Monday, May 24, 2010

The U.S. Mortgage Meltdown and its Discontents....

There are some folks who are now deflecting blame away from the pernicious, even incompetent government policies that led to the mortgage meltdown, by claiming things like “CRA applies only to deposit-taking institutions, and it simply prohibits “extractive” banking practices: if a bank actively solicits deposits in a community, it is also expected to make loans to qualified applicants there.”

They often further argue that, “The subprime crisis was not the fault of the CRA which did not apply to the unregulated brokers that originated a disproportionate number of loans that went to delinquency and foreclosure. In the subprime market, the three largest lenders were independent mortgage companies, not subject to supervision by any bank or thrift regulator 51% of subprime loans were made by unsupervised mortgage companies in 2005. If there is any racial preference in CRA it is now a blatant case of white privilege: Whites are 50 percent more likely than Blacks to obtain loans from CRA-covered institutions.”

Actually virtually all of that is demonstrably factually and historically wrong.

The CRA was initially targeted at banks and savings and loans, but the government used BOTH the CRA (which allowed “housing activists” to block bank mergers and opening new branches without making deals over “more loans to low-income families”) AND misused civil rights litigation (that took naturally occurring “disparate impacts” as “proof of discrimination”) to force banks to loosen traditional lending criteria and make more loans to more “subprime” borrowers – those with “spotty” credit histories and bankruptcies in their histories.

Banks actively fought this erosion of lending standards and accurately predicted the disaster that was to come, way back in the 1980s. Incredibly enough, the government sued banks and mortgage brokers using data that actually SUPPORTED the mortgage industry’s defense! ALL the data showed that under traditional lending criteria, blacks and whites granted loans had the SAME default rates. If banks were discriminating against blacks the data would have showed that more undeserving whites were getting loans, resulting in a higher default rate among whites. That was NOT the case. However, today, blacks and Hispanics have a much far higher default rate than whites and Asians, indicating that far more NON-creditworthy blacks and Hispanics got loans than non-creditworthy whites and Asians.”

The government’s role in the erosion of traditional lending criteria via BOTH regulation AND litigation) IS what caused the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent global credit crisis.

Further, no one, so far as I know has in ever implied that the subprime loans were targeted ethnically/racially. A fact that most liberals seem unaware is that 71% of the poor in America are...white. Given that appx. 30% of America’s poor are black, low income whites would be expected to garner more than double the number of subprime loans, NOT merely 50% more.

The term “affirmative action” (which was used by Andy Cuomo to accurately define the government’s regulating and litigating “subprime” loans in the attached YouTube video) also does not necessarily imply race as a factor. Perhaps such people are unaware that slightly over 60% of the subprime loans written between 2000 and 2008 (a period in which $4 TRILLION in subprime loans were doled out) went to whites, so I do not understand this obsession with race on the part of the deflectors.

If such people believe that “traditional lending criteria” (a minimum of 10% with PMI, at least 20% down to avoid PMI costs, proof of continual and steady employment with one’s most recent three years of tax returns, limiting loans to 2½X the combined family income, along with reliance on the borrower’s debt to income ratio, etc.) have a negative and disparate income on low income people and thus a profoundly negative and disparate impact on blacks, since a larger percentage of that group is “low income”...well, that is indeed true.

But so what?

Proof of such a negative disparity is NOT, in and of itself, proof of ANY actual or verifiable discrimination, just as widely disparate test scores on written exams (ie. SATs, GREs, various Civil Service Entrance Exams and the various professional exams – the Law Boards, the CPA Exams, etc.) do not prove any intentional/deliberate discrimination...and yes, across the board on ALL such exams, there exists a 1-standard deviation disparity between the test scores of whites/Asians and blacks/Hispanics, with smaller disparities between whites and Asians and blacks and Hispanics, as well as between various ethnicities within both the black and white communities, but that persistent 1 full standard deviation on all such exams between white and black test scores does NOT prove intentional discrimination, nor does it any way compromise, let alone invalidate the efficacy of such exams.

