Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Is More Debt the Solution?

Boulder, CO - In an effort to bail out stockholders, lenders, and homeowners, congress and the president have raised the debt ceiling by an ear-popping $800 billion, thereby allowing our nation's cash debt to rise above $10 trillion for the first time ever. As part of the package, the FHA has been given authority to guarantee $300 billion of mortgages to help about 400,000 homeowners, a meager fraction of the total. The major corporate beneficiaries of the giveaway are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages; these giant organizations have recently been on the brink of failure. The package also allows the Treasury Department to buy stock of these publicly traded companies to prevent them from plunging further.

Given the importance of the U.S. marketplace and the fragile state of the U.S. economy, failure of these entities would be a disaster with global consequences. But frantically increasing government spending without taking action to stem the long-term fundamental causes of our predicament can only briefly pause our economy's downward spiral. Most casual observers can see that the mortgage related problems in the credit markets are a result of increasing financial pressure that average Americans find themselves in. The immediate causes include loss of good-paying job opportunities and the surging cost of living. Both of these problems are traced to the failure to protect American industries and jobs with tariffs, to have a long-term energy policy, to control immigration, and to have a sound monetary policy. Therefore, the finger of blame must point at the elected leaders of both major parties for their gross incompetence and neglect of the national interest.

"When they seized failing banks in the 90s, the Norwegian and Swedish governments, known for their socialist leanings, were unwilling to 'socialize' the cost of bad decisions of private investors. As a result, bank stockholders lost heavily," said National Chairman Jonathan Hill. "Now we see our heavily indebted government, with almost $10 trillion in cash debt and $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities, taking the opposite road! If we do not change course very soon, harsh economic consequences will be experienced by many."

The America First Party platform calls for changes to spur economic growth. These include a Balanced Budget Amendment, the elimination of all unconstitutional spending, prudent and speedy elimination of the federal debt, and tariffs to protect workers and businesses.

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301
http://www.AmericaFirstParty.org

Enabling Tyranny

by Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
READ IT HERE

U.S. Should Respect Iranian Independence and Avoid Hypocrisy

Boulder, CO - "Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointedly last week. Underscoring U.S. concern for Georgian security are war games with the Georgian Army which U.S. forces just commenced. But as much of the world knows, American interest in the sovereignty and security of nation-states is selective. Rice's paradoxical response to Iranian missile tests, which occurred in the face of threats of aggression from Israel, is a case in point. Decrying the Persian nation's efforts to perfect its missile systems, she said it is time that Iran "got on the right side of the international community," and warned that we are prepared to intervene in defense of Israel in the event of an Israeli-Iranian conflict.

Iran is not a perfect nation, but its faults may be fewer than those which point the accusing finger. After all, it is the U.S. which bears responsibility for overturning its elected government in the 1950s. Leaked documentation reveals this, and shows that the CIA holds up its subversive regime-change activities in this case as a model of how governments can be toppled. Let us put ourselves in the position of Iranians. How would we Americans react to the admission by a foreign power that it was behind the assassination of JFK? Most probably, there would be a very active military response. But Iran, other than seizing hostages in 1979, seems dovish in comparison.

"Both the IAEA and National Intelligence Assessment admit there is no basis for concluding that Iran is developing nuclear WMDs, which is arguably their right to develop as a sovereign nation," said National Chairman Jonathan Hill. "Criticism of Iran's nuclear program, based on the absurd claim that an oil rich nation would not want nuclear power, is belied by the fact that the Shah's government was working to build a network of 20 nuclear reactors during the 1970s. These facts, the basic rights of sovereign nations, and the rights of all nations which are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, support the need for backing away from any intention to interfere in Iranian internal policies. Who are we to celebrate American independence if we are unwilling to respect the legitimate independence of other nations?"

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301
http://www.AmericaFirstParty.org

RED ALERT: BUSH PLANS TO ATTACK IRAN BEFORE LEAVING OFFICE

Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes@clearwire.net
Liaison Officer
Southern Oregon Militia

If the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress show the same gutless cowardice they did when President Bush ordered the illegal attack on Iraq without the required congressional declaration of war, this pathological, sociopath of a president will order an attack on Iran in cooperation with Israel before Bush is due to leave office, providing that current diplomatic efforts with Iran fail.

Look, this is not an alert sent out by that phony “Sorcha Faal” or any of the other hoax-artists. This is coming from Carl Worden and the Southern Oregon Militia, and our national intelligence gathering has reached the point we cannot ignore the data we are receiving about this pending attack.

All the planning and preparation is in the works, and our military is poised to carry out the attack if ordered – right now.

While we realize the threat Iran presents to Israel and the stability of the Middle East, including the threat Iran presents in potentially blocking the Strait of Hormuz and all oil transports that pass through it to the Western nations, this pending attack is being accelerated by the Bush Administration because they know Barack Obama will likely be elected president and that he will take a much more moderate position in dealing with Iran. The Bush Administration believes such a moderate approach will lead to the total annihilation of Israel by her neighbors and that only a massive military, mostly airborne attack on Iran will prevent that scenario from playing out.

Unless our Congress finds its testicles and our military commanders refuse to follow these illegal orders, we see this attack being carried out no later than November 1st, and probably within 45 days earlier – based upon the level of preparedness we are now aware of. In truth, and based upon the military readiness we are informed of, the attack on Iran could conceivably be ordered within the next two weeks.

MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE HELLER DECISION

Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes@clearwire.net

I wish I could write that the Heller Decision that overturned the Washington DC handgun ban was a complete victory for gun owners and amounted to a full trouncing of the Brady Bunch, but alas I cannot and I will tell you why.

First, let’s remember that the explicit wording of the Second Amendment includes the words, “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Nothing in the Heller Decision supports the right to bear arms; it only supports the right to keep arms that are not made useless by trigger locks or to be disassembled while stored. Further, Justice Scalia writes for the majority that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home”.

I don’t like that wording at all. It will undoubtedly be used by gun control organizations to imply that a firearm unconnected with service in a militia could be limited to a revolver or pistol, and not a semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15. So before you get together with the boys and hoist a few cold ones over this “victory”, I suggest you read the exact wording Scalia used in it’s entirety at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

I will withhold my further concerns until you have read this decision for yourself, and when you do, I want you to place yourself in the mindset of those Brady Bunch gun control lawyers who will attempt to construe the Heller Decision their own way, and not the way you might like to interpret it yourself.

I think you will find it to be a sobering moment.