More bad news for the Democrats

Something to think about

What’s new Today

Our #1 story brings us up to date on Fannie and Freddie and the financial meltdown.  #2 reviews how bad a year Obama has had.  #3 is an interesting look at the worst new regulations the federal government has come up with this year.  #4 looks at whether climate warmists actually believe what they are telling us.  Hint, they don’t.   And finally, #5 lays out 12 predictions about the politics in 2012 by Karl Rove. 

1.  Fannie and Freddie Update

…Summarized below are the original numbers we relied on, taken from Fannie and Freddie’s own data and from the views of bank regulators—and now supplemented with additional data from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent complaints against certain officers of Fannie and Freddie. Of particular interest are Fannie and Freddie’s non-prosecution agreements with the SEC, in which they agree with facts that confirm—and in many cases go beyond—our original research concerning the scope of the GSEs’ subprime and Alt-A exposure. These are facts, and Nocera and others who might wish it otherwise should become familiar with them.

For example, IN ITS NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FREDDIE AGREED THAT AS OF JUNE 30, 2008, IT HAD $244 BILLION IN SUBPRIME LOANS, COMPRISING 14 PERCENT OF ITS CREDIT GUARANTY PORTFOLIO, RATHER THAN THE $6 BILLION IT HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED. Freddie also agreed that it had $541 billion in reduced documentation loans alone, vastly more than the $190 billion in previously disclosed Alt-A loans which Freddie had said included loans with reduced documentation.

While the SEC documents about $1.03 trillion in previously undisclosed subprime and Alt-A loans in Fannie and Freddie’s credit guaranty portfolios, an estimated $812.8 billion, or about 80 percent, were already accounted for in the totals of Fannie and Freddie subprime and Alt-A exposures included in Pinto’s Forensic Study and Wallison’s Dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

THE SEC FINDINGS ADD $219 BILLION AND 1.43 MILLION LOANS TO OUR ORIGINAL FANNIE AND FREDDIE SUBPRIME AND ALT-A TOTALS, BRINGING THE COMBINED SUBPRIME AND ALT-A TOTAL TO $2.041 TRILLION and 13.37 million loans...

http://american.com/archive/2011/december/why-the-left-is-losing-the-argument-over-the-financial-crisis

The left continues to scream greed, but facts are facts.  Was greed involved?  Of course it was.  Would the crisis have hit if the government hadn’t been pushing subprime loans?  NO.

2.  Obama’s annus horribilis

President Obama has had the worst year of his presidency. Or, to be more precise, HIS PERFORMANCE THIS YEAR HAS BEEN THE WORST OF HIS PRESIDENCY. Pundits and pollsters will say that his “numbers are up,” but let’s look at what he’s done or not done.

If you can recall, back in February his State of the Union address was a bore-a-thon stocked with spending ideas (on everything from light rail to salmon), with only glancing reference to the debt. His grand proposal: Freeze discretionary spending at the astronomically high level he had presided over in his first two years.

The next few months were spent bashing the only man to author a serious budget plan and put real Medicare reform on the table. HE NOT ONLY REBUFFED REP. PAUL RYAN’S PROPOSALS BUT INVITED HIM TO A SPEECH, PUT HIM IN THE FIRST ROW AND THEN DELIVERED A HYPER-PARTISAN ATTACK, accusing the Republicans of taking Pell grants from college kids so fat cats could get a break on corporate jets.

Throughout the spring and summer the president failed to present his own entitlement reform plans. He caved on the continuing resolution and on the debt ceiling deal,  upsetting the left because he hadn’t hiked taxes on the rich. In the fall it was time for his taxpayer-paid bus tour on which he bashed Republicans using some of the most egregious language of his presidency. (ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT, THE GOP WANTS YOU TO BREATHE DIRTY AIR AND WON’T PUT COUNTRY ABOVE PARTY.) His own “jobs” bill was a feeble retread of his stimulus plan. It was largely ignored, save the payroll tax cut. The president insisted on a two-month deal to embarrass the GOP. We passed the $15 trillion mark on the debt. Unemployment remains at historically high levels.

IT WAS A YEAR OF SHOCKING IRRESPONSIBILITY AND DEMAGOGUERY. He denounced the Ryan-Wyden Medicare plan as he had Ryan’s original Medicare reform plan. He let the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan wither on the vine. He lifted not a finger to make use of the supercommittee he had agreed to create. He put forth no tax reform plan. If there has been a more slothful performance in and hyper-partisan use of the Oval Office in recent years I am hard-pressed to recall it. Frankly, Congress should run against the do-nothing president….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-annus-horribilis/2011/12/28/gIQADk0RMP_blog.html

Obama is shockingly unqualified to be President.  He is lazy and has let the American public down on both sides of the aisle. 

3.  Top 10 Worst Federal Rules of 2011

Hindsight is supposed to be 20/20, but looking back on the past 12 months, it’s tough to see any sense in many of the Administration’s regulatory missteps. Of course, there are bound to be a few howlers WHEN GOVERNMENT CHURNS OUT MORE THAN 3,500 RULES IN A YEAR, including dozens unleashed by Obamacare, Dodd–Frank, and the perpetually errant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But by any standard, 2011 brought forth a remarkable number and variety of regulatory blunders.

Fair warning: Our Top 10 list may prove fatal to any bit of faith in government as a “fixer,” if faith somehow has managed to survive despite all evidence to the contrary. In any event, it should steel our resolve to fight the Leviathan in the coming year.

1. THE DIM BULBS RULE….

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/28/top-10-worst-federal-rules-of-2011/

Read them all.  It will reinforce that one of the biggest lies in America is the statement, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

 

4.   Do Warmists Really Believe in Global Warming?

…You can’t necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. IF SOMEONE REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, THEY WILL REACT TO A SUGGESTION BY ENGAGING IT. THEY WILL “WORK WITH” THE SUGGESTION, TRYING TO SEE HOW IT CAN HELP THEM DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT TO DO. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, “Yes, but…”

The climate change crowd has been frantically “yes, butting” geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT EVEN IF “CLIMATE CHANGE” IS HAPPENING, AND EVEN IF IT IS A BAD THING, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE REVERSED BY REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, IF ANYTHING AT ALL IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY “GEOENGINEERING”.

