I link to this article not for the substance of what it says, which is something that most Rantburgers probably already knew, but because here you have CNN actually doing some reporting about Obama for a change. Yes, kids, they actually ran a story which was not a word-for-word recycling of an Obama press release, a story that undercuts Obama's mythology, a story that reveals him to be something other than the mystical messiah of hope and change, sweeping in on his magic unicorn to give us all free ice cream.
There's hope.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/24/2008 13:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I KNOW Sarah Palin, and so does my wife. Neither of us ever actually met the governor of Alaska, but we grew up with her - in the small-town America despised by the leftwing elite. One gal-pal classmate of my wife's has even traveled from New York's Finger Lakes to Alaska to hunt moose with her husband. (Got one, too.)
And no, Ms. Streisand, she isn't a redneck missing half her teeth - she's a lawyer. The sneering elites and their mediacrat fellow travelers just don't get it: How on earth could anyone vote for someone who didn't attend an Ivy League school? And having more than 1.7 children marks any woman as a rube. (If Palin had any taste, her teenage daughter would've had a quiet abortion in a discreet facility.) And what kind of retro-Barbie would stay happily married to her high-school sweetheart? Ugh. She even kills animals and eats them. (The meat and fish served in the upscale bistros patronized by Obama supporters appears by magic - it didn't really come from living things. . .)
Palin has that hick accent, too. And that busy-mom beehive 'do. Double ugh! Bet she hasn't even read Ian McEwan's latest novel and can't explain Frank Gehry's vision for a new architecture. She and her blue-collar (triple ugh!) husband don't even own a McMansion, let alone an inherited family compound on the Cape. And she wants to be vice president?
The opinion-maker elites see Sarah Palin clearly every time they look up from another sneering article in The New Yorker: She's a country-bumpkin chumpette from a hick state with low latte availability. She's not one of them and never will be. That's the real disqualifier in this race. Now let me tell you what those postmodern bigots with their multiple vacation homes and their disappointing trust-fund kids don't see: Sarah
Palin's one of us. She actually represents the American people.
When The New York Times, CNN, the NBC basket of basket cases and all the barking blog dogs insult Palin, they're insulting us. When they smear her, they're smearing every American who actually works for a living, who doesn't expect a handout, who doesn't have a full-time accountant to parse the family taxes, who believes in the Pledge of Allegiance and who thinks a church is more than just a tedious stop on daughter Emily's 100K wedding day.
The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.
While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)
And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.
Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."
I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.
To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.
The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.
More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.
But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.
But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.
Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.
The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.
Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."
That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.
The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.
#3
Note that Hussein has received the largest graft payments from these clowns over the past 2 years. Followed by Hillarity. Of course, over a ten year period, good ole Chris Dodd has been taking the most money from them. Bought & paid for. Acorn, the criminal activity in which Hussein participated for a number of years, also gets healthy payouts. Also, LaRaza gets their cut. Funny that Hussein never mentions his Acorn experience, isn't it ? Or that they are frenzied in their current support, signing up dead bodies, illegals, and just plain non-exixting names in every state, especially those which look to be borderline contests. And, no one is stopping them. I would like to see "shoot-to-kill" orders issued on these thugs. Every part of their activity is criminal and very, very dangerous to the continuing existence of our free republic.
By Farrukh Saleem
As our national defence strategy appears to have collapsed, our own proxies -- the Taliban and the Jihadis -- are now waging a war on Pakistan itself and have killed 10,267 Pakistanis in five years, which is 6,000 more deaths than the total number of Pakistani lives lost in the Pak-India War of 1965. It's neither about religion nor about tribal traditions.
