Thank you sir may I have another!

...The U.S. government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship in September 2008: "This means that the U.S. Taxpayer now stands behind $5 trillion of GSE debt," according to the Congressional Research Service.

The problem is that $5 trillion of so-called agency paper is not treated as if it is a debt of Uncle Sam for accounting purposes, says Richard Suttmeier, chief market strategist at Niagara International Capital and ValueEngine.com.

"Get it on the balance sheet - that's where it belongs," Suttmeier says. "Add it to the $14.2 trillion in [federal] debt and let's move on."...

...Coincidentally (or not), the FDIC is allowing U.S. banks until 2012 before forcing them to fully write-down bad or toxic loans, which is "another time bomb ticking," Suttmeier says. "They're hoping the public market comes back into the mortgage arena...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:05 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Third time we've used this headline because Obama is back in the dumps:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

Forty-two percent (42%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 72% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 17% Strongly Approve and 45% Strongly Disapprove.

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That, too matches the lowest level yet recorded for this President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Forty-two percent (42%) favor the PresidentÂ’s health care plan while 53% are opposed. Most believe passage of the plan will increase the cost of health care. Fifty-five percent (55%) say that Congress should scrap the current health care legislation and start over.

As always, Rasmussen has much more at the link. This thing has sorta become regular morning reading.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:47 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

And he says he won't agree to a promise now for action later.

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak said yesterday at a townhall in his home state, "I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" that a deal could be reached to pass a health care bill that bans public funding of abortion. Some speculated that this meant Stupak was ready to cave. "Obviously they donÂ’t know me," Stupak said in an interview this afternoon with THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "If I didnÂ’t" cave in November, "why would I do it now after all the crap IÂ’ve been through?"

[...]

Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill's problems on abortion later: "If they say 'weÂ’ll give you a letter saying we'll take care of this later,' thatÂ’s not acceptable because later never comes."

Stupak highlighted other problems with the bill: The president's proposal has not been translated into legislative language and it still leaves some special deals in place. "If you look at the PresidentÂ’s proposal," Stupak said, "it says that the Cornhusker agreement is out, but the Louisiana Purchase is in."

Feel the Nomentum, Bart!

UPDATE: And there's this little gem buried in a Daily Caller report:

Rangel, in an interview after the Democratic caucus meeting, said the abortion issue “didn’t come up.”

“Nothing’s going to be changed,” Rangel said. “There’s no room to change it. Not now.”

Pelosi, a California Democrat, continued to send the message that abortion should not be such a prominent issue in the haggling over getting health care reform passed.

“We’re going to have a bill. It’s about health care,” she said.

Translation: there will be no deal.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:15 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:11 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Has it really been 27 years? Wow, time flies when you win the Cold War.

On March 8, 1983 President Reagan delivered an address to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. It would have been a decent, not particularly memorable speech except for a few extra paragraphs Reagan added where he described communism as 'the focus of evil in the modern world' and called the Soviet Union an 'evil empire'. This might seem pretty unremarkable now but at the time it was highly controversial with all the right-thinking people decrying it as 'dangerous' and 'unhelpful'. And I suppose it was unhelpful - but it was also true.

We tend to forget how many of the elite back then (including even some in the GOP) were invested in the idea of a détente with the Soviet Union, and resigned to a permanent Soviet sphere of influence. So why upset the Bear with a bunch of words in a speech? Lurking behind all of this was the assumption of a moral equivalence between the US and the USSR which was considered the 'sophisticated' way to see things. Well lucky for us Reagan would have none of it and was willing to say the truth.

And apart from upsetting all the right people his words even had an impact all the way into the Soviet Gulag. Natan Sharansky, then a political prisoner in a Siberian labor camp, recalled how news of Reagan's speech eventually made it into the prison and convinced the dissidents that the days of communism were numbered. Finally someone had spoken the truth that everyone else was afraid to say.

