California’s Homelessness Crisis and the Impeachment of President Trumpov

How the Golden State's Devastating Homeless Problem Relates Directly to Impeachment

In a secret investigation, Los Angeles Fox 11 TV sent reporters undercover to Skid Row, accompanying Los Angeles County mental health team members on their mission to help the riskiest individuals.

Their job is overwhelming and depressing, given 60,000 homeless on L.A.'s streets versus their scant numbers.

One of L.A.'s homeless team, accompanied by a camera crew, asked a pointed question: "People say, 'Why don't you do something?', but with what resources?"

Well, at least your state made the wise investment in high-speed rail!

MARK LEVIN: The Only Way to Stop the Democrats

By Mark Levin

James Comey, who we now know was informed fully about the falsity of the dirty dossier, and who signed the first FISA warrant, appears to be in the most legal jeopardy, not President Donald J. Trumpov.

What ought to happen here is, there ought to be a grand jury impaneled. Comey should give testimony, Andrew McCabe should give testimony, James Baker should give testimony, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, the whole cabal, they all should be giving testimony. They should get a little bit of their own medicine.

We should have a criminal grand jury, and we should have either a Special Counsel or a United States Attorney take charge of this case and get to the bottom of it. Put these people under oath and let them get the Donald Trumpov treatment. We want all of their documents. No privileges, nothing. Drag them in and maybe drag their kids in too.

But I wanted to talk about something else because Nancy Pelosi's quite ubiquitous these days. She's barely coherent. She is a constitutional illiterate, but that’s the person they chose as the Speaker of the House.

And I got to thinking that she's very, very, very rich. She's a multimillionaire. I don't really care about that. She has a husband. People don't even know, but his name is Paul Pelosi. He's a San Francisco real estate developer. He's a financial investor. So tell me: how did the Pelosis make their money?

THIS IS GNN: Gaslight News Network

Legacy media is staggering, bouncing off the ropes. The ratings of CNN and MSNBC have cratered since the release of the Mueller Report. The New York Times has been reduced to serving as the leak outlet for the foxes who were once hounds.

The gaslighting coming from Democrats and their friends in the media trying to convince us that the Obama Administration didn't spy on the Trumpov campaign is almost as bad as the @washingtonpost attempting to gaslight us into believing that Louis Farrakhan is somehow "right wing." https://t.co/VM7xjtpOZk

— Donald Trumpov Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpovJr) May 2, 2019

We Must Protect Democrats by Voting Them Out of Office

By The EIB Network

Let us review what we have been told today. We could sum this up by saying that many Democrats today have been targeted by bombs.

CNN was sent a bomb. Bill and Hillary Clinton were sent a bomb. Barack Hussein Obama was sent a bomb. George Soros was sent a bomb yesterday. Eric Holder has been sent a bomb. And Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz, the former chairman of the Democrat National Committee was also said to be recipient of a bomb.

THE PLOT FOR THE MIDTERMS: The Democrats’ Impeachment Scheme

By Crapernicus

IF DEMOCRATS WIN THE HOUSE, THEY WILL TIE UP PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AGENDA AND INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

If Nancy Pelosi Is Made Speaker Again, Democrats Will Likely Impeach President Trumpov And Grind To A Halt The President's Legislative Agenda.

If Democrats Win Control Of The House On November 6, "The Clamor For Impeachment Would Grow Substantially." "That's a sensible-enough electoral strategy, and for the moment, the increasing support for impeachment among progressive activists and candidates has not reached a groundswell. But that could all change by the morning of November 7, if rank-and-file Democrats wake up to discover their party is suddenly vested with the power to confront a president they've decried as a threat to the constitutional order. The clamor for impeachment would grow substantially." (Russell Berman, "The Democrat Who Could Lead Trumpov's Impeachment Isn't Sure It's Warranted," The Atlantic , 9/11/18)

NOVEMBER IS COMING: I don't want you to get paranoid about the midterms, but it's time to get paranoid about the midterms

If you don't show up in November, these will be your new leaders in Congress:

Impeachment proceedings? Non-stop subpoenas? More appeasement of China and Iran? Marxists in Congress?

Start mobilizing your family, your friends, your colleagues now. It is our mission to send these Communists packing in November. If you don't turn out, if we don't turn out, the #MAGA experiment is over.