Accepting this basic premise (“disparate impacts are not proof of any actionable or reversible discrimination”), there is nothing at all wrong with the disparities in lending rates between income groups and/or racial/ethnic groups. It would appear that the subsequent black/white homeownership gap is entirely a function of personal behavior, not institutional racial bias. While blacks with higher incomes did get loans at lower rates than many whites with lower incomes, the fact that the default rates for blacks and whites who DID get loans were exactly the SAME shows that no discrimination occurred. If whites had been given some preferential treatment in lending, you’d expect that far more non-creditworthy whites would have been given loans, resulting in a significantly higher default rate among white applicants. That was NEVER the case.

But even still, the real aim of those in government was NOT to close any racial homeownership gap, not at all. The primary reason for government’s involvement in eroding those lending criteria was to remake America’s banking system into one more like Europe’s where governments exert far more direct control over all banking policies.

That’s part and parcel of what’s derided as “the political economy,” or “Corporatism” – an inane and misguided partnership between business and government.

In fact, THAT’S exactly the economy America has had since 1912, when Bernard Baruch and J P Morgan (admittedly, two great men) fundamentally remade the American economy by selling the “security” (for both owners/entrepreneurs AND workers) of Corporatism and introducing the Federal Reserve, paving the way for the 16 the Amendment and an ever deepening partnership between business and government, which was strengthened greatly by FDR’s ill-fated policies of the 1930s - the Great Depression deepened from 1933 through 1938 as FDR followed Hoover’s “progressive” policies (Hoover began the “alphabet soup” of federal programs) that FDR followed and expanded on - and that partnership was strengthened even more during WW II when the government took actual control of numerous companies. Since the end of WWII that partnership between business and government has become virtually set in stone.

The two best books I’ve yet seen on this subject are Meltdown by Thomas E Woods and Architects of Ruin by Peter Schweizer. Both outline both the widespread abuses of the Community Reinvestment Act, but also noted that the vast majority of those running today’s major Corporate entities are “infected with the same poisonous liberalism” as are many in the political class. Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, Jon Corzine (the failed Governor of NJ and former Goldman Sachs Exec),among many others easily criss-crossed between government and its “private sector” partners. Kerry Killinger (head of Washington Mutual) served as chairman of the Hogar (Spanish for “hearth”) advisory committee, set up by Congressional Hispanic Caucus specifically to “increase Hispanic homeownership.” Killinger’s fervent social liberalism led him to seek to transform WaMu into “the WalMart of banking” by catering to low income and high risk (those with poor credit histories) that other banks deemed too risky. In fact, in Killinger’s case, he set up an internal quota system for the bank’s lending policies. There existed “a company policy mandating that its performances within this demographic (low income, with a focus on minority applications) in a given market at least matches the bank’s overall position in the market.”

Why would so-called “private sector” financial leaders take such a high-risk stance, given their historically risk-averse natures?

Only one reason, they KNEW that government had already promised to bail them out for such excesses, just as it had bailed out Mexico in the mid-1990s to protect both Rubin’s CitiBank and Goldman’s positions there – both those firms had set up appx. 90% of the Mexican bonds at the time. Despite Bill Seidman (former head of the FDIC), Steve Forbes and Larry Kudlow all presciently testifying how bad an idea such a bailout was, in January of 1995 the Treasury Department announced a $20 BILLION line of credit to Mexico that saved those banks the losses their bad investments demanded.

The HUGE part that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played, was that in leading the charge on providing loans to low income applicants with poor credit histories, as all their “investments” were backed up by government, a/k/a TAXPAYER funds (despite the fact that easily upwards of 70% of Americans oppose the idea of any kind of “affirmative action in lending” to ANY group, for ANY 75% of Americans oppose race/gender-based preferences in any context) and were able to buy/GUARANTEE the bad loans made by banks and mortgage companies.

In 2000 Fannie Mae “owned” a whopping 24% of all U.S. mortgages, a sum virtually ALL economists declared “dangerously high.” By 2007 that number had risen to an astounding 51% of all mortgages and by 2009 had risen further to over 70%!

As promised, Fannie & Freddie had “bought up” (guaranteed) all the bad loans made by government’s “private sector” partners and indemnified them from risk by shifting that risk onto the American taxpayer.

