Tax Exempt Terrorism--Islamist Infiltration
by Don White

Even the blind can see that Saudi-backed Islamists have gotten into U.S. charitable groups by masquerading as philanthropists. Anti-terror experts tell us that religious charities provide the perfect cover for their terror-supporting activities.

These Muslim groups not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but their reputations as charities and foundations often allow them to escape scrutiny making it easier to hide and move their funds to other groups and individuals who threaten national security.

This didn't just happen. Long ago Islamists came to America with the goal of undermining America via tax-free support for the machinery of terrorism. A document seized last decade in a raid of al-Arian's home bears that out. Translated from Arabic, "The Charter," as it is called, provides for an "Organization/Law Studies Section:" whose job it would be to study the legal aspects of establishing charitable organizations in America that would front for jhadi operations, investigators say.

Comingling of funds is rampant. The al-Arian founded Muslim charities that co-mingled funds with the Saudi-backed Safia group of charities in Virginia is a glaring example of this. Investigators say the charities have availed themselves of the advantage of exemption from federal income tax while abusing the requirements for tax-exempt status to avoid scrutiny of terror-tied financial transactions and associations.

The Saudis who hold all the oil cards in America also have more cash than most larger countries--certainly enough to influence more than one past president and current elected officials. The kingdom is the major source of funding for the terror support syndicate in America. When its leaders get in trouble, the Saudis are ready to provide legal aid and public relations assistance. They have a powerful friend in the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and it doesn't matter which year and which ambassador--that's one of their mandates. Some believe it only takes this man one phone call to make investigations go away. When will we learn the truth about this underground, jhadi plan to thwart legitimate goals of America and, in fact, to bring down our country.

When we finally learn more of the current U.S. bank meltdown, I predict we will find that it was, in fact, the kingdom that caused our soaring gas prices and world oil prices to rise to indecent levels. It will be shown that the king is working overtime to weaken us first financially--which he has accomplished--and at the same time undermine our ability to defend ourselves. It was only months ago that President Bush sold the Saudis $20 billion in sophisticated warplanes and related technical equipment. It is hard for me to believe that he isn't planning to use this against our most staunch ally, Israel.

Politics in the Middle East are difficult and complicated. On the outside, one should believe that the Saudis do not want to see Ahmadinejad and Iran build nuclear bombs. But if he thinks the U.S. is going to be strong enough to bomb Iran and participate in three wars (Iraq, Afghanstan, and Iran)--all at the same time--he is kidding himself.

This is something Iran is counting on and they revel in using our financial troubles and the oil embroglio to camouflage their bomb building activities. While Ahmadinejad was in New York, Barak Obama's national campaign finance chair Penny Pritzker feted this Mideast tyrant with a special reception and dinner usually reserved for friends and allies.

Such treachery from our own people! And were they trying to pry illegal political donations from him, which is typical Obama. There was a time that that would be grounds to jail such criminals.

What will it be like when Obama is running this country? He lies when he states he would have preconditions and preparation to any meetings with this little dictator from Iran. In fact, while Ahmadinejad was in New York this week, not only his own security guards kept him safe, but our own CIA operatives afforded him unusual protection usually given only to friendly representatives and certainly not to a man who wants to wipe from the face of the earth--presumably with nuclear bombs--our friend and ally Israel.

Iran has large Shite populations while Saudi Araba has a large Sunni population and as we discovered in Iraq, they hate each other. That, and that alone, is what the U.S. Administration is counting on to play off one faction against the other and avoid a major third world war. Are we putting too much credence in these offsetting situations?

The important thing to remember in foreign affairs is that you can't constantly court two enemies, or walk both sides of the street, and come out ahead. But that is precisely what the U.S. is doing when we help arm two arch enemies, the Saudis and Israel. But to fail to do so would create a vacuum and allow the Russians to replace us in this dangerous triangle and Vladimir Putin would like nothing better than to blackmail us with world oil supplies. If we think for one moment that because we are a free democratic nation--and each day Russia occupies Georgia is further proof that Russia is nothing more than a rogue nation of thugs--that we can rest on our "superpower pride" and holier-than-thou Christian idealogy, and on this triumphalist notion, forget it. We've defeated ourselves. Read more..at Angstblogger.blogspot.com

PoliticalDisconnect@blogspot.com

Posted by Don White at 9:22 AM 0 comments

One stormy morning, Obama leads by nine points in the polls. Here we are, 41 days from election and the tall guy starts sprinting down the track and opens up a 9 point lead over the short guy. How long can the young "empty suit" go this fast is anyone's guess. But unless something is done--and the debates start Friday--the old, stout guy is done. That, despite predictions to the contrary by other pollsters and experts.