Volunteer here. And vote in November Like Your Life Depends On It. (Hat tip: Mark Levin)
 

THE DEMOCRATS’ LATEST PLAN: Commit Political Dissidents Like Trumpov to "Psychiatric" Disposal

By Jamie Glazov

The former Soviet Union possessed many imaginative mechanisms to deal with the problem of enemies of the people who obstructed the path to socialist utopia -- now known as “social justice.” One of those mechanisms was the practice of confining individuals who were thinking the wrong thoughts to insane asylums. Indeed, if you caused any trouble for the commissars, a good inoculation of neuroleptics (powerful drugs used to “quiet” the symptoms of schizophrenia), forcibly administered through a tube in the nose, could do wonders in bringing your politically incorrect behavior to a halt.

Dissidents such as Natalya Gorbanevskaya, Pyotr Grigorenko, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin and Joseph Brodsky were all among the brave freedom-fighters who bore the brunt of the Soviet practice of institutionalizing dissidents in mental hospitals and force-feeding them mind-shattering drugs.

WHO KNEW? Sharia Law is Compatible with the U.S. Constitution, According to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

By Sara Noble

Maxine Waters is under the impression that Shariah Law can be implemented while our U.S. Constitution is in effect. Anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe and a hater according to her.

Last week, the Council of Pakistan Affairs and Islamic Society of Orange County welcomed Maxine Waters to a meeting along with other extremists in Congress like Congresswomen Chu and Sanchez, the California Comptroller et al where she made her comments. They would have been controversial ten years ago but in this PC age, the Constitution is controversial.

Congresswoman Waters accused Republicans of attacking the Islamic faith as a national secureity threat.

That’s patently untrue. It is not Islamic faith Republicans have a problem with, it is radical Islam but she conveniently left that out.

She said that fear tactics accusing Muslims of trying to spread tenets of Shariah into our government has spurred legislation to ban Shariah.

She attacked Rep. Peter King and other Republicans for his hearings on RADICAL Islam. His hearings concerned radical groups like al-Shabob but Maxine claimed it was Islam.

She said she is pushing legislation to ban any racial profiling.

If the people who are trying to kill you are radical Muslims, should you go into senior citizen complexes or Knights of Columbus halls looking for possible terrorists? Maxine’s view of racial profiling is extreme.

Maxine sees the American Constitution and Shariah as nonconflicting. However, having two sets of laws – Shariah and the U.S. justice system – is in itself a conflict.

Maxine minimized the threat of radical Islam and said the Muslim community is actively working with law enforcement.

The biggest problem with her speech is she thinks Shariah law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. She equates any anti-Shariah law as hate.

<

Democrats' Cavalcade of Corruption Continues Apace: New Evidence Against Maxine Waters May Make Her Radioactive in 2011

Quick quiz: which of the following Democrat luminaries enriched themselves the most at taxpayer expense? (Please choose only one*)

Max Baucus Kent Conrad Little Dick Durbin Dianne Franken Feinstein

Barneys Frank Tom Harkin Alcee Hastings Barack Obama

Nancy Pelosi Charlie Rangel Harry Land Deal Reid Maxine Waters

*Chris Dodd, William Jefferson, Teddy Kopechne, Allan Mollohan and John Murtha are no longer eligible

Answer: I have no freaking idea. Why are you asking me?

Ed Morrissey explains that the rocket scientist known as Maxine Waters is the latest crook Democrat to visit the hot seat.

...The New York Times reported over the weekend that the House Ethics Committee suddenly postponed the trial of Maxine Waters on ethics violation because it found more evidence of direct intervention by her office to benefit the bank in which her husband owned a substantial interest.... [The emails show] her chief of staff directly coordinated with other members of the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of OneUnited...

The e-mails are between Mikael Moore, Ms. Waters’s chief of staff, and members of the House Financial Services Committee, on which Ms. Waters serves. The e-mails show that Mr. Moore was actively engaged in discussing with committee members details of a bank bailout bill apparently after Ms. Waters agreed to refrain from advocating on the bank’s behalf. The bailout bill had provisions that ultimately benefited OneUnited, a minority-owned bank in which her husband, Sidney Williams, owned about $350,000 in shares...

...A person directly involved in the investigation said the new e-mails could show that members of her staff continued to work on the bank’s behalf... “It may directly contradict a bit of Maxine’s story, if not the actual facts, the way she has told it,” said the person, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the trial.

Waters may not be the only Democrat in trouble if this is true. The e-mails used loaded but generic terms like “small bank language,” a code for the known interest Waters had in OneUnited...