Our national defence strategy has long been dependent on the use of the Taliban in the West and the Jihadis pinning down elements of India's 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 Corps in the north-east. The tripodal national defence strategy meant maintaining a good 90 per cent of our military assets -- including the two strike Corps and Corps X, XXX, IV and XXXI -- in the east, sustaining the Taliban in the West in order to project power into Afghanistan plus our nuclear deterrent. For some two decades, the military-conceived strategy performed remarkably well. And then came September 11. After the 9/11, our tripodal strategy came tumbling down like a house of cards. But, we are still in a state of denial. Seven years hence, Pakistan now stands isolated and completely encircled. A mere 100 miles east of Islamabad are six of India's Su-30MKIs, the most advanced, nuclear-capable, long-range, high-endurance, heavy-class Air Dominance Fighters with multi-mission capabilities.
A hundred miles west of Islamabad are the United States Air Force's MQ-1 Predators, MQ-9 Reapers, the 37-nation International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), the Afghan National Army and Nato forces. Off the coast of Karachi is the United States Navy's Nimitiz-class, nuclear-powered, $4.3 billion super-carrier, USS Ronald Reagan (Pakistan's entire annual defence allocation is $ 4 billion).
After 9/11, we have lost at least two legs of our national defence strategy. As if losing two legs wasn't enough, our Jihadis and our Taliban, the very tools of our foreign policy, are on the loose. Our ex-proxies are hitting back at the very soul of Pakistan.
It's neither about religion nor about tribal traditions. This is an active insurgency whereby our ex-proxies are struggling to suck the soul out of the nation-state called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and then hold physical terrain from where to affect their agenda. Our one-time proxies have challenged the state for control of a portion of its territory.
The outside world, in the meanwhile, is out to contain us and contain our violence from spreading. Our national defence strategy has long been due for a major makeover. But, we have long been in a state of denial. Pakistan is truly under siege; under siege because of the proxies we keep.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/24/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
#1
And now, VIRGINIA, you know yet another reason why RUSSIA FOUGHT GEORGIA IN AUGUST 2008.
#2
It's all fun and games when your trained attack dogs are murdering infidels, but when your rabid curs turn on their masters...well, it sucks to be you.
#3
Pakistan would have collapsed if GWB had the common sense to carpet bomb Pashto Afghanistan from the north. Instead - in service of his Saudi owners - GWB lifted sanctions and poured aid into the terror entity. If stupidity was a crime, GWB wouldn't breath free air for the rest of his wretched life. I wonder what the knee jerkers think?
#5
Thor Elmulet1863, you ever thought how the World would look now if George (Condi) considered the facts instead of rushing headlong into "Nation Building"?
#6
Somebody in Pakistan has actually stepped back from the testosterone overdose to see reality. Al Qaeda has already shown the Muslim world that attacking America is a loser's game. Perhaps if this goes on long enough, the Ummah will realize that sponsoring terrorists is even more stupid -- in the long run a much more effective strategy than bombing the part of Pakistan that they don't much care about even further into the stone age than they currently are.
#7
Farrukh Saleem, when I read you, my head just starts to spin. Where do I start following your logic? Where does it lead me? I get dizzy trying to figure it out.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/24/2008 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Su-30MKIs, the most advanced, nuclear-capable, long-range, high-endurance, heavy-class Air Dominance Fighters with multi-mission capabilities.
#10
As our national defence strategy appears to have collapsed, our own proxies -- the Taliban and the Jihadis -- are now waging a war on Pakistan itself ......
well it seemed like a good idea at the time...
The dominant media storyline about the Iraq war holds that the decisions about how to conduct it pitted ignorant civilians -- especially the president and secretary of defense -- against the uniformed military, whose wise and sober advice was cavalierly ignored. The Bush administration's cardinal sin was interference in predominantly military affairs, starting with overruling the military on the size of the force that invaded Iraq in March 2003. But it's not just the media that peddles this story. As Bob Woodward illustrates in his new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," it also resonates among many senior uniformed military officers.
The plausibility of the narrative rests on two questionable principles. The first is that soldiers have the right to a voice in making policy regarding the use of the military instrument -- that indeed they have the right to insist that their views be adopted. The second is that the judgment of soldiers is inherently superior to that of civilians when it comes to military affairs. Both of these principles are at odds with the American practice of civil-military relations, and with the historical record.
