Mortgage bailouts

Politicians are the worst problem solvers, they always just look to taxpayers as the answer. Case in point: the home mortgage "crisis". Various Democrats blame "predatory lending" while absolving borrowers who took out loans they could not afford. HOGWASH. The truth is that rising home prices led lenders to offer creative loans to allow borrowers who would not normally qualify to purchase homes at top-of-the-market prices. The borrowers were betting that continued rising home values would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. No one put a gun to their heads to sign, and lenders disclosed the exact terms of the loans. When home prices began declining, as surely as they will rise again in the cyclical world of home values, borrowers found themselves with loans for more than their homes were worth and facing higher resetting interest rates. The borrowers had gambled and lost. With little or no equity, they simply walked away. The Democrats "solutions" are laughable. Obama wants to pay lenders a cash fee to refinance troubled loans through FHA at lower interest rates, which would put us taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of the riskiest loans. Clinton wants to freeze the rates on ARMs for five years, effectively voiding original loan terms, sticking it to the lenders (in many cases investors in mortgage-backed securities) and rewarding the irresponsible borrowing of the defaulting home buyer. Both of these approaches force taxpayers to pick up the bills and makes fools of us responsible home buyers who acted more prudently. To his credit, McCain has not offered a specific solution yet, only declaring himself open to "all proposals based on their costs and benefits".

Hillary's lies

When our men and women volunteer to serve in our armed forces, it is with the clear understanding that they may be put in harms way in defense of our country. That is why is takes great courage to put on that uniform. And that is why Senator Hillary Clinton's recent lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia ten years ago are so insulting to our military, and, by extension, all Americans. Her lies demean those who actually demonstrate real courage everyday. Her retraction, days later by the way, that she had "misspoken" continued the insult. The notion that our First Lady and First Daughter would be allowed to come under sniper fire is preposterous. It would never happen. We have real soldiers getting shot at by real enemies with real bullets and bombs everyday. Ms Clinton's memory was not faulty nor did she "misspeak". She calculatedly concocted a wild lie in the hope that it would make her appear courageous and ready for the presidency. My respect goes to our truly courageous soldiers, not a lying opportunistic politician.

Iraq five years later

The American news media is featuring "look-back" pieces this week to mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. But as I read and listen, the focus seems to stay on the war as a singular event and not connected to the larger context of the Middle East and America. Tunnel vision is a common human tendency but one must unfold the big picture to determine what has and has not been accomplished. Iraq is but one battle in the global war on terrorism, it just seems like more. Al Qaeda and its satellite cells are and will continue to wage war in other countries regardless of the Iraq outcome. Leaving Iraq tomorrow with it hypothetically secure and flourishing would not be the end of the war against militant Islamism. Iraq is experiencing a slow, but steady, flushing out of al Qaeda by its own populace who have grown weary of relying on militant Islamism as a solution. They have banded together because they have seen firsthand that al Qaeda can brutalize and kill, but it can't provide jobs, education, housing, healthcare, or any meaningful future for them. Remember, al Qaeda funds itself primarily through the heroin trade. Some future. In the big picture, 2007 has been a better year for Iraqis as they slowly struggle to reform and grow economically into the largest democracy in the Middle East. Our goal should be to leave Iraq as an example to other countries across the globe who want to shed their repressive regimes and leave a brighter future to their children. Al Qaeda can only live in an atmosphere of fear and despair. Offering struggling countries a blueprint for hope and a future can go a long way in defeating radical Islamism.

Obama

I watched Obama's speech this morning. He talked about America's racist past and our racist present. He did not agree with, but understood, the anger and anti-American diatribes of his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He did not disavow Rev Wright, but condemned his hate speech. Left unsaid, however, was that Obama has sat in Rev Wright's pews for over 20 years, listening to these types of sermons, in an environment that indisputably would be uncomfortable for most whites (including Obama's own white mother), but never openly challenged the Reverend's teachings or ultimately changed churches. What does that say about Obama? And left unaddressed by Obama was why he dropped Rev Wright from his advisory committee so quickly when Rev Wright's rhetoric reached a broad audience via the internet. Although he claims that his race is a liability, it actually is an advantage that is unavailable to a white man (McCain) or a white woman (Hillary). How else to explain his appeal to whites? His popularity can't be the product of his ideas. He has never actually explained what he means by "change" or "hope". Exactly how would he bring Americans together? He is long on sweeping abstracts but short on actual details. He frames the presidential race in a way that leaves whites with the false choice of "change" now (vote for a black man) or forever be mired in the "past" (vote for McCain or Hillary). Without a doubt, Obama has himself made his run for the presidency about race. That approach does not work for me and one's race and/or wispy visions do not impress me. My vote is for sale to the best plans and ideas offered by anyone from any affiliation.

Pelosi's stunts

For the second recent time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the Senate on vacation for two weeks without permitting a vote on a bill that would restore critical surveillance authority to US intelligence agencies. The Senate bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and would have easily passed the House if she would have allowed the vote. Obviously stung by criticism the first time she pulled this stunt, she attempted to camouflage her dereliction of duty this time by offering an alternative proposal that was so deeply flawed that it would have been D.O.A. in the Senate. Her alternate bill denies US telecommunications companies the liability protection they need, perefectly in step with the interest of the trial lawyers, lavish supporters of the Democrats. In Pelosi's world, if an overseas terrorist calls another terrorist to coordinate an operation against US troops, our intelligence agencies should not be permitted to monitor their conversations unless a judge in Washington is convinced the courtroom standard of "probable cause" has been met. No matter that FISA was specifically designed to permit the monitoring of non-Americans overseas without restrictions, Pelosi has decided that aliens have Fourth Amendment rights (like all Americans) and they need worldwide privacy protections against eavesdropping. By tying the hands of our intelligence agencies, she weakens our country's defenses and makes us more vulnerable to attack. Her loyalties lie with protecting the interests of the trial lawyer lobby. How many more days will she delay the vote and allow terrorists to plot, plan, and organize without fear of detection?