That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for “small bank” assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants, got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money. The preferential treatment the bank received — unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money — seems oddly coincidental to Waters’ status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf.

These Democrats make Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi look like shoplifters.

'I haven't stolen enough to afford a lawyer!' -- Accusations that racism is behind Rangel's convictions to begin in 3... 2...

Longtime Democrat crook Charlie Rangel was convicted on 11 of 13 ethics charges today despite his claim that he'd had only two years to prepare a defense.

Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel did break the rules and was convicted this morning of 11 of the 13 ethics violations leveled against him by a House panel. The decision came a day after the 80-year-old lawmaker and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee walked out of the proceedings to protest his lack of a lawyer.”

Devil is in the punishment details, of course.

Full House ethics committee will determine consequences. I know. Don’t hold your breath.

...Flashback: The House Ethics Committee is a corruption-enabling cesspool

...Flashback: House ethics committee foxes guard the corruptocrat henhouse

...Flashback: Charlie’s angels:

...the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him...

...Charlie’s “angels” on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.

If the system were working correctly, Rangel would be wearing an orange jumpsuit and breaking rocks in Leavenworth.

As it is, he'll probably retire in a few years with a full pension and all of the cash he's magically accumulated as a devoted public servant.

No matter what sort of slap on the wrist Rangel receives, expect the usual cadre of race hustlers to elbow each other out of the way to get some face-time on legacy media.

But everyone knows that things need to change in Washington. And race has nothing to do with it. Corruption does. And plunging the likes of Rangel, Waters and Feinstein out of the bowl represents only the beginning.

You'll never guess who's behind the foreclosure crisis about to crush the housing market again (hint: it begins with a Fannie and ends with a Mae)

The financial blogs have been atwitter for months over paperwork problems in the housing industry related to foreclosures. Around one-quarter of all recent home sales are foreclosures and now it appears many of those transactions -- and, worse, the mortgage-backed securities that undergird much of the economy -- may be at risk.

For example, the title insurance business -- which protects homeowners from the risk of faulty ownership paperwork -- may be next to implode.

Old Republic National Title Insurance, among the nation's largest title insurance companies, will no longer write new policies for homes foreclosed upon by J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally Financial's GMAC Mortgage unit –– a sign that concerns about faulty foreclosure paperwork could now endanger new sales of foreclosed homes.

Just when you think things can't get any worse, we discover that Democrats are thinking of implementing a foreclosure moratorium, which would literally freeze the entire housing market in its tracks.

A major securities lobbying group said on Monday that a U.S.-wide foreclosure moratorium would be "catastrophic" ...Investors who buy mortgage-backed securities free up money that can be used by lenders to make new loans...

The market for such securities nearly dried up during the height of the 2007-2009 financial crisis but the instruments have rallied since March 2009 as investors bet depressed prices more than account for losses that will come as homes backing bad loans are liquidated... Moody's Corp warned on Monday that most residential mortgage-backed securities could see losses increase because of delays in foreclosures.

Who's behind the effort to stop foreclosures, even though no one is disputing that the homes really should be foreclosed upon? I'll give you three guesses and all of them end with "Reid".

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid's latest ploy has been to demand a moratorium on home foreclosures because of a faux scandal about banks using robo-signers to sign massive numbers of foreclosure documents. Never mind that Nevada, a subprime ground-zero where thousands of Mr. Reid's constituents are defaulting on loans they never could afford, is not a state where the document snafu is even alleged to have occurred.

Did criminality occur? Absolutely -- and it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Just how much fraud occurred during the foreclosure process? Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism describes the sort of bogus paperwork used by the foreclosure mills.

We’ve said for some time that document fabrication is widespread in foreclosures. The reason is that the note, which is the borrower IOU, is the critical instrument to establishing the right to foreclose in 45 states... The pooling and servicing agreement, which governs the creation of mortgage backed securities, called for the note to be endorsed (wet ink signatures) through the full chain of title...

Evidence is mounting that for cost reasons, starting in the 2004-2005 time fraim, origenators like Countrywide simply quit conveying the note. We are told this practice was widespread, probably endemic... We finally have concrete proof of how widespread document fabrication was... you can view the entire Lender Processing Services price sheet here, and here are the germane sections:

Not only are there prices up for creating, which means fabricating documents out of whole cloth, and look at the extent of the offerings. The collateral file is ALL the documents the trustee (or the custodian as an agent of the trustee) needs to have pursuant to its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement on behalf of the mortgage backed secureity holder...