In our republic the uniformed military advises the civilian authorities, but has no right to insist that its views be adopted. Of course, uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders if they think a policy is flawed. They must convey their concerns to civilian policy-makers forcefully and truthfully. But once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not. Moreover, even when it comes to strictly military affairs, soldiers are not necessarily more prescient than civilian policy makers. This is confirmed by the historical record.
Historians have long recognized that Abraham Lincoln's judgment concerning the conduct of the Civil War was vastly superior to that of Gen. George McClellan. They have recognized that Gen. George C. Marshall, the greatest soldier-statesman since George Washington, was wrong to oppose arms shipments to Great Britain in 1940, and wrong to argue for a cross-channel invasion during the early years of World War II, before the U.S. was ready. Historians have pointed out that the U.S. operational approach that contributed to our defeat in Vietnam was the creature of the uniformed military. And they have observed that the original -- unimaginative -- military plan for Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War was rejected by the civilian leadership, which ordered a return to the drawing board. The revised plan was far more imaginative, and effective.
So it was with Iraq. The fact is that the approach favored by the uniformed leadership was failing. As the insurgency metastasized in 2005, the military had three viable alternatives: continue offensive operations along the lines of those in Anbar province after Fallujah; adopt a counterinsurgency approach; or emphasize the training of Iraqi troops in order to transition to Iraqi control of military operations. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq -- supported by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers -- chose the third option.
Transitioning to Iraqi control was a logical option for the long run. But it did little to solve the problem of the insurgency, which was generating sectarian violence. Based on the belief by many senior commanders, especially Gen. Abizaid, that U.S. troops were an "antibody" to Iraqi culture, the Americans consolidated their forces on large "forward operating bases," maintaining a presence only by means of motorized patrols that were particularly vulnerable to attacks by improvised explosive devices. They also conceded large swaths of territory and population alike to the insurgents. Violence spiked.
In late 2006, President Bush, like President Lincoln in 1862, adopted a new approach to the war. He replaced the uniformed and civilian leaders who were adherents of the failed operational approach with others who shared his commitment to victory rather than "playing for a tie." In Gen. David Petraeus, Mr. Bush found his Ulysses Grant, to execute an operational approach based on sound counterinsurgency doctrine. This new approach has brought the U.S. to the brink of victory.
Although the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong, its persistence has contributed to the most serious crisis in civil-military relations since the Civil War. According to Mr. Woodward's account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy.
In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. "foot-dragging," "slow-rolling" and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid's successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president's policy.
If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.
Mr. Owens is a professor at the Naval War College and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
#2
Final responsibility for success or failure rests at the top, with POTUS and his SECDEF. That responsibility includes making sure command guidance is accurately and expeditiously followed. Subordinates are replaced or moved along as necessary but never blamed.
A soldier does best what his sergeant checks often. This old axiom applies at levels of leadership.
#3
There are two problems inherit in the American military structure. One procedural and the other is institutional. The American military spends most of its existence since Vietnam in 'peacetime'. You can not find battlefield leaders in peacetime. So, the military adopts 'good practices' of business and industry, setting up a structured progression career system to get competent people to the top based upon management of assets and people. Such skills are important for the day to day operation of a major organization where the environment permits. However, it can not definitively identify combat leaders. It can identify people with leadership traits, but no more than one would find at any of the major corporations or similar organizations elsewhere in society. The battlefield is far more a Darwinian environment than business in that the price you pay is final. Friendly and hostile takeovers don't carry the penalty in corporate America that they do in war. Fail in business and there are always opportunities to do something else in life. Fail on the battlefield and only those who escape may see another day. While many competent managers were sent into this conflict, there have been far fewer leaders. Unfortunately, by year two it was obvious that the peacetime 'personnel system' was paramount to operations rather than a wartime system of quickly identifying competent combat leaders and jumping the 'check the box' career programs. The personnel programs should have been realign to support those individuals who demonstrated what the institution existed for, that is 'the conduct of war'. Successful battalion and brigade commanders should have been promoted quickly and above their year group peers, not by another rank, but several. Our military is not lacking sufficient managers to assist and support those leaders, so specific experience in select skills is not wanting and does not require box checking. Fairness is not a military principle and, while some will have the opportunity to shine and other never get an opportunity at the same chance, has no play in war. Winning is primary.