I don't believe polls. I did enjoy a Washington Post story by Robert Samuelson this morning that said Paulson and Bernanke are rewriting the text books and running scared--"panic" was the operative word. "Paulson's Panic" was the headline.

I commented that what Americans need most at this time is a better understanding of the markets. Most people think this bailout is just to help the rich guys. Actually, it is meant to protect the people more than help the once rich and fat.

Think of the stock market as a mother. Mothers have kids and they nourish them until they can eat, walk, speak, and blunder on their own. Our markets are our mothers. They are the source of capital for all business in America, so they are the mothers or the source. If we don't help the moms out there will be no milk or cash for the kids, the many businesses that are capitalized will fail.

To capitalized means to issue stock that is sold on Wall Street that produces the money needed to move the trucks, pay the workers, and produce the goods--it's the money that gets main street and rural business going and makes them viable manufacturers, transporters, farmers, and everything else that qualifies for an American business.

There's a big bully called stupidity, greed, and bad judgment stalking our moms. They will go under if we don't help. Actually they have "Mom" in a strangle hold. She's ready to expire. If she does, there won't be any mother's milk or financial support for all the kids who have these businesses. If that happens, everyone goes to bed hungry at night because jobs dry up and there aren't paychecks or money to buy groceries; no money to buy gas or to pay for the heat and lights. That's called DEPRESSION.

Then government must jump in and create jobs--make work projects like they had in the great depression. My dad was only 24 years old and he had one of those jobs. He made a dollar a day building "a road to nowhere" and our family of five barely survived. No one wants that, so instead of waiting for the big GONG to sound in the sky or depression to hit, we help out Wall Street now instead of bailing out the public later. "Pay me now or pay me later?"

Here's what I wrote in the Washington Post "comment" slot today. Then I'll follow with a smart guy's comments. He explains stuff that may be over all our heads, except those who work in the markets. And I'm not sure how his comments help educate us to the point where we can decide if Congress should do a bailout or not. That's for you to decide. As you may know, Congress is stymied, almost in a state of rigor mortis. It's brain damaged and in permanent shock and awe and delay. Of course most of them were that way when they came to Washington, so what else is new?

http://dusanotes@yahoo.com (me): "For we the taxpayer, Washington should do something to educate us. Unfortunately, no one in government, the economists, or market gurus really know what's going on in this financial crisis, much less know how to solve it. I doubt Paulson, Bernanke, or any of the economists advising Congress know what to do and this is creating delay and panic in some quarters including the halls of Congress. No one wants to make a mistake that worsens the problem.

Is it really true that delay is bad for America? Along with others including McCain, initially I argued that the government should not bail out anyone. It is basically against the free enterprise notion that companies live and fail on their own. Then comes along Bernanke and Paulson who are running scared, telling us action today or the crisis will create a depression. What are these two--some kind of socialists? What--we own all the companies in America? I don't think so...

None of the above does the taxpayer understand, much less believe. Government should not expect support for it's programs without first telling the public what the **$$!! are the options. We're smart. We can figure things out. We just need some help re-explaining Free Enterprise 101 and how all this "hurry-up and bail-out " stuff is germaine to anything.
Don White
PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

Here's the smart guy's comments:
Read Robert Samuelson's report in the Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Just as expected, Democrats want to load a lot of patronizing pork onto the Bush bill to bail out Wall Street and America's Banks.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can resist the Democrats all he wants, but in the end this won't be a quick bailout. On Saturday he requested that it be "clean and quick." That is, the approval process. But Democrats don't know "clean and quick." Nothing is clean with the Dems.

They can see a lot of political hay and pork that needs harvesting with this bailout and they want their pound of flesh, contrary to the Administration that merely wants to solve the credit problem before main street business grinds to a halt and we have more Americans laid off. These businesses need bank loans to survive, and the banks need taxpayer help to survive. The people will also benefit by keeping their jobs. It's easy to see for all but the Democrats because they live in another world.

I'm an attorney and yesterday I gave the American public a legal opinion. In it I said the three-page proposed bill gives Secretary Paulson authority to set up an apparatus as he sees fit, operate the bailout as he sees fit--devoid of pork for this state and pork for that one, which is good--and to spend $700 billion dollars to get American business and jobs back on track.

