Obama Pushes For Housing Bubble 2.0

These Idiots are doing it again!!

Got bad credit? Want to buy a home? You're in luck! President Obama is ramping up the country for housing bubble 2.0 as he urges banks to loan to people with poor credit so they can purchase a home. What could go wrong? Oh just abouteverything. And don't worry, the government is going to promise banks everything will be just fine.

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Shorter version: President Obama's crappy economy has caused people's credit to decline and even though the economy isn't much better (and neither is their credit) he wants them to buy a home with money and credit they don't have. Fantastic. As a reminder, the housing market crashed after the government forced banks to lend to people who 1) shouldn't have been applying for a housing loan in the first place 2) had no way to pay a housing loan back 3) never intended to pay back the housing loan in the first place.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/03/obama-pushes-for-housing-bubble-20-n1556894

A Few More Facebook Post

She Explained things Perfect!

15 Year Old Girl Shocks Politicians With Passionate Argument For Gun Rights

AUTHOR Bookworm

“Out of the mouths of babes” isn’t just a meaningless expression.  When applied to an unnamed 15-year-old girl in Maryland who testified about the importance of the Second Amendment and the havoc wreaked by gun control, “out of the mouths of babes” refers to a clear-eyed, rational, logic statement that explains the benefits that arms confer on law-abiding citizens, and the ineffectiveness of gun control laws that only harm, not help, those most likely to be victimized by gun crime.

Speaking quickly and smoothly, the unnamed young woman spelled out some important facts. She began by explaining that, because of her prowess with a Bushmaster rifle, she has scholarship opportunities to prestigious universities.  Gun control would have denied her these educational opportunities.

Handling guns in a safe, respectful way, has taught her that guns are a tool, not a problem:

Purging our society of violence and murder cannot be done through gun-control legislation. By signing this legislation you’re not signing away gun violence but, instead, are liberating American citizens of our constitutional rights. You’re not eliminating guns from society but eliminating our ability to protect our life, liberty and pursuits of happiness.

Then, speaking in legislators’ own language, the young woman threw in statistics.  In Chicago, Obama’s former stomping grounds and home to the most restrictive gun crime laws in the nation, “it is currently more than twice as likely for you to be killed in Chicago is in the Afghani war.”  Worse than that, none of the gun control laws being bandied about in the various legislatures would change these grim numbers.  “Even of those 3,371 [who died from guns in Chicago], only 37 were killed with a rifle, which is barely one percent, Ninety-eight percent were killed with a handgun, so creating gun control legislation that targets assault rifles has statistically proven to only weed out less than one percent of the problem — if you’re lucky.”

Moreover, she said, effectively answering Rand Paul’s demand that legislators prove that all their “registration” demands will stop gun crime, “none of the guns used in the Chicago shootings were registered or licensed to the people who used them.”  Likewise, the absence of guns does not stop evil.  “On December 14, 2012, the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting, in central China, a man stabbedtwenty two children and one adult. Guns are not needed for mass murder and robbing American citizens of our rights to own them won’t solve anything.”

Although she mentioned neither race nor racism, it was quite clear that the young woman was speaking out on behalf of beleaguered African Americans victimized by the gun control laws applied from above by Democrat legislatures that have been hostile to armed blacks since at least the Civil War.

You must also consider the fact that the majority of gun violence occurs in low-income neighborhoods. Raising the overall cost of owning a gun through higher licensing and registration fees denies the ability of low income individuals to protect themselves against the crime focused in the areas they live in. Passing this legislation would be discriminating against these lower income individuals who are actually at a high-risk of being victimized in crimes.

This composed, pretty patriot and scholar wrapped up her statement to the Maryland Legislature by pointing out the profoundly unconstitutional nature of any gun control laws they sought to enact:

To abolish or severely limit the right of the Maryland residents as a whole to bear arms, which is the intent of the proposed legislation, is essentially to defeat the purpose of our own U.S. Constitution. The entire foundation of the United States was formed on the principle that the government — our government — is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and taking away the people’s right to bear arms is taking away the people’s power in the government. The Second Amendment, which grants the citizens the right to secure their natural rights, is the backbone of our democratic society. I hope you all consider these points as you go to vote on this or any other control bills.

