt.com.  It says it all.

Yesterday’s Kansas City Star posted an Associated Press article detailing the results of the election held in that state. 

According to the article:

“About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

“The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalies starting in 2014.”

There are some real questions as to the actual value of the vote (federal law trumps state law), but the vote is an indication of public opinion on Obamacare. 

I live in Massachusetts, where a state healthcare reform law went into effect in 2006.  This state health insurance reform was said to be one of the models for Obamacare.  Well, the results have been mixed at best.  There was a letter to the editor in my local paper yesterday from a Massachusetts couple stating that their monthly cost for the wife’s health insurance has increased $50 a month.  The couple is planning to cancel their health insurance at the end of August because they cannot afford to pay the increase.  Since the passage of the state health insurance reform, Massachusetts health insurance rates have increased rapidly.  The governor recently turned down requests from major health insurance providers for rate increases that would cover their increased expenses caused by the reform. 

In addition Dark Daily reports:

“In May, the four largest health insurers in Massachusetts reported first quarter losses that reached a total of $150 million. Three of these insurers drew down reserves. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which is the largest health insurer in the state, reported a quarterly loss of $65.2 million, along with an operating loss of $95.5 million. It drew down its operating reserve by $55 million to handle those losses, as well as losses anticipated to occur during the second quarter of 2010.”

The article at Dark Daily also points out that small employers in Massachusetts are beginning to drop health insurance coverage of employees and paying the penalty to the state instead.  The state will collect money under that arrangement, but there are no guarantees that the money collected would be spent in any way that would benefit or support healthcare.  That is ultimately the direction in which Obamacare will lead us.

Yesterday’s Investors.com reported on two recent events in Virginia.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has pursued two legal cases recently that are important to the entire country.  Attorney General Cuccinelli (along with Attorney Generals from several other states)has filed a lawsuit challenging the medical overhaul passed in March.  On Monday, Virginia federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Virginia’s suit had merit and could proceed, dismissing a motion by Health and Human Services to have it thrown out.  The second case has to do with the role of policemen in Virginia in dealing with criminals who are here illegally.

The article points out:

“Cuccinelli has issued a legal opinion that says Virginia police are allowed under the law to check the immigration status of those encountered in the course of normal police work. “It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

“He believes states have a right to enforce federal immigration laws as much as they have a right and duty to enforce federal speed limits. The lives and safety of their citizens are at stake, and splitting constitutional hairs does not keep people from being raped, robbed and killed by other people who just should not be here.”

Virginia has an Attorney General who sees protecting the rights of the citizens of his state as part of his responsibility.  If only Massachusetts…

Originally the mosque to be built near Ground Zero was to be called the Cordoba Initiative/American Society for Muslim Advancement mosque and community center.  That sounds pretty harmless until you take a closer look at the role of Cordoba in Muslim history.  Cordoba is a city in Spain (called Andalusia by the Muslims) which was captured by Muslims in 716 and became the capital of their caliphate in that area.  The city was freed, recaptured and finally freed in 1236.   Cordoba represents a Muslim caliphate.  The history of Muslim conquest is that they win a victory in battle and erect a mosque.  If you remember the celebrations by Palestinians and some Muslims on September 11, you understand that the successful attack on the World Trade Center is considered a victory by radical Islam.  That is one of the reasons they would like to build a mosque there rather than in another part of New York City.  Just for the record, there are many non-radical Muslims who were horrified by the events of that day.

There are some serious questions regarding the funding of this mosque as well as the appropriateness of the location.

Today’s New York Post reports:

“The Anti-Defamation League, the nation’s leading Jewish rights group, came out last week against the mosque and Islamic community center.

“”Some legitimate questions have been raised [about possible ties to] “groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values,” the group said.

“”Ultimately, this is not a question of rights but a question of what is right,” it added.  “In our judgement, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause Some victims more pain unnecessarily, and that is not right.”

“Families of 9/11 victims have also protested the plan over the past year.”

According to the concept of Freedom of Religion which is a basis of our Constitution, the Muslims have every right to build their mosque at Ground Zero.  However, if their true intention is to encourage tolerance and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, they will not continue with their plans.