Democrats have an uncanny way of twisting things. They want to sell this also as a direct bailout of ordinary people so they don't have to pay for the mortgage agreements they made. In other words, Dems would compound the problem that they created in the first place. That would really be something, wouldn't it?

But if the Democrats will just back off, that's exactly what Paulson will be empowered to do. He will solve the problem which is systemic. Democrats believe it is not a problem with the system. They don't have any idea of how the free enterprise system works. All they can see is windfall pork for them to pass around.

Paulson is going around to all the talk shows talking up the urgency that this proposal has. If it's not passed quickly, you can kiss goodbye to millions of jobs which are with employers who depend on banks for loans. But, hey, isn't that just what the Democrats want? They want more failure of the economy during the Bush administration so they can play the blame game and make people believe the Republicans caused it and don't know how to handle the problem.

See, Democrats envision a world much different than the average American. They feel that while we the taxpayers are bailing out the stupid mistakes of agreeing with Charlie Rangle and Barney Frank that America's better off half owed it to the poor to see to it that they could own a house (thus the bills they passed to lower loan standards), that there must be something in it for politicians. I pegged the blame yesterday on the liberal Democrats. The loose credit situation caused the financial crisis and those loose credit rules were the brainchild of those who spout all this racial inequality stuff (Democrats and their ilk). Somehow, they feel it their inalienable right to deny you of your money by higher taxes and to redistribute the wealth of many directly to the poor in this crisis.

The poor will benefit if the banks are bailed out. They will be able to get out from under their loans. Some may even end up owning the houses they bought, but at far better terms--but only if Democrats stand aside and leave Paulson to his work.

Paulson said Sunday that because financial markets remain under severe stress there is an urgent need for Congress to act quickly without adding other measures that could slow down passage.

Paulson said in an interview on ABC's "This Week that "We need this to be clean and to be quick,"

The secretary resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further direct relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help.

Paulson said he was concerned that debate over adding all of those proposals would slow the economy down, delaying the rescue effort that is so urgently needed to get financial markets moving again.

"The biggest help we can give the American people right now is to stabilize the financial system," Paulson said.

Then Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weighed in, saying that he believed there would be changes to the three-page Paulson plan and that agreement could be reached quickly. The more changes, the longer the bill, the better for Democrats. They like it long and complicated, so no one understands it except the politicos. Then the Dems can work their magic and squeeze out of it patronage for them. That's what this Democrat delay game is all about, and nothing more. They're always thinking, what's in it for me?

Schumer said that he was pushing to get a provision where the government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief and for creation of a government oversight board to supervise the huge operation, which under Paulson's plan would be run out of the Treasury Department. He said Paulson seemed receptive to changes when he had discussed his ideas with him. Maybe Schumer should read Title 5, section 3109. There are already provision for Congressional oversight. But it happens every three months. Americans would hate it if Democrats tied this thing up in controversy and hearings at every turn of events. Plain and simple, this is a bill to allow a highly qualified man to add money to the credit markets and to do it in an expeditious manner. Too many hands spoil the pie.

"I have told him ... we need changes related to housing, we need to put the taxpayer first ahead of bondholders, shareholders," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." This is typical Democrat talk. THE TAXPAYER IS FIRST INSTEAD OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, DUMMY.

Shareholders have lost their shirts, or hasn't Sen Schumer noticed? Taxpayers, all of us, are going to benefit if Bush's bill passes intact. We will not benefit if this thing is laboriously delayed and more and more companies go belly up due to Democrat haggling and delay. If that happens, a lot of Democrats may lose their jobs quickly--and I'm talking about November 6th.

Paulson said in the interviews that he had been talking to other governments about the need for them to offer similar relief because the current financial crisis is global.

"The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly."

The Treasury secretary said that the nation's outdated regulatory system for financial markets must be overhauled but the first job is to get the most sweeping rescue package since the Great Depression passed by Congress in coming days.

Paulson made the rounds of the television talk shows on Sunday to stress the need for speed in getting the bailout package approved. The administration was negotiating the details of the proposal with members of Congress with the expectation that it can be passed in the next week.

Paulson said that "it pains me tremendously to have the American taxpayer put in this position but it is better than the alternative."

Both Paulson and President Bush have argued that the alternative would be credit markets that remain frozen, meaning that businesses will fail because they can't get the loans they need to operate and the economy will grind to a halt because consumers won't be able to get loans to make the purchases that keep the economy moving forward.

On Saturday, Bush said the White House is ready to work with Congress to quickly enact legislation to allow the government to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad debt linked to the collapse of the housing market.