Second, regardless of the military's desire to be 'apolitical', it can not be. In trying to play the game, to retain support by keeping casualties down, in the end only plays in the political arena. When avoiding defeat becomes more important than winning, when avoiding casualties becomes primary, you have entered the political game. You are responding to the political by your actions and in doing so have become political. You will either become a pawn of one side or the target of another. Its disingenuous to claim that you are being non-partisan. You are not allowed to be so in the 'great game' no matter how distasteful it may seem. If you can not carry out the objectives of the Executive, then it is the responsibility of any senior, or for that matter junior, officer to resign your commission. Waiting till retirement or completion of contract and then 'bravely' denouncing the policies and procedures only shows you lack conviction of principles other than the pay and position you received. Going back to the first paragraph, there is a great difference between "We can not win" and "I can not win". Make room for those who can. Or as we'd say - lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
#4
Final responsibility for success or failure rests at the top, with POTUS and his SECDEF.
However a President the ability of a President to force its policies on reluctant geneerals or fire backstabbing ones depends onb its political position since such actions have a political cost, and that costs is much greater when the rpress is trying to distort everything you do. In 2006, Bush had few political hit points left and that is why generals could get away with disobeying direct orders and Congress on encroaching on President's powers in violation of teh Constitution.
Oh, and BTW it was not Grant but Sherman who was decisive on winning the Civil War.
#6
regardless of the military's desire to be 'apolitical', it can not be.
Didn't someone once say war was a continuation of politics by other means? What the American military has done is try to make military action a technical activity in which amateurs cannot interfere. The chickens are coming home to roost; and not just for the Army.
#9
From the learned cmts of Procopius2k... When avoiding defeat becomes more important than winning, when avoiding casualties becomes primary, you have entered the political game.
Might I add, averting attainable and total VICTORY in battle by "avoiding" enemy casualties and the death of non-combatants. The haunting downside of premature diplomatic efforts and surgical tactics.
#10
I disagree with the whole axiom, that at any point it was "Bush vs. Generals". That is, both deserve credit for what went right, and blame for what didn't, in equal measure.
What I consider our greatest problems were essentially "philosophical" ones, now very evident in retrospect. Importantly, they were *not* errors of bad faith or duplicity, just incorrect assumptions.
To start with, it can be demonstrated that every part of their government we tried to preserve and reform was a mistake; but the vast majority that we recreated from scratch worked. They had no, zero, functional government left.
So from the very beginning we should have imposed a MacArthur (PBUH) constitution on them. We should have had an American occupation government of Iraq, with J. Paul Bremer as chief executive over the rest of the government run by Americans.
The first order of business should have been a complete census and registration of all citizens, who would be issued picture IDs with all information, including their name, encrypted in data matrix bar code. Anyone detained without ID would automatically be held until they could be entered into the US military held database, and longer, if suspected of illegal activities. This would have made government much easier.
All Mosque sermons would have to be pre-approved by the provisional government. All media would be under the editorial discretion of the government as well.
A US military court system would be established as the judiciary, which would try and imprison those engaged in criminal acts. At a date certain, this court system would be replaced by a US provisional government court system. When an Iraqi government had been appointed, this court would then issue death sentences for murderous acts then deemed criminal, again, after a date certain. Liberally hanging offenders.
These US provisional courts should have been ordered based on Common Law legal principles, and Iraqis would be trained as attorneys who would then prosecute and defend Iraqis and others accused of crimes.
Iraqi police forces should have been started from the ground up as well, but organized as a national police force. Military and police service would be by draft, and both military and police would be restricted to rural training camps. Unless they were without family, the US would deliver their entire paycheck to their family.