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to “global warming” than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. IT WOULD WORK REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS “REALLY” CAUSING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO RISE. Second, THERE ARE GEOENGINEERING APPROACHES THAT COULD COOL THE EARTH AT A COST OF A FEW BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, RATHER THAN TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change “problem”, the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. THEY HAVE GONE ALL-OUT TO STOP GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS FROM BEING CONDUCTED, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and THEY ARE ARGUING THAT EVEN IF THE EXPERIMENT GOES AHEAD, THE RESULTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC.

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people’s lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/12/28/even-the-warmists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/2/

Progressives like to charge anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the AGW hypothesis doesn’t believe in science.  In reality, Progressives don’t believe in liberty. They believe in philosopher kings who rule in the interest of the masses. 

5.   Karl Rove’s Predictions for 2012

As New Year's approaches, here are a baker's dozen predictions for 2012.

• REPUBLICANS WILL KEEP THE U.S. HOUSE, albeit with their 25-seat majority slightly reduced. In the 10 presidential re-elections since 1936, the party in control of the White House has added House seats in seven contests and lost them in three. The average gain has been 12 seats. The largest pickup was 24 seats in 1944—but President Barack Obama is no FDR, despite what he said in his recent "60 Minutes" interview.

• REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE THE U.S. SENATE. Of the 23 Democratic seats up in 2012, there are at least five vulnerable incumbents (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania): The GOP takes two or three of these. With the announcement on Tuesday that Nebraska's Ben Nelson will retire, there are now seven open Democratic seats (Connecticut, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin): The GOP takes three or four. Even if Republicans lose one of the 10 seats they have up, they will have a net pickup of four to six seats, for a majority of 51 to 53.

… After failing to win the GOP presidential nomination, RON PAUL WILL NOT RUN AS A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE because that would put his son, Rand Paul, in an untenable position: Does the Republican senator from Kentucky support his father and effectively re-elect Mr. Obama, or back his party and defeat him?...

… The economic recovery will continue to be anemic, leaving both unemployment and concerns about whether the president is up to the job high on Election Day. Because of this, MR. OBAMA WILL LOSE AS HIS MARGINS DROP AMONG FIVE GROUPS ESSENTIAL TO HIS 2008 VICTORY—INDEPENDENTS, WOMEN, LATINOS, YOUNG PEOPLE AND JEWS. While he will win a majority from at least three of these groups, he won't win them by as much as he did last time…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203391104577124880807529116.html

Predictions are always fun to read.  Enjoy this article. 

Fannie and Freddie and the Economic Collapse

The Democrats try to keep the conversation away from this fact that it was their "good intentions" that caused the economic collapse we've experienced in 2008.  But facts are facts and here are some of them.








The Overview

The financial collapse which led to our present enervating recession was the housing collapse and bank failures. Toxic mortgages, foreclosure crisis, Mr. Fix-It bailouts -- the entire sorry tale is one of Democrat failures.

It starts with Jimmy Carter and his COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT, by which the heavy hand of government "encouraged" banks to loan to marginal borrowers.

That push was ramped up under Bill Clinton. Clinton's HUD Secretary, Andrew Cuomo who created regulations which FORCED THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED MORTGAGE ENTITIES FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC TO STEP UP LOANS TO MINORITIES.

Clinton's Treasury Secretary was Democrat Robert Rubin, aided by Democrat Lawrence Summers, now on the Obama economic team. Rubin and Summers honchoed the effort to REPEAL THE DEPRESSION ERA GLASS-STEAGALL ACT, allowing investment banks to use federally insured depositor cash to back millions of mortgages while easing underwriting standards at the same time. No money down? No problem.

In addition, Rubin pushed through the COMMODITY FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT, which allowed the creation of mortgage-backed securities. Liar loans packaged as investments and sold to pension funds.

Democrats in the NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE REGULATORS ALLOWED AIG TO INSURE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES with an invention known as the Credit Default Swap.

Democrats blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003 when Republicans ran D.C. they pushed for HR2575 -- the SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET INTERPRISES REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT, which would have strengthened an independent regulator for the government-backed mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie.

The Democrats used cloture rules to keep the act from moving to a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

When the Democrats came back in control in 2006 eighteen attempts by George W. Bush and John McCain to prod the Democrat-controlled Congress to exert control over Fannie and Freddie were rejected summarily by Democrats.

Quotes by Democrats about Fannie and Freddie

· "I don't think we face a crisis, I don't think that we have an impending disaster... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work and THEY ARE NOT ENDANGERING THE FISCAL HEALTH OF THIS COUNTRY." Barney Frank

"THESE GSE'S HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE CAPITAL FOR THE BUSINESS THEY ARE IN: providing affordable housing... We should not be making radical or fundamental change. If there is anything to fix or improve, it is the (regulators)." Maxine Waters

"I am just pissed off at (the regulators) because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place." "I think there HAS BEEN NOTHING THAT WAS INDICATED IS WRONG, YOU KNOW, WITH FANNIE MAE...the question that then presents is the competence of your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSE's." Gregory Meeks D-NY

"Clearly, the MISSION OF FREDDIE MAC AND ESPECIALLY FANNIE MAE IS TO CLOSE THAT GAP." David Scott on the question of minority homeownership lagging behind whites.

"THESE ASSETS ARE SO RISKLESS THAT THEIR CAPITAL FOR HOLDING THEM SHOULD BE UNDER TWO PERCENT." Fannie Mae's Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines

Was greed involved?

