THE UNITED NATIONS, THE UNITED STATES….AND ISRAEL.

I’d like to address a couple of the comments John Kerry made during his speech about the UN/Israel vote:

John Kerry, in his remarks about America’s “position” on the UN/Israel vote, said, “…I am compelled to respond today that the United States did vote in accordance with our values…”.

How pathetic an opinion of the Unites States must he, Kerry, have, to suggest that abstaining from a critical vote is an American value? Israel, who remains a target in the Middle East, surrounded by wolves whose core values include the total destruction of the Jewish state as well as the annihilation of the Jewish people, who represents the very idea of democracy in the Middle East, whose very existence is tenuous, guaranteed by The Unites States, was abandoned by that very protector; not by virtue of a “yes” or “no” vote, but rather by an “abstain” vote. To me, this is nothing short of cowardice; gutless, spineless cowardice.

Is gutless, spineless cowardice an American value?

Perhaps I’m just an idealist, but I always thought that America counted among its values courage, steadfast alliance with our allies, and bravery in the face of opposition. I thought that America counted among its values decisiveness. I thought that America was “the cop on the corner”. I thought America was the best and brightest hope for the future.

Now, it seems, that our (thankfully) outgoing leadership believes none of this. They prefer a vision of a nation of weak, indecisive cowards.

But, I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised by this; for the past two of three election cycles, we chose as our leader a man who, in his brief tenure as a US Senator, recorded more “present” votes than any Senator in US history. Even then, his core value was cowardice and indecisiveness; the very picture of a cowering decidophobiac.

The only question, in my mind, is this: is John Kerry’s and Barack Obama’s vision (and practice) of “United States values” shared by those who support them? Evidence certainly points to exactly this.

Consider:

Obama, speaking about the 2016, November 8^th election:

“There are some things that we know are a challenge for Democrats — structural problems. For example, population distribution, oftentimes younger voters, minority voters, Democratic voters, are clustered in urban areas. And so as a consequence you’ve got a situation where there’re not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we’re not showing up, if we’re not in there making an argument, then we’re going to lose. And we can lose badly, and that’s what happened in this election.”

Clearly, in this election, Democrats, overwhelmingly, acted out Kerry’s and Obama’s “vision”: they abstained from the vote.

On November 8^th, Democrats reaped what had sown.

“…if we’re not showing up, if we’re not in there making an argument, then we’re going to lose. And we can lose badly, and that’s what happened in this election.”

Yes, Mr. President, if America does not show up, we WILL lose.

Kerry also said, “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”

Mr. Kerry, does this also apply to the Palestinians? Must they, too, choose between being Palestinian and being democratic?

Somehow, I doubt….rather, I am CERTAIN…that it does not. Not in Kerry’s mind. Not in Obama’s, either.

Hirota

December 2016

From Russia, with love

As the “news” about Russia’s supposed hacking of DNC computers (thereby helping Trump win the election) continues to occupy the tiny minds of the Left, I think a few things are worth considering:

1.     There’s STILL no evidence, other than circumstantial. According to the New York Times, the CIA report, while suggesting that Russia was behind the hack, admitted to operating on information gathered before the election. No new information, developed post-election, was part of their suggestion; which begs the question: why, then, wait until AFTER the election to reveal this news? Also, the CIA’s “findings” are based on circumstantial evidence (again, according to the CIA and New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0

2.     Since Liberals’ have memories similar to dogs…about two minutes…they seem to have forgotten that Hillary, while at the State Department, used a personal, UNSECURED, server. Along with sending and receiving marked classified documents, she also used here server while conducting Clinton Foundation business. And, oh yeah….she also used it for Yoga info and Chelsea’s wedding. It seems quite reasonable to assume that she ALSO used her server in communications with……the DNC; very likely, at the HIGHEST levels (let’s face it: if she didn’t care about unsecured classified documents, she certainly wouldn’t care about any information she might share with the DNC (and, since she IS a Clinton, I’m confident that she had access to ALL DNC information….). So, there exists AS MUCH circumstantial evidence that Hillary, herself, was the cause of the leaks.

3.     There also exists the possibility that the leaks were a result of an inside job. While I can’t imagine that anyone working for Hillary would have cause to dislike her…..she’s regarded as such a kind, warm, loving, giving person to her staff…there may be that one person, or lots of people, who’d work to submarine her efforts. (Her security detail says that being assigned to “Hillary duty” was a form of punishment…..but what do they know!)

4.     Recounts have found……NOTHING. Well, that is to say, nothing that points to Russian interference in the election itself. The recount HAS, though, found significant voter fraud in Wayne County, Michigan (which, BTW, is a Democrat stronghold). Stay tuned on this one, folks….what has been a news favorite for Liberal media for the past couple weeks is about to disappear.