In his 1999 speech at Harvard, Angelo Mozillo (the son of a Bronx butcher turned home loan guru) thanked Fannie, noting that without the financial support of Fannie Mae he couldn’t have done what he trigger the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent global credit crisis. Mozillo said, “I specifically and especially recognize Franklin Raines and his entire team at Fannie Mae for providing a great deal of the resources that have made possible for us to achieve our House America objectives.”

In 2000 the NY Times reported on how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had propelled Mozillo to the top, “By buying up his mortgages and thus freeing up his capital to solicit even more business (high-risk loans), Fannie and Freddie are a big reason Mr. Mozillo has driven Countrywide past the CitiGroups and the Wells Fargos to the top of the mortgage heap.”

Some of the names on Mozillo’s Countrywide board-of-directors are astounding. One such person was the notoriously and reliably left-wing Goldman Sachs’ Executive Kathleen Brown (sister of the equally notoriously and reliably liberal former CA Governor, Jerry Brown) and former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who along with Janet Reno sued banks AND lending companies over “unfair lending practices,” using data that actually SUPPORTED the bank’s defense, ALL the data showed that under traditional lending criteria, blacks and whites granted loans had the SAME default rates. If banks were discriminating against blacks the data would have showed that more undeserving whites were getting loans, resulting in a higher default rate among whites. That was NOT the case. In fact, today, blacks and Hispanics have a far higher default rate than whites and Asians.

None-the-less, the Cisneros-Reno team sued. While the CRA only applied to Charter banks, the Cisneros-Reno team “went after EVRYBODY,” noting “We’re not eliminating anyone from the mix here. Lending discrimination will be challenged regardless of where it is occurring.”

With that legal war on banks the Cisneros-Reno team “changed the way American banks did business.” THIS is what paved the way for Cisneros to sit on Countrywide’s notorious board.

The primary and most vital cause of the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent global credit crisis was a toxic and corrosive liberalism, which has fostered a hideous partnership between government and business, driving American businesses to accept a “greater social responsibility” at the expense of business’s first and ONLY reason for being – to make money for its shareholders.

The original charge by Housing Activists like Gail Cincotta and the Rathke’s that “banks and businesses had an affirmative obligation to the poor,” is unfounded, untrue and by any appreciable measure, intentionally harmful to business interests.

The fact that community banks had, at that time, invested, on average, 89% of their lending funds outside those communities was NOT proof of those banks doing anything wrong, quite the reverse!

Banks do not owe their customers/depositors either jobs, a specified share of the loans and investments they make, nor any “share of their profits,” they merely owe them what any business owes it customers - “good business,” in the form of things like lower bank fees, free checking with a set amount in one’s saving account, convenient hours, the best loan rates (for those that meet the traditional lending criteria) etc.

They owe their SHAREHOLDERS (their real owners) far more. Those businesses owe their shareholders their full efforts to make the most money they can. That’s how their shareholders (pensioners, pension funds, 401-Ks, 457s, etc) make their money.

What the CRA did, in effect, was to mandate that these banks become de facto arms of the government’s social services outreach at the direct expense of their shareholder/owners.

In that regard, it turned American banking on its head, by reversing the fundamental purpose of business, FROM solely making the most money, TO promoting a misguided and amorphous “social and economic equality.”

The late Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) in defending and pursuing the CRA even said, “Government through tax revenues and public debt cannot and should not provide more than a limited part of the capital required for local housing and economic development needs...The banks and savings and loans have the funds...If we are to rebuild our cities, it will have to be done with the private institutions.”

That is a disgusting statement, one that lauds a partnership between business and government with government as the lead/directing partner.

In the intervening years, government has increasingly resorted to bailing out businesses and industries for the unfunded mandates foisted upon them by government. As a result, many, if not most in business have come to embrace this partnership and ostensibly support the perverted goals of the “social justice” platform.

So, yes, “private” enterprise played a part in all this via its acceptance (surrender) to this misguided government/business partnership, just as many in the GOP are also guilty of signing onto “the Ownership Society” of Jack Kemp. G W Bush, like Bill Clinton made a major issue of “reducing the black/white homeownership gap,” BUT the primary, fundamental...even FOUNDATIONAL cause of all this remains a toxic, corrosive social liberalism that has deeply infected the political class and their partners in corporate America and its largely corporate media and government sponsored education system.