· For this type of brilliant forecasting, RAINES WAS COMPENSATED $90 MILLION during his tenure.

· When JAMIE GORELICK, Democrat, took over and continued Raines' nothing-can-go-wrong-here policies, she EARNED $26 MILLION.

· She was followed by DEMOCRAT JIM JOHNSON, who was at or near the wheel when the car went into the ditch in 2007. HE TOOK HOME A PALTRY $21 MILLION.

· DEMOCRAT RUBIN TOOK HOME $100 MILLION FROM HIS POST-TREASURY JOB AT CITIBANK (which was eventually saved by a bailout.) .

Countrywide's role

Bloomberg said, "IT WAS NOT THE BANKS THAT CREATED THE MORTGAGE CRISIS. IT WAS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, CONGRESS, WHO FORCED EVERYBODY TO GO AND GIVE MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE CUSP. ... THEY WERE THE ONES WHO PUSHED FANNIE AND FREDDIE TO MAKE A BUNCH OF LOANS THAT WERE IMPRUDENT, IF YOU WILL."

The usual suspects on the left went crazy. The New York Times Paul Krugman called Bloomberg an "ignoramous," citing liberal blogger Mike Konczal's Fannie defense:

"The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market ... [Fannie and Freddie] were not behind them," Konczal said.

IS KONCZAL RIGHT? ARE FANNIE AND FREDDIE INNOCENT OF CAUSING THE MORTGAGE CRISIS?

This we do know: THANKS TO THE WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BAIL THEM OUT, FANNIE AND FREDDIE WERE ABLE TO BORROW MONEY AT BELOW-MARKET INTEREST RATES.

This gave them a significant competitive advantage over private-sector firms which, by 1992, the TWO GOVERNMENT-BACKED CORPORATE ENTITIES HAD TURNED INTO AN ALMOST 70 PERCENT SHARE IN THE MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION MARKET.

That same year, at the direction of the Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development began setting "affordable" mortgage goals for the agencies.

Countrywide was a growing force in the mortgage industry when it partnered with Fannie in 1992. BUT AFTER MOZILO'S FIRM SECURED A STEADY GOVERNMENT BUYER FOR THEIR LOANS, BUSINESS EXPLODED. REVENUES WENT FROM $92 MILLION IN 1992, TO $860 MILLION IN 1996, TO $2 BILLION IN 2000. BY 2004, THEY WERE THE NATION'S LARGEST MORTGAGE LENDER.

The secret to Countrywide's success was no mystery: They shredded standard industry lending practices, giving home loans to virtually anybody who asked. FANNIE MAE NOT ONLY KNEW THIS, FANNIE REWARDED IT.

IN 2000, THE FANNIE MAE FOUNDATION HONORED COUNTRYWIDE FOR "OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT" IN THE INDUSTRY. The foundation's 2000 annual report noted: "WHEN NECESSARY -- IN CASES WHERE APPLICANTS HAVE NO ESTABLISHED CREDIT HISTORY, FOR EXAMPLE -- COUNTRYWIDE USES NONTRADITIONAL CREDIT, A PRACTICE NOW ACCEPTED BY [FANNIE]."

Countrywide continued to be the biggest supplier of loans to Fannie Mae all the way through the height of the housing boom. IN 2004, 26 PERCENT OF THE LOANS FANNIE BOUGHT WERE FROM COUNTRYWIDE. IN 2007, THAT NUMBER HAD RISEN TO 28 PERCENT.

In his 1993 Nobel Prize lecture, economist Douglass North said, "IF THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REWARDS PIRACY, THEN PIRATICAL ORGANIZATIONS WILL COME INTO EXISTENCE; AND IF THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REWARDS PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES THEN ORGANIZATIONS -- FIRMS -- WILL COME INTO EXISTENCE TO ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES."

From 1992 through the height of the housing bubble, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their monopoly position in the mortgage securitization industry to reward firms like Countrywide for making bad bets in the housing market. COUNTRYWIDE'S SUCCESS WAS A SIGNAL TO OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO LOWER THEIR STANDARDS AS WELL.

Wall Street banks are not blameless for the financial crisis. BUT THEY WERE ONLY RESPONDING TO THE INCENTIVES SET UP BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Ignoring this history will help no one

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/conn-carroll-facts-show-fannie-freddie-led-mortgage-market-collapse#ixzz1dUhRb0Dg

What you see when government becomes partners with private industry is crony capitalism at its worst.  Countrywide was feted for their good works, yet they were a major example of why the collapse happened. 

Moving beyond Freddie and Fannie

The term “permanent conservatorship” is an oxymoron. By its very construct, the conservatorship of a corporation is meant to be temporary. And yet THREE YEARS AFTER THE BAILOUT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, WE ARE NO CLOSER TO TRANSITIONING THEM OFF GOVERNMENT LIFE SUPPORT THAN WE WERE THE DAY IN 2008 WHEN THEY CAME UNDER DIRECT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

This is unacceptable.

A delay in dealing with Fannie and Freddie was partly inevitable, as policymakers worried that any misstep could negatively affect a fragile housing market. But WE HAVE COME TO A POINT WHERE CONTINUED INACTION IMPEDES THE ABILITY OF THE PRIVATE MARKET TO TAKE OVER A FUNCTION THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLETELY MISMANAGED. We must move beyond Fannie and Freddie, immediately.

This task will not be politically easy. Many of the institutions that have come to rely on the corporate welfare Fannie and Freddie provide have argued that we cannot have a housing finance system without the support of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This argument not only ignores the risks taxpayers are forced to bear but also fundamentally misrepresents the structure of the housing finance system.

Broadly speaking, THE RISKS INHERENT IN MORTGAGE LENDING CAN BE PLACED IN TWO CATEGORIES, INTEREST RATE RISK AND CREDIT RISK. Interest rate risk stems from the fact that homeowners can prepay their mortgages at any time, and they generally choose to do so when interest rates are low. This leaves the lender with the tricky job of managing an asset-liability mismatch. But THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS PROVED CAPABLE OF THE TASK. IN FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO DEAL WITH THIS CHALLENGE REMAINS A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF MODERN FINANCE.