Congressional aides and administration officials were working to fill in the details of the proposal.

Don White is a former AP Newsman and President/CEO of an insurance company. He has degrees in journalism and law, and is father of 4. He is editor of 13 blogs including:

PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com  and

AngstBlogger.blogspot.com

By
Don White

September 22, 2008
Washington--An AP headline and story today, taken alone, is innocuous enough. Writer Vladimir Isachenkov tells of how Russia is supplying arms to the militant Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a tit-for-tat show of strength countering America's food and supply lifts to beleaguered Georgia.
But there is a problem. The amount of military trade with this small country is far beyond that needed to defend itself, so what's up?

Only the threat of the U.S. intervention in South and Central America has checked Chavez's imperialistic designs and confined him to his borders. But sources inside Venezuela tell us he has greater aspirations. With big brother Vlad Putin on his side, he could see his dreams come true--and his sights are set on at least out-maneuvering and influencing, if not immediately attacking, countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

With Chavez-friendly Ecuador on one side of pro-American Columbia and his own country on the other, it would not be a difficult task to overcome Columbia even before the U.S. had time to react. If not Columbia first, it could attack Panama and take over the canal, allowing only tankers with Russian oil to pass.

We haven't done anything to oust Russia from Georgia, and Chavez counting on that to be a signal that the U.S. is too preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan to pose a threat to his imperialistic moves.

Russia has been providing Chavez arms since 2005 with $4 billion in fighter jets, helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles to mount a war of aggression.

In addition, Hugo Chavez will travel to Russia later this week to enter into discussions on many subjects: First, how to keep America at bay; second, which weak Latin American nation now friendly to the the U.S. could Chavez attack and occupy? And third, he needs Putin's blessing to show him how he can use the oil card to change the balance of power in the Americas and further weaken America? Both he and Putin understand that oil is America's achilles heel.

A Russian navy squadron set off for Venezuela Monday, an official said, in a deployment of Russian military power to the Western Hemisphere. If this doesn't excite anyone else, he scares me. This move is unprecedented since the Cold War.

In his AP story today, Vladimir Isachenkov said the Kremlin recently has moved to intensify contacts with Venezuela, Cuba and other Latin American nations amid increasingly strained relations with Washington after last month's war between Russia and Georgia. During the Cold War, Latin America became an ideological battleground between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Russian navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the nuclear-powered Peter the Great cruiser accompanied by three other ships sailed from the Northern Fleet's base of Severomorsk on Monday. The ships will cover about 15,000 nautical miles to conduct joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy, he told The Associated Press.

The deployment follows a week-long visit to Venezuela by a pair of Russian strategic bombers and comes as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — an unbridled critic of U.S. foreign policy who has close ties with Moscow — plans to visit Moscow this week. It will be Chavez's second trip to Russia in about two months.

The intensifying contacts with Venezuela appear to be a response to the U.S. dispatch of warships to deliver aid to Georgia which angered the Kremlin. But the Kremlin's chain needs rattling.

So. . .they are upset because the world, led by America, is up in arms about their recent takeover of a sovereign nation? They shouldn't be. If Russia expects to work well with the West it must never, never again attack and take over a sovereign nation. But we all know this is just the first step in an aggressive war plan Putin and Medvedev have put into action.

On August 13, 2008, just five days after the start of the Georgian War, I wrote a story about Putin in my blog Political Disconnect, satirizing his imperialistic ways. Part of the headline said: "I Can Haz Georgia?" Thereafter, he stayed in Georgia after attacking a much smaller, less well equipped nation and now, for all intents and purposes, he "Haz" Georgia as the West sits idly by doing almost nothing.

Chavez said in an interview with Russian television broadcast Sunday that Latin America needs a strong friendship with Russia to help reduce U.S. influence and keep peace in the region. "Keeping peace" is a code word for attack. That's exactly what Putin said he was doing when he went into Georgia--keeping peace between South Ossetia, a province of Georgia, and Georgia. But what business does he have keeping peace in Georgia? Next, he will want to "keep peace" in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Baltic states, European Union, NATO, and the U.S., beware!

In separate comments on his Sunday TV and radio program, Chavez joked that he will be making his international tour to Russia and other countries this week aboard the "super-bombers that Medvedev loaned me," a reference to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. "Gentlemen of the CIA, to be clear, I'm joking," Chavez said with a laugh.

No he isn't! Chavez has repeatedly warned that the U.S. Navy poses a threat to Venezuela.