The two big points:

5.     IF it is true that Russia was involved in the hack, at the direction of Putin, with Trump playing a direct role, and IF proof exists of this, then the CIA, Obama and the Liberal media have put lives in danger. Specifically, they’ve now revealed Intelligence assets which, in order to gather THAT level of confirmed information, are VERY highly placed and close to the source: Vladimir Putin. Whether sigint (signal intelligence) or humint (human intelligence), these assets are now known to Russian Intelligence agencies. If humint, those assets are now compromised and may lose their lives. If sigint, THOSE assets are now compromised and, when found, will likely lead to whomever placed them. In addition, when found, the methods of placing those assets will also be known.

6.     Has Russia, in the past, worked to influence political movements in our country? You bet. Remember the (now) famous case of Ted Kennedy striking a deal with the USSR? He (Kennedy) promised to trade information which would help the Soviets in their negotiations with President Reagan in exchange for assistance during the 1984 Presidential campaign and election. http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html.

Remember the McCarthy years? Although it’s pretty much never mentioned, McCarthy’s investigations found MANY instances of Soviet Communist influence, as well as uncovering American political groups, sympathetic to the USSR.

There is a CLEAR track record of Russian/Soviet attempts to influence the politics in America. BUT, interestingly, nearly all, is not ALL, involved Democrat (“Progressive”) groups. So, perhaps the Democrats are deeply concerned that the Russians, now, might be dumping them because they think they’ve found a new sweetheart.

The bottom line is this:

Until proven otherwise, there, currently, is no “there” there. This is just more of what Liberals do: make stuff up and hope there are enough breathtakingly ignorant people, unconcerned with facts, to bring it off. And, in doing so, can revise a bit more of their own history.

Hirota

December 2016

EXPOSING THE LIE (That the economic collapse of 2007/8 was Bush's doing)

OPENING COMMENT:

If your intention is to argue against this position, I have ABSOLUTELY no issue with that. In fact, I invite it; I welcome it. BUT, if you refuse to provide a fact-based, statistic-based, history-based argument, don’t be surprised when I dismiss your opinion. If you cannot provide evidence to contradict this argument (legislation, Congressional record), don’t be surprised when I dismiss your opinion. (By the way, opinion pieces are meaningless to this discussion, so feel free, but your…rather, THEIR….opinion will be dismissed).

The key to Obama’s legacy will undoubtedly be the success of the revisionism (already taking place) of the Bush/Obama economies. As the (Liberal) story goes, Obama has had the greatest success of ANY President in history in not only rescuing our economy from the disastrous Bush years, but revitalizing and growing it in what is now the LONGEST single, uninterrupted, period of growth in American history.

And, certainly, it seems to be a very accurate assessment; that is, unless you look at the whole picture.  Viewed thusly, the truth is this:

Obama failed to recover an economy which was destroyed by DEMOCRATS, during the Bush administration; specifically, Nancy Pelosi’s national minimum wage increase and the housing market collapse.

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

Nancy Pelosi promised, should Democrats regain control of Congress (in the 2006 midterms), elevating her to Speaker, that her first piece of legislation would be a national minimum wage increase. The midterms happened and Democrats DID, indeed, gain control of both Houses of Congress. Pelosi fulfilled her promise and ramrodded the national minimum wage increase (which was set to take effect mid-year 2007).

SOME FACTS WORTH CONSIDERATION:

Regarding the deficit:

1.     During the Bush administration, the deepest budget deficit was (just under) $500 Billion.

2.     The budget deficit in 2006 was reduced to around $120 Billion.

3.     The historic RISE in budget deficits began mid-year, 2007.

Regarding unemployment:

1.     Bush’s worst (U3) unemployment number was in June of 2003, at 6.3%.

2.     Bush’s best (U3) unemployment number (previous to Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006), was 4.4%.

3.     The dramatic RISE in unemployment began around mid-year, 2007, and rose to 10% late in 2009

So, two events (increase in unemployment rate AND increase in deficit) took place at the same time: the activation of Pelosi’s national minimum wage increase. 

Coincidence? I doubt it.

THE HOUSING COLLAPSE

What exacerbated the American economic disaster was the collapse of the housing market. Of course, this, too, is blamed on President Bush. Here are some of the relevant events and dates….all sourced…..contained in, and copied from, the Congressional Record. All pertain to the housing collapse, and they paint a VERY clear picture:

1. Bush worked to REFORM Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, anticipating a looming disaster. 
2. Democrats, led by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, prevented any reform from taking place.

(On an interesting note, according to “Open Secrets”, Dodd and Senator Obama BOTH received significant campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Coincidence? I doubt it.)

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 

• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)  

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

• November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 

• "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

• "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

• "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

• June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

• July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

Anyone who chooses to continue to believe that a) Bush CAUSED the economic collapse and that b) Obama SAVED our economy, must find the legislation which supports their argument. Short of that, continued belief in either notion is nothing more than willful ignorance and wishful thinking. Those unable to find such legislation, yet continue to perpetuate the Bush/Obama misrepresentation are doing so deliberately; their intention is to lie to you in order to support their personal beliefs.

Hirota
December 2016