Today’s Wall Street Journal points out:

“…how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Imams, whose ostentatious prayers–apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006–ended in a lawsuit. The imams sued. The airlines paid.

“Dr. Zuhdi Jasser–devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy–says there is every reason to investigate the center’s funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes “It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam.”

“The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice.”

Just because the building of this mosque may be legal, that doesn’t make it right.

Hot Air posted an article Sunday about the Chevy Volt.  The Volt is Chevy’s new electric car that sells for $41,000.  The article states, “However, with federal subsidies, you could pay as little as $33,500.”   Is it time to ask, “Who pays for federal subsidies?”

To give you an idea of how well the government runs business, the article explains:

“Almost four hundred million dollars in federal subsidies were pumped directly into the design and production of the Volt.  The initial production run consists of just ten thousand units, with 45,000 more planned for 2012 if sales are good.  This would add just over $7200 more in taxpayer subsidies to each Volt produced over the next two years.  Since 2012 production will be scaled back if early sales are disappointing, it might be more logical to add the subsidies to the first 10,000 units only, which would leave early adopters outside of California paying $33,500 for a car which actually costs $81,000 per unit, with taxpayers picking up the remainder.  It’s actually even worse than that, because GM expects to lose money on every Volt sale.  Those losses will be spread among other GM products, or perhaps wiped out with further taxpayer subsidies.”

The article concludes:

“The number of Chevy Volts desired by those free people is zero.  By government decree, there will be up to 55,000 of them gathering dust in the far corners of three-car garages by 2012.  The government didn’t subsidize this boondoggle.  The “government” doesn’t subsidize anything.  You do.Imagine what  the taxpayers of America might have done with the billions taken away from them to produce those cars, divide that lost value by 55,000, and you will begin to comprehend the true cost of a Chevy Volt.”

In the attempt to produce a ‘green car’, the government has again misspent large sums of taxpayer money.  The fact that the car will sell for slightly less than half of what it cost to make it is typical of a government business decision.  The Obama Administration has very few people in it who have business experience.  They need to leave the running of businesses to the people who know how to run them.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported:

“Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia today denied the motion by the U.S. Department of Justice that Virginia’s challenge of the constitutionality of Obamacare be dismissed.”

This is the first of many challenges to Obamacare.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the case on the basis that the requirement that every American purchase a government-approved health insurance policy exceeds the government’s authority under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The article concludes:

“Specifically, the Court wrote that ‘[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.'”

“The Virginia AG added that “this lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land–the Constitution”

“For that reason, he said, “the government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

“A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.”

This is a case that will impact the freedom of every American.  It will also indicate whether or not we are still a country governed by our Constitution.  It is a very important case.  We need a new Congress that will REPEAL AND REPLACE this horrible law, but we also need to make sure an unconstitutional healthcare bill cannot be passed in the future.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, “Finger-Pointing Reaches Sell-By Date.”  Pollster Scott Rasmussen has been asking voters who is responsible for America’s economic problems since May 2009.  The poll released yesterday found that 47% of Americans blame George Bush for the bad economy, and 48% blame President Obama. 

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

“Actually, though, that headline is misleading. The body of the story indicates that the choice (as in prior polls) was between “Obama’s policies” and “the recession that began under Bush.” So not all though who voted “Bush” blamed the recession on his administration’s policies.”

The article concludes:

“One more notable point: here, as on nearly every issue, there is a big divide between “mainstream Americans” and the “political class.” Sixty-one percent of mainstream Americans blame the policies of the Obama administration over the recession he inherited, while 87 percent of the political class blame Bush. That’s convenient, of course. A final populist touch: 62 percent of likely voters trust their own judgment more than Obama’s on economic issues. Makes it hard to exert a whole lot of leadership.”

I don’t know if there is something in the air or water in Washington, D. C., but our representatives and elected officials no longer represent us.  It’s time for the voters to pick up their ‘broom’ and vote everyone out of office who is not representing them.  When bills are passed over the objections of more than half of the American people, we don’t need to educate the American people–we need a new Congress and a new President.  We can’t vote out the President until 2012, but we can change Congress.  Make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right!