Russia has signed weapons contracts worth more than $4 billion with Venezuela since 2005 to supply fighter jets, helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. Chavez's government is in talks to buy Russian submarines, air defense systems and armored vehicles and more Sukhoi fighter jets.

Russian and Venezuelan leaders also have talked about boosting cooperation in the energy sphere to create what Chavez has called "a new strategic energy alliance."

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who visited Venezuela last week, announced that five of Russia's biggest oil companies are looking to form a consortium to increase Latin American operations and to build a $6.5 billion refinery to process Venezuela's tar-like heavy crude. Such an investment could help Venezuela, the world's ninth-biggest oil producer, wean itself from the U.S. refineries on which it depends to process much of its crude.

Sechin warned the United States that it should not view Latin America as its own backyard. "It would be wrong to talk about one nation having exclusive rights to this zone," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday

The Financial Fish Weren't Biting Sunday
September 15, 2008
New York--We said it yesterday--no one should chase bad money with good.
That seemed to be the consensus of the financial markets over the weekend, as all the possible suitors for Lehman Brothers' $60 billion in tangled and messy real estate holdings dropped by the wayside, leaving the large 158-year-old international investment bank filing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Two thousand New York employees cleaned out their desks and were gone. How do I interpret it? For America as a whole it's a good and logical end to only part of a very sad story, but it had to happen. Observers believe there will be 110 banks fail during the next nine months. Will yours be one of them?

The International Monetary Fund predicted earlier this year that total losses from the credit crisis could reach almost $1 trillion. So far, banks have only taken about $350 billion in losses.

Commercial banks are also starting to feel the pinch. Eleven have closed so far this year, including Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac Bank, which had $32 billion in assets and $19 billion in deposits. There is talk on the street that Wachovia and Washington Mutual are in deep trouble and now, understandably, they can't attract new accounts from a very worried public.

The problem with these firms isn't necessarily the firms themselves, but the loose supervision of banks by the Fed and other regulators. Some of them got into the practice of running what resemble kiting operations and the regulators looked the other way. Kiting is where you take from Peter to pay Paul and that's illegal.

Reserves are the problem. How much money should a bank have on hand to make a loan? That's decided by the regulators, so if you want to lay some blame on someone look at the regulators and Congress for failing to insist on tighter regs.

Maybe we, the people, should shake up Congress. Fire all the old ones and insist on new blood in Washington.That's basically what I'm going to do this fall--vote out the incumbents who have been there way too long. Look at Joe Biden with his 36 years, Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch with a like number of years. Even John McCain has been there 24 years and now he wants to be president.

From my vantage point, there is only one candidate who fits the "new" description and her name is Sarah Palin who is the vice presidential candidate on the John McCain ticket. She is currently attracting a lot of American attention and as a result has supercharged McCain's chances.

Back to the banks: Because they could, banks got into the habit of using money from current accounts, especially new ones, to fund questionable loans. Using this method of banking, someday when these banks couldn't get new business the domino effect was sure to occur. That "someday" is now.

The only advice I could offer the average American is to make sure your bank is Federally insured and that you have no more than $100,000 in each account--the amount the FDIC promises to repay if the bank goes under.

Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, a research firm, predicts that approximately 110 banks with $850 billion in assets could close by next July. That's out of 8,400 federally insured institutions, he said, which together hold $13 trillion in assets.

Bank of America Corp. is buying Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. in an $50 billion all-stock transaction.

The world's biggest insurer, American International Group, is also in trouble. It is restructuring, meaning it basically can't operate as it has in the past and must lay down greater reserves for a rainy day. AIG hit hard by deterioration in the credit markets, said Sunday it is reviewing its operations and discussing possible options with outside parties to improve its business after a week when its stock dropped 45 percent amid concerns about the company's financial underpinnings. It was working with New York Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo and a representative of the governor's office through the weekend to craft a solution that protects policyholders, according to Dinallo's spokesman David Neustadt.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Let Lehman Brothers Fail

What really happened Last Week In Real Estate News?

Jim Stewart of the Wall Street Journal wrote an intelligent article entitled "Bailout Is No Quick Fix For Housing-Market Woes."

MY WARNING TO POLITICIANS: Quit promising to pay for everthing under the moon with my pocketbook!!!

What else could Stewart say? What can anyone say about Secretary Hank Paulson's action in taking down two corrupt companies last week? When I say corrupt, sure they had a lot of good things going for them too. Freddie and Fannie for years were able to prop up our nation's housing industry.