The second risk in mortgage lending is credit risk, or the risk that a borrower will default on his or her mortgage. TODAY, MORTGAGE CREDIT RISK IS ALMOST COMPLETELY PRICED AND MANAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT. HAVING “CROWDED OUT” PRIVATE INVESTORS BY CHARGING AN INSURANCE PREMIUM THAT WAS TOO CHEAP, THE GSES ARE SADDLED WITH $5 TRILLION WORTH OF BAD CREDIT. This is a tragedy of our own making. During the boom years, the GSEs’ affordable housing goals were coupled with a Congress and an administration that saw only the bright side of rapidly increasing homeownership rates. That meant that as housing prices began to spike, it was impossible to make credit slightly more expensive…..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/moving-beyond-freddie-and-fannie/2011/11/22/gIQAUyPhtN_story.html?hpid=z6

Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddie

IN THE MYTHMAKING OF THE REACTIONARY LEFT, PRIVATE BANKS CREATED RISKY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS PREDICATED ON THE U.S. MORTGAGE INDUSTRY THAT WERE SO INTRINSICALLY CORRUPT THAT IT LED TO AN INEVITABLE COLLAPSE IN THE HOUSING MARKET IN 2008. PRIVATE BANKS THAT WERE BAILED OUT IN TARP WERE COLLECTIVELY ENGAGED IN NEGLIGENCE AND FRAUD THAT LED TO OUR PRESENT ECONOMIC DEMISE. The staggering loss of $6 trillion in housing values damaged the entire global economy.

Noticeably absent from this commentary and storytelling is a sense of the federal government's key role in creating the crisis. FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC WERE THE LARGEST FINANCIERS OF MORTGAGES IN THE UNITED STATES. Preceding the crisis, congressional regulator Franklin Raines made public statements that there "was no risk" to investing in American mortgages. THE DEREGULATED VIEW OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC COMBINED WITH THE REGULATOR'S STATEMENTS THAT THERE WAS NO RISK IN THIS AREA OF FINANCIAL INVESTMENT WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF TELLING CHRONIC GAMBLERS THAT THE CASINO WILL COVER ALL BETS. Not only did congressional regulators such as Barney Frank fail to constrain the federal agencies inflating the housing bubble, but they actively criticized in public those trying to prevent a crisis through increased regulation, and they worked to inculcate the view that there were no undue risks in the American housing market.

Congressman Frank provides his own convoluted review of this crisis on his congressional homepage. In his account, the Bush administration took the inexplicable view of opposing regulation from 2001 to 2007 and then endorsed regulation in 2007, when FRANK TOOK LEADERSHIP OF THE IMPORTANT HOUSING ISSUES RELATING TO FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. ACCORDING TO FRANK, THE REGULATIONS PASSED IN 2007 BY HIMSELF AND PRESIDENT BUSH WERE "TOO LATE." Outside the reactionary left's mythmaking offered by Congressman Frank, the Bush administration repeatedly called for heightened congressional oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac throughout both terms of the Bush presidencies. In reality, THE BUSH PROPOSALS TO TREAT GSES LIKE FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC THE SAME AS PRIVATE BANKS IN THE REGULATORY WORLD, WERE TERMED "INANE" IN 2005 BY CONGRESSMAN FRANK. The reforms passed by Frank came in 2008 -- after the industry had collapsed -- despite Frank's 2005 assurance that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "fundamentally sound." The GSEs purchased considerable political sway in fall of 2006 to prevent the regulatory leveling sought by the Bush administration. Democratic senators such as Chris Dodd and Barack Obama received considerable financial support from the GSEs in a landslide sweep for Democrats in Congress that functionally guaranteed that the GSEs would fend off future regulatory reforms pushed by the president….

….The proper writing of Barney Frank's political epitaph is not important only as a matter of history. It is important as a moral enterprise in trying to allow history to teach us how not to repeat the errors of the past. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE AN INTUITION THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABUSED BY THEIR POLITICAL HANDLERS. THE SURROUNDING PUNDITRY CLASS CONTINUES TO FORM THE GREEK CHORUS OF SUPPORT FOR HALF-TRUTH STORIES OF HOW WE WENT FROM 4.7% UNEMPLOYMENT IN JANUARY OF 2007 AND FALLING DEFICITS TO 9-PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT and ever-soaring trillions of debt in January of 2012. The retirement and a proper sense of the fiscal legacy of Barney Frank is an opportunity to restore some measure of sanity to America's economic house and possibly avoid a repeat of these mistakes.

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_fall_of_the_house_of_frank.html#ixzz1fN85Ph5t

Barney and Chris were the protectors of Fannie and Freddie.  Both will be gone from congress by January 2012.  The Democrats try to pin this on greed and deregulation.  Greed is always a factor and you will never eliminate it.  That is why you need some regulations and the Democrats fought the regulations when it interfered with what they lusted for, more votes. 

Why liberals lose elections

What’s new today

Story #1 tells us what’s going on in Pennsylvania and it isn’t good news for the Democrats.  #2 speaks to my theory of why Liberals lose elections.  #3 talks about Operation Fast and Furious and how the Democrats are trying to tie it to Operation Wide Receiver.  #4 looks at whether president Obama is trying to raise our taxes for the UN. # 5 looks at the Fannie and Freddie and what part they played in the financial crisis.  #6 exposes a hole in the stat often used by the left to talk about inequality in income distribution.  It seems it’s not as bad as they want you to believe.  #7 is about Climategate 2. 

1.  Could Obama Lose Pennsylvania?

…HARD TO IMAGINE A DEMOCRAT COULD LOSE PENNSYLVANIA IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO WON IT JUST THREE YEARS AGO BY NEARLY 10 PERCENTAGE POINTS.