There are two sources for this article–an article by Republican Congressman Mike Pence at Townhall.com and an article by Larry Kudlow in yesterday’s National Review Online.

Larry Kudlow points out that the numbers show that tax cuts are not the cause of our current financial crisis.  He reminds us that  in the ’80s and ’90s, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, the debt-to-GDP ratio averaged around 40 percent.  Mr. Kudlow states, “During those years government debt held by the public did increase $2.4 trillion.  But household wealth jumped $32 trillion.”

The problem is not the tax cuts–the problem is the spending.  Mr. Kudlow reminds us:

“And let’s not forget that tax rates are coming down around the world, both for individuals and businesses. High tax rates in the U.S. will cause us to lose the global race for capital. At some point the question of taxes is really an issue of economic freedom. Let people keep more of what they earn. Marginal tax rates produce huge incentive effects for work, investment, and risk. Higher tax rates undermine economic growth and entrepreneurship. So let’s go for tax reform, with flatter rates and a broader base that gets rid of unnecessary deductions, credits, exemptions, loopholes, and special-interest subsidies.”

Congressman Pence tells us that the small business owners in America face the highest tax increase in history on January 1, 2011.  These tax increases kick-in automatically if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Congressman Pence states:

“America’s private sector has suffered enough for the past 18 months under the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work and unemployment hovers near a heartbreaking 10 percent. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reported that optimism among small businesses “is dismal, capital expenditures are at 35-year lows and small businesses are still cutting more jobs than they are adding.” The NFIB also said that Congress must act quickly to ensure no tax increases for business owners in January.”

Congressman Pence states, “That’s why House Republicans are determined to fight this tax increase with everything we’ve got. We’ve been hearing from the American people at AmericaSpeakingOut.com and we understand that the problem is not that Washington doesn’t tax enough. The problem is that Washington spends too much, and the solution is leadership in Congress that will make the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to rein in spending.”  

Tax cuts are not the problem–spending is the problem.  It’s time to take the credit card away from our current Congress.  Check voting records of your Congressmen before you vote in November.  If your Congressmen have been spending wildly, replace them with new Congressmen who understand that they will be voted out of office if they continue in that direction.

The Obama Administration has attacked Fox News on numerous occasions.  In October, Fox News reported on an effort by the White House to prevent Fox News from being included in news interviews of “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. 

In case you have forgotten:

“The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.” 

This effort was unsuccessful.  The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of them would interview Kenneth Feinberg unless Fox was included.  They stood up for the freedom of the press and refused to be bullied into excluding Fox News. 

The President has made numerous comments ragarding Fox News during his time in office, but the network’s ratings keep rising, and the organization is respected by its colleagues.

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that Fox News will be moving to the front row of the White House briefing room.  Helen Thomas’ former seat (front row center) will go to Associated Press, and Fox News will get Associated Press’ current front row seat.  These seating changes were voted on unanimously by The White House Correspondents Association.

Congratulations to Major Garrett, who covers the White House for Fox News.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I in danger of becoming one, so there are aspects of this story I do not claim to understand; however, I am posting it because I think it is important.

Yesterday at National Review Online‘s healthcare blog, John R. Graham posted an article about the impact of two recent decisions in Massachusetts regarding gay marriage on the healthcare debate.  Huh? 

According to the article:

“In the first case, concerning benefits of federal employees, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA was unconstitutional on the grounds that it had no rational basis, and that it violated the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the federal government’s denying benefits to homosexual employees’ partners was invalid.”

“In the second case, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleged that DOMA invaded its power to define marriage, because it conditioned the transfer of federal funds to the Commonwealth on a particular definition of marriage. (The examples were federal funding of MassHealth, the Commonwealth’s Medicaid program, and veterans’ cemeteries owned by the Commonwealth.)  Furthermore, the Commonwealth asserted that the U.S. imposed an undue administrative burden on its personnel policies, because the Commonwealth recognized homosexual couples as married but had to deduct their Social Security and Medicare taxes as single persons. In this case, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA violated the equal-protection clause, as well as the Tenth Amendment.”

