Wednesday, 17 September 2008


Ken Berwitz

Readers of this blog know that I have said the attacks on Sarah Palin are the most immediate and intense I have ever seen for any political figure in my lifetime, and that Ms. Palin connects with people in ways that the beltway and media elite will never understand.

I am delighted that Jeff Jacoby shares these feelings (and relieved too - I don't like to disagree with Jeff, he's too smart to be wrong very often).  His latest column deals with the issues cited above and, as per usual with a Jeff Jacoby column, is written beautifully.

Here it is:


By Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe


Wednesday, September 17, 2008 


     In politics, cheap shots and invective are occupational hazards. But when have we seen anything to match the frenzy of rage and contempt set off by the nomination of Sarah Palin?


     Virtually from the moment John McCain selected her, Palin has been under assault. There has been legitimate criticism, of course. But there has also been a gusher of slander, much of it -- like the slur that she isn't the real mother of her infant son, Trig -- despicable.


     For someone who has been in the national spotlight for only three weeks, Palin has been the victim of an astonishing array of falsehoods. Voters have been told that she slashed funding in Alaska for special-needs children. That she tried to ban books from Wasilla's public library. That shes a supporter of Jews for Jesus. That she was a member of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party. That she links Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. That she backed Pat Buchanan for president. That she doesn't want students taught about contraception. That she called the war in Iraq "a task from God." All untrue.


     Hillary Clinton's supporters complain that coverage of her campaign was tainted by sexism, such as the Washington Post story that focused on her cleavage, or Mike Barnicle's description of her on MSNBC as "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court."


     Obama too has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous comment -- the Fox News segment that captioned a picture of his wife "Obama's Baby Mama," for example, and the infamous New Yorker cover showing the Obamas as terrorists in the Oval Office.


     But the left's onslaught against Palin has been of a different order of magnitude altogether.


     "Ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread," columnist Cintra Wilson wrote in Salon. Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."


     On the website of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, commentator Heather Mallick was even cruder. Palin appeals to "the white trash vote" with her "toned-down version of the porn actress look," Mallick wrote. "Husband Todd looks like a roughneck. What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a [bleeping] redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?"


     From radio talk-show host Randi Rhodes came the smutty suggestion that the governor of Alaska has an unhealthy interest in teenage boys: "She's friends with all the teenage boys," Rhodes told her audience last week. "You have to say no when your kids say, 'Can we sleep over at the Palins?' No! No!"


     Eve Ensler, the playwright best known for The Vagina Monologues, described her Sarah Palin nightmares for the Huffington Post. She recalled how Republican delegates chanted Drill, drill, drill! when Palin called for more oil exploration in her speech at the St. Paul convention. I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. . . . I think of pain.


     The smears and sneers have been without end. One liberal congressman likened Obama to Jesus -- and Palin to Pontius Pilate. A Democratic state chairman declared scornfully that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." A University of Chicago professor seethed: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."


     The national media, meanwhile, have only further eroded what remained of their reputation for objectivity.


     For months they refused to mention the infidelity of John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, yet they leaped with relish onto Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Ravenous for any negative morsel on the GOP running mate, they deployed legions of reporters to Alaska, who have produced such journalism as the 3,220-word expos in Sunday's New York Times that upon winning office, Palin -- gasp! -- fired opponents and hired people she trusted. The same can be said of virtually every governor in the union. What cannot be said of most governors is that they enjoy an 80 percent approval rating. Palin does -- but the Times relegated that information to the 67th paragraph of its story.


     And yet the more she has been attacked, the more her support has solidified. In the latest Fox News/Opinion dynamics poll, Palin's favorable/unfavorable ratio is a strong 54-27. She is named by 33 percent of respondents as the candidate who "best understands the problems of everyday life," more than those naming Obama (32 percent), McCain (17), or Joe Biden (10). Among independent voters, Palin's lead over Obama on this measure widens to 13 points (35 percent to 22 percent). In a recent Rasmussen poll, 51 percent of voters said the press is trying to hurt Palin through its coverage, versus just 5 percent who thought it was trying to help -- a 10-1 disparity.