This self-serving, toxic liberalism views “rule by an (allegedly) enlightened elite,” preferable to the chaos of the free-for-all of the market. This partnership is rooted in Keynesian economic policy, which supposes that government spending, even government-run industries can operate as effectively as privately run ones. This partnership exists to benefit solely the political class and by extension, their partners in business, the corporate media and the government sponsored educational establishment.

The American “Capitalist” system has been increasingly regulated and controlled by the government starting in 1912. As a result, we haven’t had “free market capitalism” in the U.S. since 1912.

The government DID NOT EVER “fail to regulate capitalism” and certainly NOT over the past decade! The G W Bush administration reliably produced over 1,000 new pages of business and fiscal regulation every year, including one of the most expensive and far-reaching pieces of financial regulation ever to come down the pike in the form of Sarbanes-Oxley!

There is ONLY ONE singular cause of the current crisis and that’s the failure of Corporatism – the oppressive and anti-American partnership between business and government.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

The Lessons We’re All About to Learn....

EVERY public sector job must be paid for with PRIVATE SECTOR dollars.

Without a vibrant, productive and profitable private sector, there can be no public sector. If that weren’t so, nations like Zimbabwe and Haiti could easily spring from the economic basket-cases they are now to 1st-world status by merely setting up a huge public sector, but those countries CAN’T to that, because they don’t have a vibrant private sector to pay for it. We in the U.S. are just beginning to re-learn that lesson in a very right now.

For decades most of Europe and the United States have embarked on a path to reduce their private sectors and via a stagnating government/business partnership that ruthlessly regulates upstart businesses, along with all the incredible material innovation, economic uncertainty and new opportunities OUT of those regulated markets.

In both Western Europe and the USA the private sector has shrunk, as the public sector has exploded, resulting in huge deficits that have piled the economic equivalent of rolls of unhealthy belly fat in the form of staggering national debts.

At this point, both Europe and the United States have huge armies of government workers who refuse to see their own role in this debt-created economic downturn and even larger numbers of both semi and fully dependent citizens, who live lives heavily subsidized and dependent upon government freebies.

The government-worker riots that have occurred in Greece could happen anywhere in Western Europe and most of the United States.

Make no mistake about it, ALL of this is the result of political liberalism and Keynesian economic policies. The current Keynesian policies began under G W Bush and have merely been “ramped up” under the Obama administration.

The strategy of the Obama administration is as cynical as it is brilliant. It seeks to ratchet up that army of government workers (some 600,000 new federal workers are slated for hire before 2012) and those dependent upon government giveaways - the newly minted healthcare overhaul will make all Americans at least somewhat dependent upon the government for their healthcare - generating an electorate predisposed to supporting those who support their "free stuff," no matter what the cost.

In the short-term, granting amnesty to an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants, allowing felons to vote, along with energizing the public sector worker’s vote may well keep the Obama agenda on track, with the most likely outcome that once entrenched, the entire political debate will be able to be moved even further Left.

If successful, that would move the political debate to where it would be unrecognizable today. As future “Conservatives” could be expected to support universal healthcare and the government-directed semi-private/public partnership along with its sky-high deficits and equally sky-high tax rates as far as the eye can see, as ardently as any liberal Democrat today does.

So, what is the “end game?” An intended calamitous collapse? A coming global Depression, leading to a single global authority or system (one world government)? One supported by today’s multi-national enterprises and their friends in government, media and academia?

That would be an unworkable system and one that every decent individualist would have to seek to destroy.

So the problem currently being exacerbated isn't merely economic, it's systemic. Hundreds of thousands of new government employees have been hired on the federal, state and local level over the past decade and many more are scheduled for hire. Tens of millions of Americans more have been given more in free "entitlements." Government now provides them most of their food and a share of all their other necessities, including all their health care.

You can see the result of that systemic dependency in New Jersey, where thousands of state workers are protesting a Governor's cutting that state's spending, because that state is already broke! The same attitude most of those folks probably laughed at over Greece, where "spoiled government workers rioted in the wake of cuts needed to staunch that country's money-hemorrhaging, in the wake of that nation's insolvency," is the SAME one they themselves exhibited in Trenton the other day.