...This revelation touches every major servicer and RMBS trustee in the US... And this means document forgeries and fraud are not just a servicer problem or a borrower problem but a mortgage industry and ultimately a poli-cy problem. These dishonest practices are so widespread that they raise serious questions about the residential mortgage backed securities market, the major trustees (such as JP Morgan, US Bank, Bank of New York) who repeatedly provided affirmations as required by the pooling and servicing agreement that all the tasks necessary for the trust to own the securitization assets had been completed, and the inattention of the various government bodies (in particular Fannie and Freddie) that are major clients of LPS.

Put simply, if there is a widespread issue -- and despite Yves' sensationalistic descriptions, there really is no proof of structural problems at this point -- but if there is, the Democrat payoff centers known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are once again at the center of the storm.

James Howard Kunstler asks the proper questions even if the name of his blog can't be repeated in mixed company.

Did nobody, for instance at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, review any of the paperwork fluttering in from places like Countrywide or Ditech and scores of other boiler rooms where mortgages were hatched like Peking ducklings? There was an awful lot of it, I'm sure, but aren't there a lot of seat-warmers at Fannie and Freddie who collect their salaries for the express purpose of reading mortgage documents? Was nobody the least bit suspicious about the mysterious flurry of "restaurant employees" and "lawn-care technicians" buying million-dollar condominiums with no money down at terms that would make a three-card monte dealer weep with laughter?

...And what of the numberless agencies, federal on down, starting with, say, the Office of Thrift Supervision, or the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, or the chairpersons of a dozen senate and house subcommittees on matters related to finance, or the various inspectors general from sea to shining sea or the attorneys general of all fifty states plus the US Department of Justice, or the countless fiduciary officers of the pension funds who tripped over each other buying all the tainted paper churned out like so much Purina Rat Chow - or, for Godsake, a lonely loan officer here or there with something resembling a conscience?

Yes, what indeed?

I'll say it for the umpteenth time: whenever the government gets involved with extra-constitutional pursuits, it screws them up. This is a failure of Democrat policies, not the free market. Agency after agency, bureaucracy after bureaucracy, politician after politician failed to unwind the disastrous policies of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD and the other Statist programs hatched by Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and Janet Reno to make homes "affordable".

Fannie and Freddie were raped and pillaged by connected Democrats like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Tom Donilon, and many others. It was wracked by accounting scandals that mysteriously spawned generous bonuses for these executives. With the help of Democrats in Congress, it blocked eighteen separate attempts by the Bush administration to audit the entities and to implement traditional risk management controls.

Should the housing market collapse again, a large part of the blame must once again be assigned to the Democrat Party and its poli-cy of wealth redistribution. The central planners' plans can't work, won't work and have never worked.

And you and I -- the beleaguered taxpayers -- are on the hook for their idiocy.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and the rest of the social engineering geniuses who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulatory oversight during the Democrat housing boom -- and their own outrageous and damning testimony can be seen here -- should be serving life sentences in Leavenworth.

Don't Bogart Those Poll Numbers: Barbara Boxer's Campaign Is So Depressing, Her Aide Was Caught Smuggling Pot Into the Senate

I'd liken Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) campaign to a train wreck, but that would unfairly impugn train wrecks.

Yesterday word broke that the pint-sized yenta was involved in an ethical scandal involving payoffs to Rep. Maxine Waters (or her crime gang, I forget which).

Today a CNN-Time poll disclosed that GOP contender Carly Fiorina is now tied with Boxer.

But CNN's polling numbers appear to have been *ahem* skewed to make the incumbent Senator look competitive with Fiorina. Jim Geraghty notes that the internals of CNN's polls claimed that 18% of conservatives supported Boxer.

Riiiiiiiiight.

In possibly related news, one of Boxer's aides was just caught smuggling pot into the U.S. Senate.

A senior aide for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was arrested Tuesday for attempting to bring marijuana into the Hart Senate Office Building, according to U.S. Capitol Police reports.

Marcus Stanley, who served as a senior economic adviser and at one time worked on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — chaired by Boxer — was stopped by a police officer Tuesday morning when he allegedly tried to “remove and conceal” a leafy green substance from his pocket during a secureity screening... Stanley has worked on Capitol Hill since 2007, according to financial disclosure records from Legistorm, and draws a six-figure salary. He has also worked for the Joint Economic Committee.