Perhaps the former Constitutional law professor and Chicago organizer now occupying the White Houseshould tear himself away from his golf game for a few minutes, to watch this young lady speak.  Were he to do so, he might not be quite so anxious to strip away American gun rights by whatever means possible.

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/04/10115-15-year-old-girl-shocks-politicians-with-passionate-argument-for-gun-rights/

FBI arrests legislator in plot to rig NY City mayoral race Rick Moran Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/fbi_arrests_legislator_in_plot_to_rig_ny_city_mayoral_race.html#ixzz2PMFaVJrL Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

More Liberal Garbage!

FBI agents arrested the Democratic President of the New York State Assembly and a New York City Republican councilman on political corruption charges relating to the NY city mayoral race.

New York Times:

State Senator Malcolm A. Smith, a contractor and real estate developer who rose to become the first black president of the State Senate, and City Councilman Daniel J. Halloran III were arrested early Tuesday on charges of trying to fix this year's mayoral race in New York City, according to federal prosecutors.

Mr. Smith, a 56-year-old Democrat, and Mr. Halloran, a Queens Republican, were among a half-dozen people arrested by F.B.I. agents in the federal corruption case. Others included Republican County leaders in Queens and the Bronx, the mayor of the Rockland County village of Spring Valley, Noramie F. Jasmin, and her deputy, Joseph A. Desmaret, according to a criminal complaint.

[...]

Most of those involved, according to the complaint, were looking for something - cash bribes were sought by the party officials and Mr. Halloran and Mr. Smith were seeking authorization to get on the ballot in the mayor's race. Ms. Jasmin was seeking an ownership interest in a company she believed was involved in a real estate project.

The senator at one point became impatient, asking the undercover and the cooperating witness during a meeting in his office whether the committee leaders were delaying getting his certificates because they wanted more money.

Mr. Smith, according to the complaint, instructed the two men not to pay the committee leaders any more money until they had "close[d] ... the deal." He also said that before the leaders received "even a nickel more, [he'd] have to stand on the Empire State Building and drop every person [he] endorsed and hold Malcolm up and say he's the best thing since sliced bread. Matter of fact, he's better than sliced bread."

According to the complaint, Mr. Halloran set up a meeting at which the undercover agent and the witness met Joseph J. Savino, the Bronx GOP chairman, and Vincent Tabone, vice chairman of the Queens Republican Party, and negotiated the amounts of the bribes for the documents. In exchange, Mr. Halloran sought and received more than $20,000 in cash for himself, prosecutors said.

Mr. Tabone and Mr. Savino were paid cash bribes of more than $40,000 and were promised $40,000 more, and they in turn, agreed to use their official capacities with Republican Party county committees to obtain the documents Mr. Smith would need to run for mayor as a Republican.

It sounds like the Feds have Smith dead to rights but you never know. 

Still, there will almost certainly be additional plea deals in exchange for damning testimony against Smith and Halloran. This probably won't effect the mayoral race because no candidates have been implicated. But it should give candidates an issue they can run on that will help determine the winner.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/fbi_arrests_legislator_in_plot_to_rig_ny_city_mayoral_race.html#ixzz2PMFl4nuz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Drip: Administration Alters, Delays Major Obamacare Provision for Small Businesses

We've been "celebrating" Obamacare's third anniversary over the last two weeks, repeatedly drawing attention to a memorable quote from one of the program's chief administrators:
 

Henry Chao, an official at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services who is overseeing the technology of the exchanges said at a recent conference. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.” Chao also described himself as “nervous.”