What's more, fewer and fewer Americans are paying for all this! Today nearly 60% of Americans pay little or no income taxes!

The key to changing/transforming the political system is NOT through putting up new candidates, but in taking control of the internal apparatus of BOTH major political Parties. The Parties largely choose who gets to run, who gets funded and who doesn't. Barrack Obama wasn't an "an agent of change," the Tea Parties are that. Barrack Obama was merely "a change" in tactics, from the Keynesian-light G W Bush to the hyper-Keynesian of the Carter era. The political apparatus of the major Parties has to be completely changed and then many people (mostly government workers and those with newly minted government freebies) have to be convinced to accept some serious short-term pain.

That's not going to be easy for an increasingly spoiled and self-centered society to accept. Just as the economic worst is yet to come, getting people to see their own role in all this is going to be an uphill struggle. Try getting any career civil servant to accept the idea that a leaner private sector, generating smaller revenues requires a much smaller and more technologically efficient public sector some time.

It may well take things getting a lot worse before more people are willing to accept some of these very harsh realities.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Michael Posner APOLOGIZES to CHINA Over Arizona's "Human Rights Abuses"!

Just when you think this administration can't get any more moronic.... comes Michael H. Posner a Chicago-born lawyer and the founding executive director of Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights), and currently an Asst. Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Here he is announcing his own apologizing to China over Arizona's alleged "human rights abuses."

Arizona's law EXACTLY MIRRORS existing federal law that's been on the books (and enforced) for over 70 years!

Friday, May 14, 2010

Eric Holder Refuses To Say "Radical Islam"

THIS says it ALL about Eric Holder's, and by extension, this administration's views on both the threat posed by radical Islam and "appropriate anti-terror policies." - To paraphrase a line from the flick Billy Madison; "What you've just said (Mr. Holder) is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Greek Bailout May Well Trigger an Avalanche of Similar Defaults...

Ever wonder if ANY in the political class know ANYTHING about what they often pontificate about?

When politicians talk sports, it often becomes very obvious they don’t, as with Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) consistently referring to Rafeal Palmeiro (pal-mare-oh) as Mr. Pal-mary, or former Illinois Governor George Ryan introducing MIKE DITKA as “the Hall of the Famer, the legend, DICK BUTKA.”

But it IS almost certainly the case in many other instances and areas, as well.

Certainly very few in the political class know much, if anything about economics and how economies work. That’s almost certainly behind the fact that despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence AGAINST Keynesian economic policies, the political class stubbornly refuses to abandon the one economic theory that sees more government intervention in the economy as a good thing.

THAT as much as anything else is why we’re nowhere near done with the ongoing economic meltdown that began with Keynesian policies and is growing toward a quick implosion because of more Keynesian policies.

Yesterday the EU announced that the Greek debt crisis would be a staggering $1 TRILLION (USD) bailout!

Only a dolt (or a member of the political class...same thing, I guess) wouldn’t wonder, “How does that “FIX” anything?! It’s like GM’s recent announcement that it had paid off its TARP loans without mentioning that it was paid back with....other TARP funds!

GM, like Greece is still in deep, DEEP, even critical debt.

Consider that Greece’s economy is about the size of current day Michigan’s economy and that $1 TRILLION  bailout is even more astounding! Moreover, to pay back that staggering loan, Greece will have to embark on a series of draconian austerity programs. Odds are that they’ll default and ultimately bring on even deeper problems not far down the road.

But Greece’s $1 TRILLION bailout is not the only reason that bailout was a bad idea.

For what the Greek bailout does is to send a very clear signal to Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain (the other “PIIGS”) that “profligacy pays off...and BIG!” Expect the other PIIGS to default and look for their bailouts as well, triggering an avalanche of debt and default that may well trigger a global Depression down the road.

Where are all the funds going to come from for all those other bailouts?....And at what cost to global financial stability?