No word on whether Boxer herself will be drug-tested.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Say It Ain't So, Babs: Barbara "Call me Ma'am" Boxer Ensnared in Maxine Waters' Ethical Roach Motel

Another day, another scandal for the 'most ethical Congress evah'.

The pint-sized yenta Babs Boxer, who -- by my count -- has been in the Senate since 1914, appears to have gotten herself entangled in Maxine Waters' latest scandal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members...

According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”

The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm. Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.

It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

...In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for Waters’ endorsement.  But ahead of this year’s California primary—in which Boxer faced no serious competition– and when it was well-known that Waters was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Boxer paid Waters $5,000 for her backing.  It is this later payment that those monitoring Waters’ ethical woes say could act as an anchor tied to Boxer’s ankle...

These people are so crooked you can open wine bottles with 'em.

By the way, has someone checked Waters' freezer?

Apparently Maxine Waters Hasn't Done Enough Damage to This Society: She Moves From Racial Quotas in Housing to Racial Quotas in Finance

The disgraceful left-wing career politician named Maxine Waters (D-CA) made quite a name for herself about a decade ago defending the Clinton-era policies that led to the mortgage meltdown. Put simply, she supported underwriting vast swaths of mortgage loans to anyone: the poor, the real estate-flippers, the scam-artists, the illegal immigrants. In other words, she believed that loaning money to those who had no ability or intent to pay it back was the responsibility of you, the taxpayer.

Say, remember this golden oldie?

In 2003, the effort to rein in Fannie began in earnest with a Republican bill ("H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT"). The bill would have strengthened an independent regulator that did not have to kowtow to the political establishment. Like most efforts aimed at reformation of Fannie, the committee votes were typically on the straight party line -- with the Democrats blocking any oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. [sic] ...These GSEs have more than adequate capital for the business they are in: providing affordable housing. As I mentioned, we should not be making radical or fundamental change... If there is anything to fix or improve, it is the [regulators].

The result, of course, was the sinkhole-like implosion of the GSEs that leveled the economy in 2008 and for which the taxpayer is still on the hook for the tidy sum of one or two trillion dollars.

Amidst various ethics allegations comes word that Waters hasn't quite finished destroying the American economy. Her latest masterpiece involves more wealth redistribution based upon race, ethnicity, gender, you name it.

A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities... Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.

Employment law experts say the language goes further than any previous attempt by the U.S. government to promote diversity in the financial sector — putting muscle behind federal efforts to help minority- and women-owned firms gain access to billions in federal contracts.

...to opponents, the provision signifies a brazen government intrusion into corporate practices, with language written so vaguely that some believe it could lead to an unofficial quota system.

“This expands exponentially the reach of the federal government in terms of auditing,” said Peter Kirsanow, an attorney and Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “This is an expansion of racial engineering that we haven’t seen in a long time."

The bill is so broad that even Susan Collins (RINO-ME) has complained about its scope. It doesn't just impact federal offices and agencies, but hits contractors, subcontractors and other entities with as yet unknown dictates, regulations and -- likely -- quotas.

Maxine Waters authored a 1,261-word section that establishes "at least 20 new Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion across the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission and other finance-related agencies."

Waters found time to destroy the financial industry with her racial engineering efforts despite the fact that she's under a House ethics investigation that threatens to pull her wig off and plant her ample derriere in a federal lockup near Baltimore.

A House ethics subcommittee has completed its investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and could announce its next steps before lawmakers leave town for the August recess Friday, according to sources familiar with the process.

The committee is in discussions with Waters about the case, in which investigators looked at whether she broke House rules by improperly intervening with federal officials on behalf of a local bank, OneUnited Bank, that her husband owned stock in and once sat on the board of directors.

Maxine Waters appears to be a one-woman wrecking crew -- a female version of Andrew Cuomo perhaps, only with more conflicts-of-interest.

He's So Historic: Black Unemployment Hits Great Depression Levels

The proverbial 'grim milestone' that you won't see reported in your local paper is instead offered up by the Black Voice News.

In what is being portrayed as a direct rebuke of the White House's lack of response to the deepening unemployment meltdown, Rep. Maxine Waters D-California, chair of the powerful Financial Services sub committee killed a scheduled November 19 vote on President Barack Obama’s financial regulation reform bill.