If he's nervous, you should be, too.  This isn't some program that can collapse and go away without much ripple effect.  Millions of people are counting on Obamacare to work the way it was described by its proponents.  The law will impact supporters and detractors alike.  Already, the law is proving to be anunwieldy nightmare, as the government labors to meet its own deadlines.  Individuals, families and businesses are slated to have access to a "reformed" healthcare system starting in early 2014, four years after the law was signed with much fanfare.  But that time horizon evidently hasn't provided ample time for the feds to get their act together and offer you the options and features you were promised for the bargain-basement price of nearly $2 trillion.  The New York Times reports that the launch date for a major section of the law is being pushed back:
 

Unable to meet tight deadlines in the new health care law, the Obama administration is delaying parts of a program intended to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and their employees — a major selling point for the health care legislation. The law calls for a new insurance marketplace specifically for small businesses, starting next year. But in most states, employers will not be able to get what Congress intended: the option to provide workers with a choice of health plans. They will instead be limited to a single plan. The choice option, already available to many big businesses, was supposed to become available to small employers in January. But administration officials said they would delay it until 2015 in the 33 states where the federal government will be running insurance markets known as exchanges. And they will delay the requirement for other states as well. The promise of affordable health insurance for small businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and Democratic leaders in Congress as they fought opponents of the legislation. Supporters of the law said they were disappointed by the turn of events. The delay will “prolong and exacerbate health care costs that are crippling 29 million small businesses,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana...The administration cited “operational challenges” as a reason for the delay.  

Here's the president explaining how fantastic this portion of his signature law would be in 2009: "If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you’ll be able to get coverage. We’ll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices."  Now, not only has the small business marketplace been punted off to 2015, its "beneficiaries" will be limited to just one "option" -- rather than the array of competitive plans they were promised.  And along comes Mary Landrieu, the 60th vote for Obamacare, whinging about how it might "cripple" small businesses.  She knew all about the flaws embedded in this legislation, but being the reliable liberal foot soldier that she is, Landrieu cast the deciding vote in its favor.   She is up for re-election in Louisiana next year.  The "this is going to be great!" crowd hailed this particular feature of Obamacare as extremely beneficial to small businesses, many of which were strong critics of the legislation.  For reasons that are becoming more apparent every day, many of those businesses continue to oppose the law.  Philip Klein wonders if this false start is an omen of things to come:
 

The big question is whether this is a harbinger of more to come. In theory, there are supposed to be operational health insurance exchanges by Oct. 1, which will begin actually providing benefits on Jan. 1. Now that the federal government will have to run all or part of the exchanges in 33 states, it remains a big question whether health officials are going to be able to meet their deadlines. Something tells me we’ll be reading more stories like this in the coming months.  

Of course we will.  If you're keeping score at home, so far we've seen: Two unpopular and job-killingelements of the law repealed, with another one on the way out (driving up the price tag of the law in the process by eliminating fanciful "revenues), and now a popular component narrowed considerably and delayed.  And the "go" date is still ten months away.  This is why conservatives opposed Obamacare.  Not because it was this president's idea, not because we hate government, not because we don't want people to have healthcare -- but because the law is unaffordable, poorly thought-out, and logistically shambolic.  It will not help people the way we were told it would.  Conservatives favor limited government in principle, of course, but it's also a practical position.  Big, bloated government is limited in its capacity to do things properly, and when it bites off more than it can chew, we all suffer -- especially on something as personal, sensitive and important as healthcare.

UPDATE - Fresh bad news for people with pre-existing conditions -- whose plight, we were told, would be solved by the law signed three years ago.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/04/02/drip-administration-alters-delays-major-obamacare-provision-for-small-businesses-n1555488

Chris Matthews: Only Whites Can Be Racists

This Guy or POS is Liberal Garbage He belongs in the sewer or needs to be flushed with the sewer cockroaches!

The latest pearl of shouted "wisdom" from the most loathsome member of MSNBC's news-challenged lineup:
 

 

"Actually, Rushbo, racism is the belief that one race -- whites -- should rule all others.  Get your definitions straight!"

Over to you, Merriam-Webster:  Racism - noun - 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.  The best part of the clip is the confident, smirking nature of Matthew's little lecture.  Get your definitions straight, Rushbo!  Racism is the exclusive province of whites.  Isn't it fun to be so much smarter and more sophisticated than those igorant knuckle-draggers on the Right, audience?  What an ass.  And I bet most of his viewers nodded right along. Question: How might Spittle McTingles describe these remarks?
 