The primary lesson from Greece is all too clear - the government directed economy does not work. More than 25% of Greeks work for the government, of the remaining 4 million “workers,” five hundred thousand are unemployed and eight hundred thousand are heavily subsidized EU farmers of very low productivity. Without taking into account all of those of the private sector who make all or some of their living indirectly from the state, it falls on around 2.7 million Greeks to support a million public employees, 800 thousand farmers, 500 thousand unemployed and 1.7 million retirees. Since it would be impossible for Greece’s tiny private sector to support such a heavy burden, that’s why Greece is so dependent on continuous and high levels of borrowing no matter how good or bad the times are. In short, Greece doesn’t have the productive output to sustain that gargantuan public truth NO economy does! Ergo, the government-directed economy or “Euro-socialism” does not work.

The entitlement culture that Euro-socialism and Keynesianism inculcate is a cancer. In most, if not all cases, it’s best to let those who make bad decisions deal with the consequences.

Ultimately no one and no thing is too big to fail.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

A Letter to the Editor That Makes the Folly of ILLEGL Immigration ALL to Clear....


From Today's (May 9th, 2010) NY Daily News:

Woodside (Queens): "Now that "Los Suns" of Phoenix have come out against the new Arizona (illegal) immigration law, I have an idea. At the start of the next home game, everyone should rush through the door and take any seat they like. When the authorities (aka ushers) request papers (tickets) the people should refuse because it is blatant discrimination against undocumented fans."

Bill Olsen

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Times Square Bomber Wasn’t an Amateur...

News reports that paint Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad (photo above) as an incompetent amateur are probably not very accurate.

What the jihadists have run into is how modern urban logistics make such attacks very difficult in such areas.

Shahzad did combine a number of easily obtainable “household” items to create what could have been a devastating incendiary. He had a number of propane tanks and gasoline (both fuels), fertilizer (an oxidizer), although he seemed to be unaware that the fertilizer purchased in urban areas is generally “pearled” – you’d have to pulverize the solid beads of fertilizer for it to be useful as an oxidizer for an explosive device and was going to use fireworks as the triggering device for the incindiary. He even did a dry run ( before the event to figure out the best place to leave the vehicle.

This is a challenge for jihadists and other terrorists, as they’re unable to get many of the components more easily purchased and used in more rural areas. Terrorists in more rural locales are able to actually purchase premixed ANFO, as people in such areas use that to blow tree stumps out of the ground.

What Shahzad was apparently trying to do was to set up a device that could generate enough heat to quickly BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding vapor Explosion) the propane tanks. Those tanks could have very easily done tremendous damage on a city street. A single 5-gallon propane B-B-Q tank can take out the wall of an apartment building or warehouse.

The expansion ratio for liquefied propane is 270 to 1, which means when a gas it occupies 270X as much space as it does as a liquid, which gives you an idea of its explosive power.

Propane is a gas above -44 degrees Fahrenheit, that is, it BOILS at NEGATIVE forty-four degrees Fahrenheit. Propane is a compressed natural gas (C3H8) and is a member of the single bonded alkane family of hydrocarbons. It is stored under pressure as a liquid.

Because of its low boiling point, propane tanks are set up with spring loaded pressure relief valves that can allow some of the product to escape whenever pressure builds.

What Shahzad was faced with was either disabling that device, which would’ve made those tanks bombs as he transported them, trying to disable them on-scene, which would’ve ate up a lot of time and perhaps drawn even more unwanted attention, or generating enough heat quickly enough to overwhelm the pressure relief devices and BLEVE the tanks via heat transfer.

He apparently chose the latter...and failed.

But that failure doesn’t make him “an incompetent.”

He was able to put together a potentially damaging incendiary device out of products readily available and usable in an urban setting, bring it into the city and actually attempt to set it off.

How many ways did our system fail us this time?

Faisal Shahzad was on a “No Fly List” but the airline used an outdated list and missed him.

The U.S. granted him citizenship a year ago.

He’d attended a terror training camp in Pakistan THREE years ago.

Feeling any safer?

Thursday, May 6, 2010

The False Controversy Surrounding Arizona’s ILLEGAL Immigration Law....


According to both the mainstream media (MSM) AND the current President of the U.S., the new law in Arizona dealing with ILLEGAL Immigration is designed to allow the police to stop people for no reason other than to determine their legal status as citizens or resident aliens!

Why it’s not only draconian, but Hitlerian as well!

The FACT is, Arizona’s state law mirrors EXACTLY existing FEDERAL law, which has been on the books for almost 70 years! Since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. and that has NEVER changed.