Stewart says you can't please everyone. Some actions are just necessary and sometimes you have to stop worrying who you're going to step on and who will be helped. That was the kind of thing going through the secretary's head, I'm sure. Sure it was! There are too many conflicting constituencies out there. But the only real constituent is the American taxpayer and this group was left to fend for themselves and will end up paying for this nationalization of two businesses which were led to believe that the government would protect them and everyone at all costs.

When will people learn that the government is we the people. The money to do anything of this nature must come from somewhere and it sure doesn't come out of the personal pockets of the managers and directors of two almost defunct companies. Though I must say, these companies' stockholders have lost millions of dollars because of mismanagement. It's a scene of corruption all up and down the line and needs to be put in perspective.

First, the stockholders who were led to believe that they could invest in Fannie and Freddie almost with impunity. That is, that it was a sure thing, and why wouldn't it be a great play? Put your money to work in an industry that hasn't lost money forever. Plus the government ensures the viability of these two firms. I was almost tempted when I saw their stocks had plummeted clear down to a buck a share.

But the secretary did not go far enough. I don't think he has communicated very well his intentions. He intends to break up these companies into several parts--allowing private enterprise--real private enterprise this time--to take on the risks the taxpayer bore before and future bailouts of stupid management. Isn't it ironic. We the taxpayers bear all the risk of two failing companies, but we never once got paid one cent of stock dividends. Why does this bailout remind me of illegal patromony?

RISE UP AND PROTEST, TAXPAYERS. There's no written law stating that we must cough it up each time some president and his secretary tells us do do so!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the most confiscatory idea ever and it's got to stop!!!!!!!!!!

I'm pretty liberal with my criticism of Freddie and Fannie because they got sucked up in this housing boom of the 2005s and 2004s where everything was rosy, house prices escalating, nothing to worry about in the sub-prime arena. Next time under new management they who take over the reigns of buying housing loans in America should know this: The government will not bail you out if you run your companies into the ground. I repeat: No more bailouts at taxpayer expense.

Confine your purchases of paper to A-grade stuff, and leave the sub-prime market entirely alone to fend for itself until there isn't a sub-prime market.

We the taxpayer do not owe the blessing of home ownership to those who can't afford housing. That is my view and the view of most Republicans. Unbeknown to most voters is the fact that this is not Obama's view. He will "cling" to his mantra that the government should continue to insure all Americans' housing decisions, good or bad. He's a socialist and he intends to run our private enterprise system into the ground.

But I say if the deals aren't golden, if you vote for Obama you are voting for more of this crap. Pardon the French. Obama will continue to bail out the banks, mortgage companies, and, yes, even the Freddies and Fannies that backsytop the whole mess. He will stand on his forceful and fluent expression, his eloquent soap box, railing that we should not abandon the sub-prime people. EVER!

Well, the truth this one last time we have no choice. We will all get stuck for bailing out the system. But in the future we must abandon all sub-prime notions. Americans just can't keep on guaranting dishonesty in housing, and that's what it is when a person signs an agreement that he doens't intend to, or cannot, perform.

When I said Freddie and Fannie managers were corrupt I meant it. It was they who funded all those Democrat slush funds, money all of us paid for in taxes, and now will pay for again. Money that should have been available for Freddie and Fannie to bail themselves out. Shame on you Obama. Shame on you Biden. You're part of the problem, not the solution!

These bailouts, starting with Bear Sterns and on and on, are driving retirees like me to the poor house. And it's really the sub-prime people who abandoned us with their decision to take on more debt than they were capable of handling?

Stewart said "I wish I felt like joining the party that sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average up nearly 300 points on Monday on news of the Treasury plan to put mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a "conservatorship." I say I'm glad I didn't!

Maybe the only good coming out of Secretary Paulson's action is for a constituency we don't often think about. It's good news only in contrast to letting the companies flounder and setting off a global financial crisis. That's the constituency of people throughout the world, world opinion, foreign countries that depend on America, and so forth.

I like one part of Paulson's announcement. He said the companies will no longer be managed as though they had a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

So in whose interests will they be managed? Not those of the taxpayers, who are on the hook for billions in losses?

Is it in the banks' interest--those who need Fannie and Freddie to keep buying mortgage securities?

Or is it in the interest of the real-estate agents and home builders, who want the companies to prop up real-estate values?

It is certainly in the interest of the affordable-housing advocates, who want easier lending and underwriting policies so more people can own homes.