Mr. Barry used the occasion of a victory party Tuesday to make this ignorant observation: “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go, I’ll just say that right now, you know.”  

That would be a bigoted statement from an African-American politician (D) about getting rid of the "dirty" Asian shops that apparently bother him.  No white people, so no racism -- right Chris?  Incidentally, Matthews wins the insufferability crown at MSNBC for several reasons, at least in my book.  First, his show airs twice in a three-hour span.  The same show.  Second, for years, Matthews masqueraded as a centrist newsman.  He occasionally still claims to be one.  So he was either subduing his bias that whole time, or he's gotten in touch with his inner hack to conform to the network's editorial bent.  Neither explanation reflects particularly well on him.  (I guarantee you his defense would be, "these Republicans have just gotten so radical," or whatever.  Yes, I'm sure the party abandoned you, Chris).  At the end of the day, viewers know what they're getting with a Bashir or an O'Donnell or a Schultz.  But Matthews' show is unique in that it's degenerated from a tough, interesting news and analysis program to a sneering, predictable echo chamber.  And finally, perhaps more than anyone else on the network, Matthews plays the race card to bully people he doesn't like.  How ironic that he doesn't even know the dictionary definition of racism.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/04/02/chris-matthews-only-white-people-can-practice-racism-n1555790

Louisiana Democrat Dares Republicans to Challenge Her in 2014

I hope she gets hit hard with heavy advertising about Her Liberal Tax and Spend ways!

While they face tough odds to take control of the Senate next year, Republicans will no doubt set their sights on Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and she’s giving them plenty of ammunition to use in what could be an expensive, heated campaign.

In an interview with Politico, Landrieu stood behind her record and even suggested that she could support President Barack Obama’s gun control proposals, which will come before the Senate next month:

The Louisianian confidently voted last week for the Democratic budget with its $1 trillion in tax hikes. She was one of only 20 Democrats who favored keeping the medical device tax, an element of Obamacare that some Democrats have worked to abolish. Along with other Democrats, she backed a handful of amendments opposed by senators from conservative states restricting health care for immigrants and politically charged language to curb a cellphone assistance program.

“I do not scare easily,” Landrieu told POLITICO. “I think it’s in my DNA. I come from a family that feels very passionately and very strongly about public service and about trying to always find a balance and keep our eyes focused on representing the people and not getting too caught up in the politics of the day.”

“I’m not saying I’m fearless, and I certainly try not to be reckless,” she added. “I can be very forward when I feel strongly about it, and I think the [Paul] Ryan budget and the [Gov. Bobby] Jindal type rhetoric is very damaging to the future economic growth of our country and the middle-class families.”
[…]
“I don’t have any hesitation voting for the budget,” Landrieu said. “The [Patty] Murray budget is very balanced and calls for revenues by closing — there weren’t real specifics — but the idea is to close tax loopholes and to find additional revenues to come in through the federal government.”

This is essentially a dare for Republicans to come after her, but it doesn’t seem like a smart move. While Landrieu has been successful in a traditionally red state, that may not keep up, especially if she continues to advertise her tax-and-spend ways.

It’s true that she did vote for Keystone XL, but she also voted for a budget that isperpetually out of balance and would raise taxes by nearly $1 trillion. She also voted against repealing ObamaCare and its medical device tax, and she voted in favor of an Internet sales tax and against repeal of the death tax.

Landrieu also voted against raising the threshold to pass new gun control measures andvoted against keeping the United States out of the controversial, anti-gun United Nations Arm Trade Treaty. She went went as far as voting to keep the White House closed to tourists.

Flaunting an anti-taxpayer record so boldy like she did in Politico is to her own detriment. She’s never taken more than 52% of the vote in any of her races and the atmosphere in 2014, as President Obama’s approval rating falls, could be as unwelcoming for vulnerable Democrats as it was in the 2010 mid-terms. Landrieu has made her own bed. Now she’s got to sleep in it.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13210-louisiana-democrat-dares-republicans-to-challenge-her-in-2014