And Andrew Sullivan, before he became unbalanced, gave I think one of the finest tributes ever to Reagan's speech back in 2001:

I will never forget the moment I heard his "evil empire" speech. It was broadcast on Radio Four in snippets, festooned with sceptical British commentary about this inflammatory and dangerous new president, this cowboy who knew nothing about geo-politics or the complexities of late-Communism. But for all the criticism, what came through to my teenage brain was an actual truth. Yes, the Soviet Union was evil. Who now doubts that? But who in a position of power said so when it mattered? Barely no-one but Reagan. He alone saw that communism was destined to be put on the "ash-heap of history," as he told the House of Commons. And he helped put it there. His achievement in this respect was so monumental that a whole generation of former peaceniks now take it for granted. Think of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, they were nuclear freeze supporters. And yet both now thoughtlessly enjoy the soft and easy fruits of a greater man's courage.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 09:56 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 490 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm paraphrasing in the headline but I think it captures the essence of the CJ's message.

Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, Roberts said he had "no problems" with criticism in general.

"On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum," said the Chief Justice. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Exactly.

I have no problem a President going after the Supreme Court, I wish Bush did more of it back in the day. What I have a tremendous problem with was the punk way in which Obama did it. He knew that his attack on the Citizen's United decision was a clapper line that would get the Democrats up on their feet. He also very well knew there was nothing the members of the Court could do but sit there and take it. It was a chickenshit way to score some cheap points and beneath the dignity of the office. But then Obama is one of the most un-presidential men to hold that office since, well, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (huh, what do they all have in common?).

You know what would be fun? A debate on the Constitution between a law school professor guy who was reportedly given a teaching gig by cronies, Barack Obama and either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Scalia. Obviously Obama would be at a disadvantage if either Roberts or Scalia were allowed to talk. Since I'm a sporting man, I would let Obama bring his TelePrompter.

Somewhat related to the notion of a dignified President...

I caught a bit of Karl Rove on Hannity hawking his book. He told the story of how Bush came to give his famous Bullhorn speech at the World Trade Center shortly after 9/11. It was completely impromptu and in response to the reaction of workers to Bush's appearance.

I think the difference between Obama and Bush is pretty clear.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:08 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Good evening all M&Ms.

How the Earth will look 50 million years from now
Now you know. And now you can make your beach front property purchases more wisely - I would suggest avoiding the Mediterranean altogether. And with glaciers approaching I suspect that Europe will look back longingly to the days of 'global warmingclimate change'.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:14 PM | Comments (799)
Post contains 349 words, total size 4 kb.

The whole WMD thing in Iraq? Faked, in this leftist fantasia's telling.

Despite being guilty of gross insubordination, lying to his superiors and concealing important evidence from them (a notebook containing the addresses of Saddam's top officers), [Matt Damon's character] is the hero of the film.

Others we're supposed to cheer for include Sunni officers who shoot down helicopters carrying American soldiers sent to assassinate them. Those death squads are acting at the behest of a duplicitous Pentagon intelligence mandarin (Greg Kinnear) who has single-handedly drummed up a fake casus belli.

Before the war, he interviewed a general of Saddam's who told him pointedly that there were no WMDs in Iraq after 1991 but that he'd be willing to work with the Americans after Saddam was deposed. The Kinnear figure then lied to a gullible reporter (Amy Ryan) that he had a rock-solid source, "Magellan," who had given him proof of WMDs in Iraq.

Such is this movie's eagerness to turn reality upside down that, although the Ryan character is obviously based on Judith Miller of The New York Times, the reporter is said to work for the Wall Street Journal. In full-on liberal daydream mode, Damon and his friends can pretend their favorite lefty paper is untainted by flawed reporting.

...

It's one thing to make a fantasy film laced with snarky jibes at the United States and its military. It's of another order entirely for an American studio (Universal, a unit of GE) to perpetrate, during an ongoing war, such vicious anti-American lies disguised as cheap entertainment.

"Green Zone" tells US troops that all of their efforts have been based on a deliberate deception. Worse, it blames the insurgency that has killed so many of our fighting men and women on US treachery.

Movies like "In the Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" have shown US forces doing nasty things -- but none went anywhere near as far as this picture in suggesting original sin corrupted the entire Iraq war and that American officials are more blameworthy than the insurgents for the most violent years.
"Green Zone" isn't cinema. It's slander. It will go down in history as one of the most egregiously anti-American movies ever released by a major studio.

Wow.

Matt Damon really needs to have his career taken away.

Posted by: Ace at 02:58 PM | Comments (437)
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

For "conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft."

Scroll down a bit; turns out she had great hopes for Obama.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

No idea what the hell's being said, though I imagine it's just variations on "Holy Frickin' Shit, this is awesome."

Via Lisa Likes.

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (100)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.