The truth is this: Fannie and Freddie were operated unprofitably, and that's why they had to be placed into conservatorship. But if that's true, so were the banks and mortgage companies. Yes, and we're seeing the fallout of that with banks and mortgage firms like Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and others ready to topple and investment banker Lehman Brothers in like trouble. The whole system was one big mess. And don't discount the people who thought they were buying good-deal houses whose values would continue to rise into infinity. Dream on, American public. But now come back to reality because those kinds of fairy tales are only told in Disneyland.

One good thing: The housing recession can't last forever. Alan Greenspan--where have we heard that name before?--predicts that late this year or early next year housing prices will stabilize. Then, maybe then, as with all things that come down maybe the prices will gradually--in a sane manner--inch upward so that people who want to sell their houses can do so and still make enough to pay their closing costs, agent's commission, and make buck in addition...or maybe not.

By Don White of PoliticalDisconnect.blogspot.com

Some bloggers said during the Russian-Georgian War that it was "difficult to figure out precisely what's happening.

Before the war Lili Di Puppo failed to get all the scoop from a Georgian official, but reported enough to draw the right conclusion as evidenced by her headline: What is Happening in Georgia is a Clear Attempt to Redesign Eastern Europe.

Before the war she conducted an interview with Temur Iakobashvili, Georgia's  State Minister  For  Issues  For Reintegration which we reprint here:

You declared in Brussels that the risk of war with Russia is close. Was this declaration intended as a wake-up call for the European Union or is the Georgian government genuinely considering military action?

I made a longer statement...in which I provided rationale to explain why I think we are close to war. The information I gave is that we know Russia's behavior very well. We are enormously alarmed when we see anti-Georgian propaganda in the Russian media, when we see not only talk, but also very active actions from the Russian side such as illegally moving troops to Georgian territory and violating all sorts of agreements. For example, I do not know since when paratroopers are considered peacekeepers...

Russians refer to an agreement allowing them to have a certain number of peacekeepers on Abkhaz territory...

Yes, it is true that they have an opportunity to increase the number of peacekeeping troops to 3,000, but the first question is what sort of troops? Second, there is a procedure on how this troop increse should happen. Third, the equipment Russians can have is limited and none of the documents talk about having artillery. When we see Russian offensive forces entering Georgian territory, it is a violation of all possible agreements. We see anti-Georgian propaganda in media, we see that these troops were deployed based on false information such as Georgia having increased its troops in the Kodori valley. It is not true and this information has been verified by the UN agencies. Of course, it is very alarming.

Is the Georgian government considering military action in response to these moves?

No, the Georgian government is not considering military action in response to these Russian deeds. We showed our restraint, we will continue to show our restraint and we still have a lot of opportunities to avert war. In this regard, important steps should be taken not only in Georgia, but also outside of Georgia, particularly by Europe.

What were the outcomes of your discussions in Brussels? What concrete steps does Georgia expect from the EU?

These steps are under discussion. Generally, the most important thing now is to avert war and second to think about new forms of negotiations and new formats for negotiations. The EU has already endorsed President Saakashvili's new peace plan, but we have to see more concrete developments. We believe that it would be very important to deploy another type of ground operation other than Russian peacekeepers. We have several ideas. All of them are under discussion and we will see which ones prevail.

Why do you think it is in the EU's interest to support Georgia?

It is the EU's job to support Georgia because we are talking about the European Neighborhood Policy, the European Energy Security Policy and all other policies that are important for the EU. In this regard, what is happening in Georgia is a clear attempt by Russia to redesign Eastern Europe. This is why I think the EU cannot remain neutral on the sidelines.

At the same time because of energy interests, the EU refrains from adopting a confrontational position toward Russia...

They do not have to confront Russia. They just have to avert Russia's irresponsible actions.

Do you see a link between Russian actions in Abkhazia and he fact that Georgia was not granted a NATO Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest Summit?

It is a combination of different factors. The question was not only concerning Georgia's NATO membership, but also Kosovo, domestic Russian policy and definitely issues related to Georgia's realistic peace plans with regards to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The combination of these factors is bringing about the Russian behaviour we are facing today.

Do you see the new Saakashvili peace plan as a good basis for negotiations even if the Abkhaz side does not see it this way?

I do not think the Abkhaz side does not see it this way; I think the peace plan has elements that were elaborated together with the Abkhaz side over the past eight years at least. So there is an Abkhaz ownership there and in these circumstances we have to find other negotiating formats besides the UN's Group of Friends, where the Abkhaz can and should participate.