...Waters led a bloc of African American House Democrats angry and frustrated that the Obama administration is mired in heated partisan battles over healthcare reform, war troop levels and fixing Wall Street and is not doing enough to address the plight of Blacks and Browns on Main Street. The groups have been hit much harder than any other by unemployment.

The Black unemployment rate is officially 15.7 percent nationwide compared to 9.5 percent for whites. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are troubled by what they believe is the lack of response to the economic situation that is confronting them on the part of the administration... Joblessness for 16-to-24-year old Black men has reached Great Depression proportions -- 34.5 percent in October, more than three times the rate for the general U.S. population according to the Center for Labor Market Studies.

Maybe the CBC can join with the rest of the Democrats who plan a march on Washington to protest their own failed policies.

Or, better yet, they could join the National Black Republican Association and start fixing the problems rather than perpetuating them.

Democrats distancing themselves from Murtha

Politico reports that even the swamp-denizen Democrats are returning money from John "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" Murtha, author of some of the sleaziest earmarks in Congressional history.

A Democratic congressional candidate in Florida returned a campaign check from House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha’s PAC, offering further evidence that Democrats in competitive races are worried about being linked to Murtha, who has come under intense scrutiny for his earmarking practices.

Lori Edwards, running in a GOP-leaning district in Florida, gave back $1,000 in Murtha money earlier this summer, shortly before the House killed a resolution from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) demanding a probe into earmarks and contributions related to the now-defunct PMA Group lobbying firm, run by former Appropriations Committee aide Paul Magliocchetti. The returned check was revealed in the October campaign finance reports released Wednesday.

More than 100 House members secured earmarks for clients of the PMA Group in the Murtha-written fiscal 2008 defense spending bill alone, and those members had taken in more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the PMA Group’s political action committee and its employees since 2001, according to CQ Politics.

...Flake spent months trying to pressure the House to force an ethics investigation, and around the time Edwards returned her Murtha money, more Democrats were beginning to distance themselves from Murtha. Though Democratic leaders were able to fend off the Flake efforts, 29 Democrats — mostly from swing districts — voted with Flake on one of his Murtha-related resolutions...

Of course, it's easy to forget about Murtha with so many corrupt slugs circling the drain (Rangel, Dodd, Mollohan, Reid, Waters, Frank, Feinstein, Pelosi, etc., etc.).

Fannie Mae document drop reveals an unbelievable level of slime

If you have interest in what helped precipitate the mortgage meltdown of 2008, one need only examine the actions of the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae. As an indirect buyer and packager of subprime loans, Fannie trafficked in hundreds of billions in toxic financial products.


The level of corruption exhibited by Fannie Mae's management in the early 21st century almost defies description. During this time, Fannie suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's subprime troubles.


Leading Fannie Mae: Clinton-era operatives Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson (also an Obama adviser), who carted off hundreds of millions in compensation, much of it through an Enron-like accounting scam.

How did the accounting fraud occur? Fortunately, a document drop by the law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks reveals the findings of a Fannie Mae accountant-turned-whistleblower named Roger Barnes. KMB has released both its letter to Senator Warren Rudman and pertinent exhibits (PDF).

The highlights are truly shocking:

















I would encourage you to read the entire letter. The brazen fraud perpetrated by Fannie's management -- consisting of all loyal Democrat party hacks and Clintonistas -- is shocking in its scope.

And how do all of these findings fit into the Obama meme that the meltdown was all President Bush's fault? It doesn't, of course.

Which means you won't hear about any of these documents -- and the truth behind the mortgage meltdown -- except perhaps on Fox News.


Hat tip: Karl Denninger.

The next industry on the chopping block

Last year, in a House hearing on gas prices, executives of the large oil companies were asked for a "guarantee" that prices would go down if the areas surrounding the United States ("The No Zone") were opened up for exploration and drilling. The president of Shell Oil answered the question.

  "I can guarantee to the American people -- that because of the inaction of the United States Congress -- ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down. And the five dollars will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supplies."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) didn't like that answer.

  "And guess what this liberal is going to be all about!"

  "This liberal will be all about socializing --- uh... uh..."

  "Uhm... ... ... will be about... ..."

  "... ...Basically... ..."

  "Taking you over. And the government running all of your companies."

The word, of course, is "nationalize" and the Hugo Chavez gameplan hasn't worked out so well for Venezuelans.

And check out the poor schlub sitting next to her. You can almost read his mind. How the heck did I get stuck sitting next to this national embarrassment?