      A new Suffolk University poll of voters in Ohio -- a crucial swing state -- echoes those results. Asked which of the four candidates is most like you, 31 percent named Palin, followed by Obama (22 percent), McCain (21 percent), and Biden (13 percent). Among Ohio independents, only 6 percent think Palin has been treated fairly.


     Millions of Americans, not all of them conservative, instinctively identify with Palin. That is why the left's scorching assault, so ugly and unhinged, is backfiring. The longer it goes on, the more it undermines the Democratic ticket -- and the more support it builds for McCain, and his refreshingly normal running mate.

Bingo.  This is dead on target, a perfect bullseye.

And the more they attack her this way, the more votes for McCain/Palin at the expense of Obama/Biden.  Votes that, I suspect, that will be irretrievable.

But, like lemmings running to the sea, these people do not know how to stop.  They are so sneeringly dismissive of Ms. Palin and so invested in insults and attacks instead of reasoned arguments that it just keeps coming out of them.

Maybe the voters will teach these folks a lesson on November 4th -- one that they won't be able to blame on hanging chads or voting machines.  I hope so.


Ken Berwitz

I would lie if I told you it surprises me that a hate-filled left wing group has hacked into Sarah Palin's private e-mail and blogged identity information about her and her family.  Michelle Malkin will tell you all about it:

Lead Story

Sarah Palins private e-mail hacked, family photos raided; cesspool blog gloats; feds investigate

By Michelle Malkin    September 17, 2008 02:59 PM

Scroll for updatesWired News confirmsMcCain camp responds: This is a shocking invasion of the Governors privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them. We will have no further commentthe feds are investigating

Sometime early this morning, between approximately 3:00am - 4:00am, members of an infamous group of hackers broke into Gov. Sarah Palins private Yahoo e-mail account. The incriminating discussion threads included screenshots of Palins e-mail and private e-mail addresses of her contacts. The threads have since been deleted.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleagues e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palins private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine see here for all the background you need has posted private family photos of Palins children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palins illegally obtained private cell phone number from her moms private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.

They have reprinted her husband Todds private e-mail address and son Tracks private e-mail address.

You think this is just a harmless prank? Those of you who have had to deal with break-ins and identity theft know exactly what a burdensome process it is to recover from crimes like this.

Gawker knowingly and deliberately published illegally obtained photos of the Palin children.

Where are the privacy absolutists now?

You think Palin Derangement Syndrome is bad now? These by-any-means-necessary lunatics are just warming up.

Let me repeat what I said about Nick Denton and his slime businesses in 2006. Its every bit as relevant now. And I expect the same cowards who said nothing then to remain silent about the violations of the Palin familys privacy now:

There is a time to be tolerant and there is a time to draw lines. If you dont draw those lines, bullies will be emboldened. The smug Gawker smear machine is all about pushing those boundaries with the expectation that no one will push back. They project their own cynicism, recklessness with facts, intellectual laziness, and bad faith on everyone else.

But outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles, not all of us think blogging is a for-profit enterprise founded solely to tear people down with gossip, rumor-mongering, and damaging lies disguised as satire. Funny how some of the loudest voices decrying the lack of civility in the blogosphere are the biggest promoters of the bottom-feeders and debasers at Gawker Media.

Bastards. Bastards all.

Michelle calls these people bastards.  She's understating.

These people play by no rules.  They don't care who they hurt.  Republicans are not human beings to them so it doesn't matter.

I hope the people responsible for this are prosecuted and jailed. 


Ken Berwitz

Max Bialystock, the dissolute blowhard Broadway has-been in The Producers, said "When you've got it, flaunt it"

Apparently Barack Obama has taken on a different version of this philosophy.  "When you haven't got it, invent it".

Jake Tapper of ABC news, who impresses me more and more every day because he goes after both sides, not just Republicans, provides the specifics below:

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.

Obama Inflates Role in Creation of Stimulus Package

September 16, 2008 7:04 PM

In Golden, Colo., today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., took credit for the stimulus package that passed earlier this year.

"In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy," Obama said, "which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."