Never mind that Republicans swept the state in last year's midterm elections, taking a majority of U.S. House seats, a U.S. Senate seat, both chambers of the state Legislature and the governor's mansion -- PENNSYLVANIA IS STILL 4 PERCENT MORE "DEMOCRAT" THAN HER MIDWESTERN COUNTERPARTS.

The latest survey from liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling showed 59 percent of white Pennsylvania voters disapprove of Obama's job performance, a rate usually found among Southern voters.

Sean Trende, a RealClearPolitics numbers analyst, said that while the president could write off Pennsylvania and win, it would be difficult. "The key would be holding the Bush states he won in the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, plus Virginia and North Carolina."

That path gives him 280 electoral votes and assumes he will lose Indiana and Ohio, which he almost certainly will if he loses Pennsylvania.

OBAMA'S MAIN PROBLEM IN PENNSYLVANIA IS DOWNSCALE WHITES, said Trende: "The white working class has never been crazy about this president, and really only came on board with the collapse of the stock market in September of 2008."

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. "HE CALLED THEM 'BITTER,'" TRENDE SAID -- AND THEY HAVE NEVER FORGOTTEN THAT….

Obama writing off Pennsylvania? - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_770153.html#ixzz1ffbbHQbz

It’s one of the ironic things.  Obama calls them bitter and they are bitter about that. 

2.   Why Liberals lose elections

Lenore Zimmerman, 85, was angry and embarrassed after what she claims was a STRIP SEARCH AT KENNEDY AIRPORT Tuesday. Now another woman in her 80′s at the very same terminal says she was exposed one day before.

From her home in Sunrise, Florida, 88-year-old Ruth Sherman says she knows for a fact senior citizens are being violated at a screening checkpoint at JFK…

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/04/another-elderly-woman-says-she-was-exposed-at-kennedy-airport/



Over and over liberals can’t believe that they aren’t permanently in power.  Their individual policies are popular, but liberals are the party of government and over and over again we see the abuse, stupidity, and recklessness of power.  And those popular policies never seem to work out as planned.  The reasons liberals lose elections is because of the experience we have when they are in power. 

3.  Operation Fast and Furious

…IT WAS ALL A LIE. The angry denials, the high dudgeon, the how-dare-you accuse-us bleating emanating from Eric Holder’s Justice Department these last nine months.

Operation Fast and Furious — the “botched” gun-tracking program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — DID, IN FACT, DELIBERATELY ALLOW SOME 2,000 HIGH-POWERED WEAPONS TO BE SOLD TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL AGENTS AND THEN WALTZED ACROSS THE BORDER AND INTO THE MEXICAN DRUG WARS — just as Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, who are leading the congressional investigations, have charged all along.

That’s the conclusion we can draw from Friday night’s nearly 1,400-page document dump, which gives us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Justice Department as it struggled earlier this year to come up with an explanation for the deadly mess — and “misled” Congress….

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284879/and-award-best-fast-and-furious-water-carrier-goes-michael-walsh

What makes this interesting is the way the left is trying to spin this.  They are trying to say this is a continuation of a Bush era operation called Wide Receiver.  Except it isn’t.  Wide Receiver actually involved not gun-walking but controlled delivery.  You can read about the difference in the link provided. 

4.  Obama looks poised to Tax Americans for UN Green Fund

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TEAM OF NEGOTIATORS AT THE UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE MAY AGREE TO A TAX ON FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS, designed to pay for a "Green Climate Fund," that would fall disproportionately on American travellers and businesses, according to a group attending the conference that is skeptical of the UN position on global warming.

Negotiators at the conference are considering "a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world," according to the Center for a Constructive Alternative (CFACT). "EVERY TIME YOU TRAVEL ABROAD, YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY A CLIMATE TAX," explains CFACT, the group that released the Climategate emails.  "More importantly, EVERY TIME WE IMPORT GOODS, EVERY TIME WE EXPORT OUR FINE PRODUCTS (THINK JOBS) WE WILL DO SO WITH A CLIMATE TAX SKIMMING OFF THE TOP."

European countries would evade much of the tax burden, however, because "transactions within the Eurozone won't have to pay this new tax…."

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/report-un-tax-americans-green-climate-fund/237466

Go to Lie of the Year contest http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/02/2011-lie-year-finalists/   and vote for BHO’s comment, “I didn’t raise taxes once.”  Of course that may be true since he’s raised them many times. 

5.   Fannie and Freddie

… When Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, pushed for comprehensive GSE reform in 2005, DEMOCRAT SEN. CHRIS DODD OF CONNECTICUT SUCCESSFULLY THREATENED A FILIBUSTER. Later, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Mr. Dodd asked, "Why weren't we doing more?" He then voted for the Bush reforms that he once called "ill-advised."

But Mr. Dodd wasn't the only Democrat to heap abuse on the Bush reforms. REP. BARNEY FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS DEFENDED FANNIE AND FREDDIE AS "FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND" AND LABELED THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS AS "INANE." He later voted for the reforms. SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER OF NEW YORK DISMISSED MR. BUSH'S "SAFETY AND SOUNDNESS CONCERNS" AS "A STRAW MAN." "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT," WAS THE HELPFUL ADVICE OF BOTH SEN. THOMAS CARPER OF DELAWARE AND REP. MAXINE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York berated a Bush official at a hearing, saying, "I am just pissed off" at the administration for raising the issue.

Democrats had ready allies among lenders accustomed to GSEs buying their risky mortgages. For example, ANGELO MOZILO, CEO OF COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL, COMPLAINED THAT "AN OVERLY CUMBERSOME REGULATORY PROCESS" WOULD "REDUCE, OR EVEN ELIMINATE, THE INCENTIVES FOR THE GSES AND THEIR PRIMARY MARKET PARTNERS."