Since the August 8, 2008 Georgian-Russian War, here's where we stand:

Frederick Kagan has posted regular updates and the following includes some of his analysis:

• Russia has announced a unilateral cease fire because its operations have achieved their aims.
• Russia's President Dimetry Medeved and France's Nicolas Sarkozy have drafted a document that encapsulates all of Russia's demands in return for a ceasefire--but not a final settlement, which must still be negotiated. [The so-called "final settlement" has not even been drafted, but a settlement was signed by both men and by Georgia's Saakashvili--an agreement which Russia has already broken. Current Russian leaders are masters of deceit and should be jailed.] Sarkozy has come under fire in the West for drafting such a poor document. He brokered a deal, and Condi Rice participated in that and convinced Saakashvili to sign it. The imperfect deal which Russia is taking advantage of reuires all parties to go back to the positions they had before he war, which Russia has repeatedly violated. In addition, Russia has voted to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia--against U.S. objections--as independent countries, which is an illegal move. Russian troops, not peacekeeprs, are stationed in those provinces which are leglly still part of Georgia. In addition, Russia has brought in missiles and launchers aimed at Tblisi, which is another violation of the Russian treaties and a provacitive act that must be rebuked, challenged, and countered, since force or threat of force is all Russia understands. I suggested long ago that the Georgia receive missiles from the U.S. and point them at Moscow. Then you have something to negotiate. Before that, you just have a bully getting what he wants.]

The situation is that there are two unilateral ceasefires, although the Georgians claim that Russian forces continue their attacks, and the Russian military has laid the predicate for those and further attacks in public statements. They have also made plain that if a formal ceasefire is not reached, Russian forces will not withdraw from South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

• The Russian military has clearly stated that the objective of its operations was to reduce Georgia's overall military capability so that Georgia could not again conduct an operation similar to the one it launched in South Ossetia, and for that reason has been attacking targets throughout Georgia.
• Russian leaders say they will not deal with Saakashvili. [They won't get that chance. Saakashvili has severed Georgia's diplomatic ties with Russia and is operating through a third party.]
• The Russian Attorney General has announced that Russian law permits the trial of Saakashvili for crimes under the Russian Federation Criminal Code. [Yet it is Russia that invaded a sovereign nation, killing innocent people, displacing 160,000 Georgians from their homes, a people who had lived for centuries in South Ossetia were evicted from their homes and property confiscated by the Ossetians with big brother backing them up.] Russia is taking a huge gamble because who is to say Georgia may not do as the Baltic States, secede from the Russian federation. There were originally 11 countries, and now there are 8. There is no rule that says a country can't leave this commonwealth of nations. Maybe all of them should secede, completely isolating Russia.
  
• The Russian Foreign Minister has called for an investigation of so-called Georgian war crimes and the punishment of those ultimately responsible by international tribunals, and has said that Russian citizens victimized by Georgians will be bringing individual actions in appropriate European human rights courts.
• The Russian aim is to force Saakashvili from power, preferably using international legal maneuvers (ala Milosevic), but possibly using Russian law instead or in addition.
• The Russians are maintaining their excessive forces in South Ossetia, and continuing to control Georgia's airspace and conduct periodic attacks in a flagrant effort to compel an immediate Georgian agreement to their armistice terms, conveyed by Sarkozy.
• Russia will not permit South Ossetia and Abkhazia to return to Georgian control, and will move one way or the other to have their independence recognized, and probably soon. Recently, the Russian Parliament voted to recognize these provinces as real countries.
  

Meanwhile, the U.S., NATO, the EU and the United Nations sit on their hands doing nothing. (The reason NATO does nothing is clear--they refused Georgia membership and, thus, they feel no responsibility. In the UN Russia holds veto power.

In the EU, Russia also holds veto power--though they aren't a member. It is an economic trump card called oil. If the EU isn't careful, their winter oil from Russia could be shut down. This is one of the tragedies of this war while the superpower, America, appears to be doing little to marshal forces behind the tiny 7.5-million-population nation of Georgia (of which 2.5 million are Russians). If this is how we in the west deal with these kinds of Russian excesses, aren't we sending a sour message. Isn't this man-made unresponded-to crisis a green light to Messrs Putin and Medvedev to try the same thing in  Ukraine where the dynamics are much different? There you have a NATO country of 60 million that might just turn the former Soviet military on its ear.

When will someone stand up and shout, STOP! Will it be after Russia has taken the tiny independent Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?