Is that true?

Democrats on Capitol Hill who support Obama say no.

Wanting Obama to win, however, none will say so on the record.

But media accounts from the time make it clear that even though Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., all offered legislation to provide stimulus to the economy, congressional leaders looped them and their legislation out of negotiations.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson worked with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kent.

"Pelosi and Reid seemed to be ignoring the detailed policy solutions being put out by her party's White House hopefuls," wrote the Washington Post on January 23.

"Among Reid's toughest tasks will be keeping Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. who are on the campaign trail touting proposals laden with ideas Republicans detest sidelined in the talks while Democrats seek broader agreement with the GOP," wrote the Associated Press the same day.

The bill passed 81-16 on February 7, 2008.

The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."

That is true.

Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clintons approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies.

But though the bill that eventually passed more closely resembled Obama's than either Clinton's or McCain's, those involved in the drafting of the legislation say it was more a matter of agreeing on a good idea and was not a matter of, as Obama claimed, his proposal having "formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."

In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. Thats news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didnt even show up to vote."

That's true. (McCain was there, and he voted for it.)

Moreover, Obama today was guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.

Barack Obama has a paper-thin rsum that in no way qualifies him to be President of the United States.  He can't admit to this because it would be political suicide.  And he can't leave voters to see him as he is.

So he invents.  He inflates.  He exaggerates.  He tries to convince you there is a level of substance to him that does not exist.

The question is, which mainstream news sources out there other than Mr. Tapper are going to educate you about Mr. Obama's fraudulent "accomplishments"?  I hope you're not counting on the network news on ABC, NBC or CBS.  And I certainly hope you aren't waiting for the New York Times to do a piece on it.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

is so thin you can


Ken Berwitz

My sister Barbara just sent me the following clip from, which is an invaluable web site that monitors some of the utter lunacy emanating from radical Islamic sources.

The clip shows a TV show in Saudi Arabia, in which an apparently respected Muslim "cleric", advocates killing all mice - including Mickey Mouse!! 




This is why we fight.  We fight for the freedom to live under western culture instead of shari'a law, so that people like this do not run every facet of our lives.

Is the fight worth it?  That's for you to decide.


Ken Berwitz

During her time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin asked a librarian how books could be banned - i.e. the procedure that would be used.

Let's be clear here.  She did not ask that any books be banned at that time or any other time during two full terms as mayor.  She asked how it was done.

This has caused a severe case of apoplexy among the left, especially the Obamanite left.  They either mistakenly believe Ms. Palin had books banned, mistakenly believe Ms. Palin demanded they be banned and fired the librarian for not doing so (the librarian was not fired) or know the truth and are just lying about it in the hope of procuring some votes for Mr. Obama.

In any event, Michelle Malkin (not Obama) has written an excellent piece about this, which I saw in the New York Post.  She shows just how selective this outrage is and how unproblematic book censorship is to these people when the book in question disagrees with their political positions.

It is well worth reading.  So I'm posting it below:



September 17, 2008 --

EVER heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected jihadists the way they talk of suspected GOP "book-banners"? The 9/11 attacks didn't turn celebrity leftists into hawks. But the minute they started reading false rumors about Sarah Palin restricting access to "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" in her hometown library, Tinseltown's doves became militant warmongers.

Matt Damon, parroting Internet lies about Palin's censoring novels while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, took a defiant stand against the "terrifying possibility" of a McCain-Palin victory. "We can't have" book-banning, he inveighed.

Feminist playwright Eve Ensler ("The Vagina Monologues") seethed in a mass e-mail that Palin "has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference."

Classic projection. Damon, Ensler and the anti-censorship crusaders are the ones who can't tolerate independence, ambiguity and difference. The rumormongers keep spreading a bogus banned-book list attributed to Palin that includes books not even published when she was mayor. No city records corroborate reports that she tried to keep any books off government-funded library shelves available to children.

And even if she did inquire about the process, so what? Regulating age-appropriate content is only alarming to the civil-liberties extremists who oppose reasonable filtering of sexually explicit material in public spaces.