It took Fannie and Freddie over three decades to acquire $2 trillion in mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. TOGETHER, THEY HELD $2.1 TRILLION IN 2000. BY 2005, THE TWO GSES HELD $4 TRILLION, UP 92% IN JUST FIVE YEARS. BY 2008, THEY'D GROWN ANOTHER 24%, TO NEARLY $5 TRILLION. They held almost half of all American mortgages.

The more the president pushed for reform, the more they bought. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Calomiris of the Columbia Business School suggest $1 trillion of this debt was subprime and "liar loans," almost all bought between 2005 and 2007. THIS BULK-UP IN RISKY PAPER MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR BANKS TO LEND IMPRUDENTLY ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

Some critics blame Mr. Bush because he supported broadening homeownership. But Mr. Bush's goal was for people to own homes they could afford, not ones made accessible by reckless lenders who off-loaded their risk to GSEs.

THE HOUSING MELTDOWN IS LARGELY A STORY OF GREED AND IRRESPONSIBILITY MADE POSSIBLE BY GOVERNMENT PRIVILEGE. If Democrats had granted the Bush administration the regulatory powers it sought, the housing crisis wouldn't be nearly as severe and the economy as a whole would be better off….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html

The Democrats continue to deny Fannie and Freddie’s part in the financial debacle, so here is an article from 2009. 

6.   Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1%

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, "THE SHARE OF INCOME RECEIVED BY THE TOP 1% GREW FROM ABOUT 8% IN 1979 TO OVER 17% IN 2007."

This news caused quite a stir, feeding the left's obsession with inequality. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, for example, said this "jaw-dropping report" shows "why the Occupy Wall Street protests have struck such a nerve." The New York Times opined that the study is "likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies."

But here's a question: WHY DID THE REPORT STOP AT 2007? The CBO didn't say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that "HIGH INCOME TAXPAYERS HAD ESPECIALLY LARGE DECLINES IN ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009."

No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, THE SHARE OF AFTER-TAX INCOME OF THE TOP 1% BY MY ESTIMATE FELL TO 11.3% IN 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.

The larger truth is that RECESSIONS ALWAYS DESTROY WEALTH AND SMALL BUSINESS INCOMES AT THE TOP. Perhaps those who obsess over income shares should welcome stock market crashes and deep recessions because such calamities invariably reduce "inequality." OF COURSE, THE SAME RECESSIONS ALSO INCREASE POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577062661910819078.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

It appears JFK was correct when he said “A rising tide lifts all the boats.”  The unsaid thing was a leak in the boat lowers everyone and puts the people who were lowest in the water. 

7.   Climategate 2

New and explosive revelations continue to emerge from the Climategate 2 emails, two weeks after the 5,000-plus emails were first publicly unveiled. While Climategate 2 does not share the “novelty factor” of Climategate 1, THE CONTENTS OF THE CLIMATEGATE 2 EMAILS ARE AT LEAST AS APPALLING AS CLIMATEGATE 1. Most importantly, the Climategate 2 emails SHOW SCIENTISTS AT THE FOREFRONT OF GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVISM ACKNOWLEDGING SERIOUS FLAWS IN ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING THEORY, WORKING TOGETHER TO HIDE DATA CONTRADICTING ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING THEORY, AND TAKING CONCERTED AND NEFARIOUS ACTION TO RUIN THE CAREERS OF SCIENTISTS AND PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNAL EDITORS who publish studies and data that undermine alarmist global warming claims.

Global warming activists and their sympathetic media allies are attempting to paint the Climategate stories as merely frustrated scientists understandably acting catty in response to incessant personal attacks from global warming skeptics. Such a storyline is about as accurate and believable AS PAINTING THE WATERGATE SCANDAL AS RICHARD NIXON MERELY AND UNDERSTANDABLY ACTING CATTY IN RESPONSE TO INCESSANT PERSONAL ATTACKS FROM DEMOCRATS AND A HOSTILE MEDIA….

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/05/climategate-2-emails-loaded-bombshells

I posted this because I like the analogy.  Well it is called ClimateGATE. 

Should the Democrats panic?

What’s new today

Story #1 talks of a desperation in Obama’s fund raising pitch.  #2 talks about the decrease in the unemployment rate.  #3 is the case for Newt Gingrich and what he brings to the presidency.  #4 tells the story the Democrats don’t want told about Fannie, Freddie and Chris and Barney.  #5 takes us to the Occupy movement and the false story about Lech Walesa supposedly endorsing the movement.  #6 gives us the six signs that the Occupy Movement is now politically dead. 

1.  Obama Sounds Desperate

Suddenly, President OBAMA IS INSERTING A STARK NEW TONE OF DRAMA AND URGENCY INTO HIS CAMPAIGN SPEECHES TO LOYALISTS AT POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS.

After talking up his payroll tax cut in Pennsylvania Wednesday afternoon, Obama flew Air Force One to New York City for not one, not two, but three money gatherings from Gotham liberals….

…."EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE CARE ABOUT IS AT STAKE IN THE NEXT ELECTION," he told one donor group. "The very core of what this country stands for is on the line."

So, the future of the entire country is now inextricably tied to Obama's own reelection?

SUCH HYPERBOLIC, HUBRISTIC CLAIMS ARE USUALLY RESERVED FOR A CAMPAIGN'S CLOSING HOURS TO PROMPT A LAST-MINUTE SPURT OF POLITICAL ADRENALIN AMONG SUPPORTERS. Not 341 days out. Not 10 months before even early voting opens. This couldn't possibly be desperation! Already?

Here are several other points made by Obama to a possibly puzzled crowd assembled at the Gotham Bar and Grille:

"I've got to win in 2012."

"In order to finish the job, I'm going to have to have a second term."

"I need a couple more years to finish the job."

"I'm going to need another term to finish the job."…

http://news.investors.com/Article/593351/201112010754/obama-fundraiser-speech-needs-more-time.htm?src=IBDDAE

He is right when he said the core of what this country stands for is at stake. However, that reminder probably works more against his election than for it. 