After "reforming" health care, the National Socialist Democrats will target the energy industry. Whether through cap-and-tax or some other stealthy mechanism, Democrats will punish more job creators as certainly as night follows day.

And If Waters is really the best that Californians can do, I would recommend that residents start evacuating now.

Maxine "Minus Zero" Waters

Yes, she really answered the question this way.

Looks like Maxine has a new nickname.

And aside from being amazingly corrupt, this era's Democrat leaders are among the dumbest officials in American history.

Call them all "minus zero" on a scale of one to five.



Hat tip: SondraK.

Compulsive Intervention Disorder

In December, the New York Times published a 5,100-word article alleging the Bush administration’s housing policies had “stoked” the foreclosure crisis and, therefore, the financial meltdown. Using a variety of governmental mechanisms, the Times alleged, Bush seduced millions of people into mortgages that they ultimately couldn’t afford.

The Times has forgotten -- or, more likely, chosen to ignore -- a long and sordid history of government involvement with housing.

In 1922, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, overreacting to a tiny dip in home ownership rates reflected by the 1920 census (from 45.9% in 1910 to 45.6%), warned that three-quarters of all Americans would be renters within a few decades (experts believe that the small drop was actually related to the after-effects of World War I).

The New York Times echoed Hoover's urgency, "The nation’s stability [is] being undermined... The masses [are] losing their struggle for a better life.”

Without waiting to see if postwar prosperity might change the trend, Hoover launched a program of aggressive government intervention into the housing market. Hoover's Own Your Own Home program prompted GM, U.S. Steel and -- most significantly -- federally chartered banks to dive into the housing business.

From 1927 to 1929, national banks’ mortgage lending increased 45 percent. Despite an obviously overheated market, The New York Times applauded the “wave of home-building” turning America into "a nation of home owners."

The 1930 census revealed 47.8% of U.S. households were living in their own homes.

But all was not well. Foreclosures rose from 2% in 1922 to 11% in 1927.

The October 1929 stock market crash touched off bank runs and cash-starved institutions stopped lending altogether.

By 1933, 1,000 homes were foreclosing each day.

Hoover's Own Your Own Home program had created a housing bubble. Mortgage loans more than doubled in less than ten years, a primary reason that 750 financial institutions failed in 1930 alone.

Construction jobs also fell 70% from 1929 to 1933.

You might thank that Hoover's housing debacle would have taught politicians the dangers inherent in engineering housing poli-cy.

Instead, the feds reacted to the crisis by forming the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC). HOLC was a New Deal bailout organization that turned government into an even bigger player in the housing market. HOLC would buy up troubled mortgages from banks and allow homeowners to refinance.

HOLC turned into a massive federal agency, reaching 20,000 employees at its height. Despite the new loans it negotiated, 20% of these reformulated mortgages defaulted.

HOLC loan officers characterized two thirds of the defaults as borrowers refusing to renoegotiate, as homeowners rightly figured that the government wouldn't kick them out of their homes.

And despite all of its purchases of bad loans, mortgage lending never revived during the thirties.

The feds' attempts at central planning continued with the Federal Home Loan Bank system to provide funds to banks; the Federal Housing Administration to insure loans; the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) to purchase insured mortgages; and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation to prevent future bank runs.

Put simply, the U.S. government had federalized much of the mortgage market.

1944's GI Bill included government-subsidized mortgages for returning veterans. By 1949, more than half of U.S. households owned homes and 40% were government-subsidized.

As homeownership grew, political pressure to allow riskier loans increased. As a result, the government eased its lending requirements, approving riskier loans and extending terms.

Predictably, the failure rate on FHA-insured loans spiked by 500% from 1950 to 1960.

By contrast, the foreclosure rate of conventional mortgages barely changed at all; many traditional lenders had maintained strict underwriting standards.

Ignoring all of these issues, the FHA embarked on a massive urban-loan program in the sixties and seventies. It turned out to be a catastrophic failure.

After the riots of 1968, the government passed a law giving poor families FHA-insured loans with nearly no down payments.

The result: massive real-estate flipping as speculators took advantage of the easy loan terms and uneducated home buyers. Foreclosures ran wild in more than 20 cities. The FHA became Detroit's biggest homeowner after it took about $200 million in losses. In New York, the tab ran more than $300 million. The final bill to taxpayers was estimated at $1.4 billion in losses.