If book-banning is such a life-and-death issue to these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to withdraw "Unfit for Command" from bookstores?

Where were they when members of the Borders Books Employee Union openly advocated sabotaging book sales? A message on the union's members-only Web site urged: "You guys don't actually HAVE to sell the thing!

"Just 'carelessly' hide the boxes, 'accidentally' drop them off pallets, 'forget' to stock the ones you have and then suggest a nice Al Franken or Michael Moore book as a substitute."

Where were they when left-wing hitman David Brock of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon and Barnes & Noble urging them to pull "Unfit for Command"?

Where were they two years ago when two New Jersey Democrats, Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, called on merchants to ban the sale of Ann Coulter's book "Godless" because of her remarks about anti-Bush 9/11 widows? "

Where were they in 2005, when University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller called on his blog readers to get one of my books banned from a bookstore?

Where were they when J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins' "Alms for Jihad" was banned in Britain; Robert Spencer's "The Truth about Muhammad" was banned in Pakistan; and "The Jewel of Madina" was banned, well, everywhere?

And where are they now? Concocting horror stories about terrifying Christian bogeymen who threaten peace, tolerance, independent thought and difference. Patting themselves and each other on the backs as the valiant protectors of dissent. (But only the kind with which they agree, of course. Shhhhh.)

This is the same mindset as our wonderful, neutral media - who are spending endless hours trying to ferret out anything they can use against Ms. Palin while ignoring the U. of Chicago's release of the Annenberg Challenge documents, which prove Barack Obama lied to our faces about his involvement with william ayers.  The common bond is looking the other way for Democrats while witch-hunting Republicans.

I wonder if they talked about any of this at the $28,500 a person Obama-fest in Hollywood last night.  Maybe Barbra Streisand mentioned it between songs.


Ken Berwitz

I nominate this ad as the single most depraved of them all (so far) for 2008.

The "Democratic Senatorial Committee" in Minnesota found a nice looking couple whose son died fighting in Iraq.  These folks are understandably disconsolate over their loss and very bitter about it as well.  In short, they are ripe for exploitation. 

And exploited they were.  Watch the ad below and see for yourself (if you have trouble viewing it, click here):

How much  more disgusting can this get?  We have a VOLUNTEER ARMY.  Major Anderson joined that army of his own volition, knowing full well that he might be called upon to fight in a war. 

To take his parents, who are clearly devastated by his loss, and exploit them in this way, is wrong.  It is more than wrong, it is vile beyond words.

And to somehow tie Norm Coleman to their son's death does the near-impossible and makes it even more vile. 

I can only hope that Al Franken, who is supposed to be the beneficiary of this creep show, loses votes because of it.  A lot of them.


Ken Berwitz

Now that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have gone blooey, Democrats are angrily pinning the blame on Republicans in general and John McCain in particular.

Do they have a point? 

No they do not.  The truth is exactly opposite of what they are claiming.  And here is the proof, via a great research job by Steve Gilbert of

Bush, McCain Tried To Reform Freddie Mac

September 17th, 2008

First, from a disapproving New York Times:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae


September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administrations proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administrations proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises, Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator, he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administrations package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the companys mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Maes chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

We welcome the administrations approach outlined today, Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the companys 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a responsible proposal.

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied, said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddies operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

I dont see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing, Mr. Watt said.

And three years later, from the Congressional Record:


The United States Senate

May 25, 2006

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Maes regulator reported that the companys quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the companys senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversights report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Maes former chief executive officer, OFHEOs report shows that over half of Mr. Raines compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulators examination of the companys accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Macknown as Government-sponsored entities or GSEsand the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEOs report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEOs report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Alas, thanks to the Democrat Party and the special interests of the left, both of these attempts to reform the banking system were still born.

But isnt it funny how our watchdog media have missed these two stories?

Now that you've seen the proof, let's think about Steve's question:  If HE can research this and come up with this information, how come mainstream media can't do more than just dutifully barf out what Democrats tell them to say?

How come the TIMES can't find IT'S OWN ARTICLE?

Was it that hard for media to check the congressional record?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!