Any unemployed male would be drafted. If unsuitable for military or police service, they would be put in work battalions and set to repair and improve infrastructure around the country. Any healthy unemployed male would be detained until assignment.
The first Iraqi parliament would be composed almost entirely of women. No burqas, only head scarfs. Each woman would be trained in parliamentary procedure, and their decisions in consultation with the provisional government would be enforced by the provisional government.
For a minimum of 20 years, the constitution would require that 50% of the parliament would be female.
Again, these things in addition to the good stuff the military and the administration did, would have settled Iraq down much faster. An iron fist, early on, does much to restore order.
#12
To impose a MacArthuresque peace upon Iraq we would have had to impose a Japanese level defeat upon them. The politician chose not to. That was a political decision. The next war may perhaps result in a victory sufficient to impose such a peace. But it will be a horrid war for which few have the stomach, even after the murder of 3,000 innocents and the incineration of $1 Trillion, less than the Paulson package.
#13
Without Grant, Sherman would not have had the support to execute his version of total war through Georgia & the carolinas.
Sheramn commanded only one army. Of course he needed other armies for holding other parts of the front. Argument was about which one was really, really good versus which one was just quite good (but still a luminary compared to other Union generals).
But the taking of Atlant was not merely a crushing blow for the CSA, it impeded a Copperhead victory in the elections. Also before Sherman, again and again Union Generals had had to withdraw
when Southerner activity at their backs thretened their supplies. Instead Sherman marched to the sea and broke Confederation's back once and for all.
#15
JFM - Grant supported Sherman not just w/men but w/the whole march to the sea plan as well as politically, Sherman answered to Grant in the chain of command. They were close friends and both Ohioans. In actuality, Grant & Sherman both had some affinity for the south - Sherman was head master at LSU (IIRC) and Grant had served w/many southern generals (Longstreet was still a friend of his & a strong supporter after the CW) during the Mex/Amer war in 1847. He and WTS wanted to make the war so awful that it ended sooner and would actually cause less suffering in the long run for the south. Grant's wife Julia Dent actually owned slaves when they first married. Grant even owned one for a short period.
#16
BTW -- Sherman was the one that persuaded Grant to stay on w/the Army. When Grant tookover as head commander he told Sherman to quit worrying about where the confederates were - just get after them. In Grant, Lincoln finally had a guy who knew how to win. Grant in some ways was like Washington -- he traded some tactical losses for strategic victories. Lee was more hannibalesque -- he knew how to win tactical victories and even some campaigns but couldn't get the strategic level taken care of. Although, much of that had to do w/his senior leaders like Jeff Davis.
#17
In keeping with the Burg theme of Fair & Balanced, the following copied from a mossy memorial in the middle of a courtyard in old Charleston.
Co. A, Hampton Legion Inftry
And she points with tremulous hand below
To the wasted and worn array
Of the heroes who strove in the morning glow
of the grandeur that crowned the Gray
Alas for the broken and battered hosts
Frail wrecks from a gory sea
Tho pale as a band in the realm of ghosts
Salute them they fought with LEE.
#19
The Generals wanted to avoid wearing the military down to the point of breaking (which could easily happen due to frequent troop rotations). THey probably hoped the administration would increase the numbers in the military to make this possible with the surge.
#20
Grant was one of the few Union generals to realize that the way to win was to force the Confederates, and Lee, especially, to fight (and in the process to blood the Union troops, pin the Confederates in place, and wear them away).
At one point during the Wilderness Campaign, Grant kept the Confederates pressed and engaged somewhere along the lines for more than 30 days straight. Grant's subordinates were afraid Grant was going to break the army by using it so roughly, but Grant pressed ahead and broke the Confederates instead although it may have been a near thing.
Even following the Wilderness Campaign there was still fight in the Confederate army although they were forced o fall back on Petersburg where Grant probably made a strategic mistake and set in a long seige that probably prolonged the war unnecessarily. Grant's characteristic aggressiveness seems to have been conspicuously absent during the whole Petersburg seige.