This is getting interesting.  This is the equivalent of striking down the Arizona immigration law while letting the sanctuary cities stand.  (At the moment that is actually true!)  The argument being made in Massachusetts is that because there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to define marriage, the states have control of marriage–not the federal government.  As far as I know, there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to force people to buy health insurance.  Hmmm.

The article concludes:

“Judge Tauro found that state law trumps federal law even in cases of benefits to federal employees or federal funding of state benefits. Imagine if a state could overturn Obamacare’s mandate to buy health insurance, but keep the federal subsidies for the health-insurance exchanges! That would shake things up.

“After that? Repeal and replace.”

I have no idea how this will turn out, but it is ironic that a judge defending gay marriage may provide the basis for lawsuits by the states against Obamacare.

According to yesterday’s Washington Times:

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that two restaurants in San Diego violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the counters where the staff prepared tacos and burritos were too high and blocked the view for people in wheelchairs.

“Choosing from among the ingredients lining the counter and watching staff assemble the meal is what the court called the “Chipotle experience.””

The lawsuit was brought by Maurizio Antoninetti, a paraplegic college professor who has an extensive history of filing ADA-related lawsuits,   He claimed (and the court agreed) that he “was denied the “Chipotle experience” because the counter was too tall, at 45 inches. Justice Department guidelines say 36 inches is the maximum allowable height under ADA for such a counter.”

It should be noted that Chipotle’s Restaurant personnel had taken the time to show Mr. Antoninetti samples of the individual foods in serving spoons or plastic cups and assembling his order near the cash register or at a table in the dining room.  The court said that this was not sufficient.

The article also pointed out:

“Chipotle said the company has voluntarily retrofitted all of its restaurants in California with a counter design to allow for wheelchair accessibility.”

The article also points out that:

“Mr. Antoninetti, who became paralyzed as the result of an injury he suffered while serving in the Italian army, has filed ADA-related lawsuits against more than 20 businesses since immigrating to the U.S. in 1991. Court records state that Mr. Antoninetti, in all but one instance, never returned to the businesses after the lawsuits. The lower court found that Mr. Antoninetti‘s “purported desire to return to the restaurants is neither concrete nor sincere, or supported by the facts,” leading the court to reject his request that it order Chipotle to lower the counter.”

There are valid situations that need to be addressed in terms of accessibility for handicapped people.  I have experienced challenges on various occasions with only a young child and a baby stroller, so I can imagine what people in a wheelchair face on a daily basis.  The problem with this suit is that the people in the restaurant made a sincere effort to help this person and his response was a lawsuit.

It also might be a good idea to keep in mind that this was a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.  This is the most frequently overturned court in the country.  I also think we really need to take another look at this type of lawsuit.  The restaurant staff made every effort to accommodate Mr. Antoninetti, Chipotle has begun refitting its restaurants to make them more wheelchair accessible.  Mr. Antoninetti’s response was a lawsuit.  That seems a little tacky to me. 

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article on the Obama Administration’s efforts to push a Small Business Lending Fund bill through Congress. 

“Touted as a means to open up lending for credit-starved small businesses, in practice this fund would continue the very politicization of the financial industry that has voters upset and the economy in shambles. Senate Republicans have so far been successful at blocking this bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to bring it to a test vote on Monday.”

As with almost all federal programs, the money comes with strings attached.  The fund would allow the Treasury Department to give $30 billion to community banks. 

According to the article:

“Stephen Spruiell of National Review notes that each recipient bank applying for funds would be required to submit a small-business lending plan to “describe how the applicant’s business strategy and operating goals will allow it to address the needs of small businesses in the areas it serves, as well as a plan to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach, where appropriate.””

As usual when the government interferes with banks, politics will determine who gets loans rather than creditworthiness.  This was the kind of government intervention that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

The article concludes:

“We already know the dangers of encouraging lenders to lower lending standards by dangling taxpayer dollars before them: Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes that almost two-thirds of all bad mortgages, many of which are now defaulting, were created to satisfy government requirements or to get government largesse. It is always best to be wary of Washington politicians and bureaucrats bearing gifts.”

It seems as if we would have learned our lesson by now.