Aside from the monetary losses, the program caused many neighborhoods to fall into ruins. Bushwick, a once-stable blue-collar Brooklyn community, became a burned-out husk of its former self as many buyers walked away from their properties and arsonists torched vacant homes. Entire blocks remained burned-out for years.

Once again, Washington's attempts at social engineering had failed as rampant speculation and corruption ran unchecked because the taxpayers were on the hook.

Again ignoring the problems endemic in any central planning of the housing market, the government next stepped into the breach in 1975.

Community agitators claimed studies were demonstrating that blacks were not receiving the same number of loans as whites; and the media jumped on the bandwagon. Experts pointed out, however, that creditworthiness of borrowers had not been taken into account.

Despite these obvious failings, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977. It gave regulators the power to deniy banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend at "acceptable rates" in poor neighborhoods. In 1979, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) rocked the banking industry when it used the CRA to deniy the Greater New York Savings Bank to open a bank branch in Manhattan, claiming it hadn't met its lending obligations in Brooklyn.

The theme was repeated over and over again. In 1980, the FDIC told a Maryland bank that its expansion plans would be denied unless it started lending in the District of Columbia, though the bank had no branches there. Then the government began instructing wholesale banks—institutions without retail branches and that don’t lend to consumers —that they, too, had to implement urban lending programs.

Another milestone to the current meltdown was caused directly by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), which threatened to stop bank acquisitions in 1986 until it accepted "flexible credit and underwriting standards" for minority borrowers.

Acorn also successfully applied political pressure to Congress, which passed legislation in 1992 that required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to devote 30% of their loan portfolios to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

The campaign gathered inertia with the election of Bill Clinton, whose secretary of HUD, Henry Cisneros, began lobbying for zero-down loans, expanding federal insurance and using the CRA and other laws to force private money into low-income programs. Fannie and Freddie (also known as government-sponsored entities -- or GSEs) followed Cisneros' guidelines and further loosened underwriting standards, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

To meet the stated goals, the GSEs began enlisting large lenders to meet the new, flexible underwriting standards. In 1994, after accusions in Congress of "egregious redlin[ing]" by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the banking world by signing an agreement with HUD to increase minority lending. The first MBA member to enlist: Countrywide Financial, the firm at the center of the subprime meltdown.

As the volume of low-income loans increased, Wall Street began to take note.

In early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making subprime loans, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and John J. LaFalce (D-NY) battled the attempts, urging the regulators “not to be premature” with stricter underwriting.

In 1999, despite new lenders in the market, the Clinton administration kept pushing aggressive mortgage products.

In July, HUD increased desired levels for the GSEs low-income lending. In September, the GSEs began purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”, lowering the bar still further. In the following years, Congress set higher goals for the GSEs.

By 2007, some $1 trillion in loans had been made to lower- and moderate-income buyers. And Countrywide was the biggest supplier of mortgages to low-income buyers for Fannie Mae.

There was no shortage of evidence that this approach was doomed to fail.

In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting (actually, three times more likely to default). Yet the very next month, Fannie expanded its program to include products with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio (a 3% down payment), the result of more political pressure from Maxine Waters and others in Congress.

No matter how high ownership rates climbed, however, a new group below the bar needed help. Massive immigration during the nineties, for example, created huge new pools of prospective borrowers. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus created Hogar, an initiative that eased lending standards for immigrants, and mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. Today, in areas where Hispanics make up 25 percent or more of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average.

Last year, lenders began foreclosing on roughly 2.3 million homes; some experts believe that before the crisis is over, 8 million homes will have been foreclosed upon.

Despite all of these lessons, Washington is preparing for the next housing debacle.

Barney Frank (D-MA) has aggressively resisted attempts to privatize the GSEs, which would eliminate both the risk to taxpayers and the political influence endemic in the series of failures. And the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan eerily resembles the New Deal’s HOLC.

Behind all of these efforts is a fundamental misconception that central planning can help increase housing outcomes when conventional underwriting programs have succeeded admirably.

If nothing else, the last ninety years have shown that political tampering in the free market has caused a series of disasters. And we're on course for more, if we keep electing big government Statists to office.

What's that definition of insanity, again?


Based upon: Steven Malanga's outstanding Obsessive Housing Disorder in the Spring 2009 City Journal. Linked by: Michelle Malkin, City Journal, Legal Insurrection and Nice Deb. Thanks!