     2. Jobs: Mixed Results for Obama

U.S. employers, continuing a pattern of modest hiring, ADDED 120,000 NEW JOBS IN NOVEMBER, the Labor Department said Friday.

The nation's UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, HOWEVER, FELL SHARPLY TO 8.6% FROM 9% IN OCTOBER. There was an unusually big drop in the number of people who reported being out of work. Many jobless people may have quit looking for jobs, and thus wouldn't have been counted as officially unemployed. Analysts expect the jobless figure to climb back up next month.

Strong HOLIDAY HIRING BOOSTED THE NEW JOB TALLY LAST MONTH. RETAILERS ADDED ALMOST 50,000 JOBS, the second strongest November hiring by stores in a decade. TWO OTHER LOWER-PAYING SECTORS, TEMPORARY-HELP AND LEISURE BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTED FOR MUCH OF THE REST OF THE JOB GAINS. Manufacturing payrolls were flat, and government continued to slash workers….

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fiw-jobs-20111203,0,1092997.story

Kind of reminds me of the old joke, “I have good news and bad news for you, which do you want first.”  “Give me the bad news.”  “Okay, we’re out of food and the only thing we have to eat is grass.”  “What’s the good news?” “There isn’t enough of that to go around.”  I’ll give you the good news first.  We gained 120,000 jobs last month.  Now the bad most of them were temporary or low paying. 

3.   The Case for Gingrich

…Nevertheless, THERE IS A COMPELLING CASE FOR GINGRICH AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. He is both glib and brilliant. In this respect Gingrich resembles much more the parliamentary pugilist Winston Churchill, who also had very heavy baggage, than Ronald Reagan, who gave "The Speech" ten thousand times. Like Churchill, who mastered much more than just politics, Gingrich is an historian, a fiction writer, and a dozen other things.

HE WILL NOT BE STUMPED BY THE MEDIA. IN FACT, GINGRICH WILL HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO ACTUALLY EMBARRASS THE AUTOMATONS WHO READ TELEPROMPTER QUESTIONS. More pointedly, Gingrich has the best chance of any Republican to display Obama before America in a "deer in the headlights" moment. OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT IS A PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT MAN WHOSE IGNORANCE IS MASKED BY EQUALLY IGNORANT AND WHOLLY PROGRAMMED MEDIA.

Yet what Obama doesn't know can hurt us, and a single slip in the debates could cost him -- and perhaps his party -- five percentage points in the general election. That could not only seal the presidential election, but also swing dozens of House and Senate races and turn a presidential victory into a presidential landslide. People are scared now, and a man who obviously grasps the present crisis can be a valuable electoral asset.

GINGRICH ALSO UNDERSTANDS CONGRESS. He was House minority whip and then speaker of the House, the most important office in Congress. Gingrich would understand how to move legislation through Congress, and so A CONSERVATIVE AGENDA SUPPORTED BY HIM WOULD HAVE A MUCH GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF ACTUALLY BECOMING LAW than it would with some more ardent, but less experienced, conservatives.

An analogy might be made between LBJ and Gingrich. President Johnson was not nearly as liberal as most Democrat nominees in the last fifty years, yet he transformed America (for the worse, but still dramatically) with his "Great Society" agenda. Johnson, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president, knew just how Congress worked. Since Johnson, America has moved progressively to the left, because Johnson was able to get enacted what seemed like a modestly leftist agenda.

Moreover, GINGRICH AS A NOVICE SPEAKER LEARNED THE HARD WAY WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T IN HIGH-PROFILE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DEBATES. It is easy to underestimate what he accomplished with a modest House majority and a Senate in which Republicans could not even end debate on a bill, much less, in either house, override a presidential veto.

His personal scandals of the past would actually come as a strength in the general election. Gingrich as speaker was smeared and attacked so relentlessly that ALL THE "BAD NEWS" HAS BEEN HEARD LONG BEFORE. Rather like with Clinton, who had even more scandals, no one much cares about an older man whose life has been scrutinized and used by his enemies…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_case_for_gingrich.html#ixzz1fNCNUjQI

This is a very good summary of the case for Newt. 

4.  Frank, Fannie and Freddie

…IN THE MYTHMAKING OF THE REACTIONARY LEFT, PRIVATE BANKS CREATED RISKY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS PREDICATED ON THE U.S. MORTGAGE INDUSTRY THAT WERE SO INTRINSICALLY CORRUPT THAT IT LED TO AN INEVITABLE COLLAPSE IN THE HOUSING MARKET IN 2008. Private banks that were bailed out in TARP were collectively engaged in negligence and fraud that led to our present economic demise. The staggering loss of $6 trillion in housing values damaged the entire global economy.

NOTICEABLY ABSENT FROM THIS COMMENTARY AND STORYTELLING IS A SENSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S KEY ROLE IN CREATING THE CRISIS. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the largest financiers of mortgages in the United States. Preceding the crisis, congressional regulator FRANKLIN RAINES MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT THERE "WAS NO RISK" TO INVESTING IN AMERICAN MORTGAGES. The deregulated view of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined with the regulator's statements that there was no risk in this area of financial investment was the equivalent of telling chronic gamblers that the casino will cover all bets. Not only did congressional regulators such as Barney Frank fail to constrain the federal agencies inflating the housing bubble, but THEY ACTIVELY CRITICIZED IN PUBLIC THOSE TRYING TO PREVENT A CRISIS THROUGH INCREASED REGULATION, and they worked to inculcate the view that there were no undue risks in the American housing market.