Yes, EVERY TIME a resident alien (a legal immigrant with a Green Card) interfaces with government, that documentation must be shown.

Moreover, the police can demand ID from ANYONE (citizen or NOT) when being questioned in relation to a criminal act.

Failure to produce ID when being questioned in relation to any criminal act (felony OR misdemeanor) results in that person being “taken in” (taken to the police station) until their identification is sorted out.

You can imagine that if police were not able to verify the identifications of those suspected of being involved in criminal act(s), there’d be no way to solve any crimes. A person or persons could simply refuse to show ID, give a phony name and be on their way.

That does NOT happen. It’s NEVER happened.

Right now Arizona’s state budget is being overwhelmed by the strain put on it by millions of illegal immigrants, most of whom do not pay into the system, they benefit from. Hospitals, schools and emergency rooms have all been swamped due to that state’s huge illegal immigrant population.

For the Feds to rail against Arizona taking on a Federal power, is inane, since the Feds, who are charged to deal with that issue (SECURING OUR BORDERS) has failed to do so...and has apparently failed DELIBERATELY.

So why has the MSM and President Obama deliberately mischaracterized this law?

Obviously because they CANNOT make any affirmative argument for the federal government’s ongoing failure , nor against a state requiring exactly what the federal government requires – valid ID when one interfaces with government.

I Hate to Say "I Live for This"....But....I Really DO Live for THIS!!!....

I've been visiting beautiful Charleston, S.C. for the past few days (actually Friday morning through Monday night) I worked Tuesday morning until Wednesday morning and had a bunch of errands to do today... 

But leave it to the New York Post to make my day!

Yes, with yet another tale of liberal rage, liberal bigotry...and liberal hypocrisy.

God I just LOVE this kind of "human interest story."

Apparently, Wayne Mahlke (the male pictured above) was having a bad day, when he decided to yell out to police officer Denise McDonald, in what is often termed (at least in New York) "the overly familiar."

To quote Mr. Mahlke (the former Chief-of-Staff of the equally EX State Senator Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens - of "girlfriend-beating" fame) "Why don't you do your job, you fat bitch?"

Ironically enough, that bit of the "overly familiar" did indeed get Officer Denise McDonald to "do her job" and collar (a/k/a ARREST) Mr. Mahlke on, as they say, "a variety of charges."

According to the NY Post; "Mahlke allegedly tried to pull away, but McDonald stepped in front of the car, forcing him to stop.

"He then pulled out a New York State Senate "official business" placard, along with a phony, laminated photocopy of an NYPD parking placard, authorities said.

"You don't know who I am - I'm higher-ranking than you!" Mahlke said to McDonald, a 19-year police veteran, according to the criminal complaint.

"He also told the female cop that he worked for Mayor Bloomberg, said Queens DA Richard Brown.

"He doesn't, nor has he ever."

Oh that Wayne Mahlke certainly is a card! Apparently he's as adept at impersonating a politician as he is impersonating "a high ranking police official."

Isn't that allegedly a serious crime?

I'm pretty sure it is!

The NY Post reports that, "Mahlke lost his legislative job in March, after his boss, Monserrate, was tossed from the Senate for assaulting his girlfriend.

"A former vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens, Mahlke also had once been chief of staff to former state Sen. Ada Smith in 2003.

"Mahlke was charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument, obstructing governmental administration, disorderly conduct, failing to obey directions of a police officer, and not producing a valid license.

"He faces up to seven years in prison."

Hmmmm, I didn't notice "impersonating a police officer among those charges. Somehow, I believe if the average Joe or Jane pulled out a police placard and claimed to outrank a police officer they'd be so charged, but I digress.

Did you notice that among Mr. Mahlke's bio was the "former Vice President of the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens?"

I mean that's rich isn't it?

A liberal member of one "protected group" jumping ugly on a member of another "protected group" for merely doing her job!

For those of you who are liberal enough not to see the liberal hypocrisy in any of this, I offer up Mr. Mahlke's photo; Come on! Does THAT GUY have any business calling anyone else"fat?!" I mean, are ALL the mirrors in this guy's house of the "Fun House" variety, or what?

For the full article go to:
American Ideas Click Here!