The Mother of All Bailouts has many fathers. As panicked politicians prepare to fork over a trillion dollars in taxpayer funding to rescue the financial industry, theyve fingered regulation, deregulation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, both Bushes, greedy banks, greedy borrowers, greedy short-sellers, and minority home ownership mau-mauers (cant call em greedy, that would be racist) for blame.
But theres one giant paternal elephant in the room that has slipped notice: How illegal immigration, crime-enabling banks, and open-borders Bush policies fueled the mortgage crisis.
Its no coincidence that most of the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure wave Loudon County, Virginia, Californias Inland Empire, Stockton, San Joaquin Valley, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, for starters also happen to be some of the nations largest illegal alien sanctuaries. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure.
Regional reports across the country have decried the subprime meltdowns impact on illegal immigrant victims. A July report showed that in seven of the 10 metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates, Hispanics represented at least one-third of the population; in two of those areas Merced and Salinas-Monterey, Calif. Hispanics comprised half the population. The amnesty-promoting National Council of La Raza and its Development Fund have received millions in federal funds to counsel their constituents on obtaining mortgages with little to no money down; the group almost succeeded in attaching a $10 million earmark for itself in one of the housing bills past this spring.
For the last five years, Ive reported on the rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket. The top banks clamoring for their handouts as their profits plummet, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns to woo illegal alien homebuyers. The quasi-governmental Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority jumped in to guarantee home loans to illegal immigrants. The Washington Post noted, almost as an afterthought in a 2005 report: Hispanics, the nations fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group, have been courted aggressively by real estate agents, mortgage brokers and programs for first-time buyers that offer help with closing costs. Ads proclaim: Sin verificacion de ingresos ! Sin verificacion de documento ! which loosely translates as, Income tax forms are not required, nor are immigration papers.
In addition, fraudsters have engaged in massive house-flipping rings using illegal aliens as straw buyers. Among many examples cited by the FBI: a conspiracy in Las Vegas involving a former Nevada First Residential Mortgage Company branch manager who directed loan officers and processors in the origination of 233 fraudulent Federal Housing Authority loans valued at over $25 million. The defrauders manufactured and submitted false employment and income documentation for borrowers; most were illegal immigrants from Mexico. To date, the FBI reported, 58 loans with a total value of $6.2 million have gone into default, with a loss to the Housing and Urban Development Department of over $1.9 million.
Its the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to lax Bush administration-approved policies allowing illegal aliens to use matricula consular cards and taxpayer identification numbers to open bank accounts, more forms of mortgage fraud have burgeoned. Moneylenders still have no access to a verification system to check Social Security numbers before approving loans. In an interview about rampant illegal alien home loan fraud, a spokeswoman for the U.S. General Accounting Office told me five years ago:
[C]onsidering the size of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston, and other large cities throughout the United States known to be inundated with illegal aliens, I dont think the federal government is willing to expose this problem for financial reasons as well as for fear of political repercussions.
Chickens coming home to roost. And law-abiding, responsible taxpayers are going to pay for it.
#1
Meanwhile.... as the congress critters cuss and discuss verious schemes and who gets credit, the "folks" postpone thier already delinquent Sept, and upcoming Oct & Nov mortgage, Escalade, and credit card payments in anticipation of the.... NEW DEAL entitlement year of "Jubilee." The perfect storm indeed.
#2
A lot of those "first time buyers" with subprime mortgages who have not defaulted manage to hang on by turning single family homes into multi family homes.
#3
Illegals buying homes, it just sounded like a bad idea when I first heard it. Never really heard much more about it until it all started coming unraveled.
#4
#2 A lot of those "first time buyers" with subprime mortgages who have not defaulted manage to hang on by turning single family homes into multi family homes
Read that... buy single family homes fully intending to creat multi-family sanctuaries for additonal illegals. Does a hell of a lot for the neighborhood, school system, etc.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