Congressman Frank provides his own convoluted review of this crisis on his congressional homepage. IN HIS ACCOUNT, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOOK THE INEXPLICABLE VIEW OF OPPOSING REGULATION FROM 2001 TO 2007 AND THEN ENDORSED REGULATION IN 2007, WHEN FRANK TOOK LEADERSHIP OF THE IMPORTANT HOUSING ISSUES RELATING TO FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. According to Frank, the regulations passed in 2007 by himself and President Bush were "too late." Outside the reactionary left's mythmaking offered by Congressman Frank, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CALLED FOR HEIGHTENED CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC THROUGHOUT BOTH TERMS OF THE BUSH PRESIDENCIES. In reality, the Bush proposals to treat GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the same as private banks in the regulatory world, were termed "inane" in 2005 by Congressman Frank. The reforms passed by Frank came in 2008 -- after the industry had collapsed -- despite Frank's 2005 assurance that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "fundamentally sound." The GSEs purchased considerable political sway in fall of 2006 to prevent the regulatory leveling sought by the Bush administration. Democratic senators such as Chris Dodd and Barack Obama received considerable financial support from the GSEs in a landslide sweep for Democrats in Congress that functionally guaranteed that the GSEs would fend off future regulatory reforms pushed by the president….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_fall_of_the_house_of_frank.html#ixzz1fN8mXRRH

This is the Achilles’ heel of the left in the financial crisis.  They pooh pooh the idea that Fannie and Freddie were the root cause of the crisis, because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

5.   Lech Walesa and the OWS

It was about six weeks ago that the press was abuzz with news that legendary labor activist Lech Walesa, the man who, more than anyone else, was responsible for bringing down communism in Poland, was planning a visit to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The left-wing blogosphere erupted in paroxysms of joy; BRENT BUDOWSKY AT THE HILL SUMMED IT UP BEST: "ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT LEADERS FOR JOBS, WORKERS AND FREEDOM IS NOW SUPPORTING THE OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTEST. Lech Walesa has now weighed in, big time, for the good guys."

I forgot all about this until just yesterday, when I learned that WALESA NEVER DID MAKE THAT VISIT--a fact apparently overlooked by the mainstream press, although it was big news in the conservative blogosphere. WALESA EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS MORE OPENLY IN MID-NOVEMBER IN AN EDITORIAL CRITICAL OF THE OWS MOVEMENT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE:

I have lived under the heavy hand of communism, where the state controls virtually everything, and I've lived under freedom. While today's protesters have many legitimate concerns, let me assure them that instead of either cronyism or greater government control, IT IS DIALOGUE AND SOLIDARITY LEADING TO FREEDOM THAT WE SHOULD ALL STRIVE FOR…

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/11/lech-walesa-and-the-ows.php

With the anti-capitalist tone of the OWS movement, it was naïve for the proponents and the occupiers to think an anti-Communist leader would embrace their movement.  It appears Walesa realizes that freedom is one of the first things leftists are willing to sacrifice.

6.  Six Signs the Occupy Movement is Politically Dead

…..here are six undeniable signs that the same media and leftist elites who promised you air cover in the revolution that would finally fulfill your frustrated dreams have just left you swinging in the wind, fully exposed and more than a little humiliated with nowhere to go:

1. MSM IS NO LONGER INFATUATED WITH OCCUPY: Other than the big stories surrounding Occupy evictions, the mainstream media’s all but stopped covering the Occupy movement. 12 to 14 hours a day the cable nets are on in my office, and even leftist CNN and far-left MSNBC have ceased trying to use the Occupiers as a way to jump-start Obama-friendly narratives about taxing the rich and how Wall Street is to blame for Obama’s failed economy….

….2. JON STEWART GUTS OCCUPY: On November 17, “The Daily Show” took the “cool” out of Occupy with a devastating report (see above) that exposed the movement for the Orwellian Animal Farm these kinds of movements always become (which of course was Orwell’s point). No one in media understood better how useful this movement could’ve been to Barack Obama than Jon Stewart, but HE’S ALSO SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHEN IT’S TIME TO FIRE OFF A FLARE WARNING OBAMA TO STAY AWAY — AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIS SEGMENT WAS MEANT TO DO, AND DID.

3. AP PRETENDS DEMOCRATS NEVER SUPPORTED OCCUPY: On November 18, the Associated Press laughably and transparently attempted to memory-hole the Democrats’ very public and energetic embrace of all things Occupy.

Gee, I wonder why?

4. SLATE FREAKS OVER AD CONNECTING HIGH-PROFILE DEMOCRAT TO OCCUPY: Slate’s Libby Copeland was so panicked over a political ad that truthfully and effectively laid out Elizabeth Warren’s once-proud connection to the Occupy movement that she made a public fool of herself labeling the ad as “sexist.”

That’s desperate. And more than a little funny.

5. NEW YORKER BARES OCCUPY’S ASTRO-TURF FOR THE WORLD TO SEE: Even though Big Government exposed all this over a month ago, the fact that the New Yorker would, IN A MAJOR FEATURE PIECE,  FINALLY PUT TO BED THE LIE THAT OCCUPY WAS JUST SOME SORT OF ORGANIC, GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION LIKE THE TEA PARTY, is the final nail in the movement’s coffin.

After all, someone has to take the blame for this.

6. LIBERAL CITIES EVICT OCCUPY: Mayors of some of the most liberal cities in America (Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia) ARE PLAYING BULL CONNOR TO ALL THOSE WONDERFUL LITTLE HIPPIES WHO ONLY WANT “SOCIAL JUSTICE.” Furthermore, in their latest reports, the MSM has even stopped trying to make the cops look bad during these evictions. The coverage can best be described as obligatory.

Democratic mayors of big, urban liberal cities don’t evict popular movements, do they? They wouldn’t even evict a movement popular with the Obama’s base….

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/12/01/dead-movement-walking-top-six-signs-the-left-and-the-msm-have-hung-occupy-out-to-dry/

A very nice summation of why the OWS movement is now the living dead.  Another sign is the fact that many are saying the Occupy movement has already won as it has put the spotlight on greed.  That isn’t winning.  That’s declaring victory and retreating.