Kissing or Kicking the Fanny of Fannie and Freddie?

By John W. Lillpop


President Barack Obama displayed a goodly bit of presidential wrath last month over bonuses to be paid to AIG executives after the insurance carrier had accepted over $170 billion dollars in corporate welfare from American taxpayers.

Recall, please, Obama's hell and brimstone oratory of March 16, reported in part by CNN, see Reference 1:

"President Obama said Monday he will attempt to block bonuses to executives at ailing insurance giant AIG, payments he described as an 'outrage.'

'This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed,' Obama told politicians and reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner were unveiling a package to aid the nation's small businesses.

The president expressed dismay and anger over the bonuses to executives at AIG, which has received $173 billion in U.S. government bailouts over the past six months.

'Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?' "


Those words were among the harshest public comments coming out of Washington D.C., during a blistering firestorm that drove the U.S. House to pass a draconian bill to tax AIG bonuses at a rate of 90 percent.

With that fury as a benchmark, one would expect that any proposed bonuses to employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failed and bailed mortgage giants, would be lean and mean, at the very least.

However, one would be mistaken, once again, as the Obama administration continues it habit of making incomprehensible, mind boggling, and utterly illogical policy decisions on a near daily basis.

With respect to Fannie and Freddie, bonuses are still very much in play as reported, in part, by the New York Times in Reference 2:


"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled companies at the heart of the nation’s mortgage market, are set to pay their employees 'retention bonuses' totaling $210 million, despite calls from lawmakers to cancel the payments.

The bonuses, which were made public on Friday, were defended by the companies’ federal regulator, James B. Lockhart, who said he intended to let them proceed.

In a letter sent last week to Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, Mr. Lockhart disclosed that 7,600 Fannie and Freddie workers were scheduled to receive pay outs aimed at retaining those 'employees most critical to keep and difficult to replace.' Under the plan, 213 employees will receive retention bonuses worth more than $100,000 this year, and one Freddie Mac executive will receive $1.3 million.

Those figures drew sharp rebukes from Mr. Grassley and other lawmakers, who noted that Fannie and Freddie had received pledges of $400 billion from taxpayers to offset huge losses since they were seized by the government in September. Similar bonuses paid by the American International Group, which was also bailed out by taxpayers, incited fiery attacks from the White House and legislators when they were revealed last month.

'It’s hard to see any common sense in management decisions that award hundreds of millions in bonuses when their organizations lost more than $100 billion in a year,' Mr. Grassley said in a statement. 'It’s an insult that the bonuses were made with an infusion of cash from taxpayers.' "

So, why has President Obama failed to order James B. Lockhart to cease and desist in this "outrage" that will cost taxpayers $210 million dollars?

After all, if the president found it within his pay grade to unilaterally dump the CEO of General Motors, stifling an employee of the federal government would seem very doable.

Not to be overly impertinent, but does the Obama policy with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have anything whatsoever to do with presidential election year politics, campaign donations, or South Chicago mobsters?


Ref 1

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/AIG.bonuses/

Ref 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/business/04bonus.html

Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Another Illinois Democrat Who Prefers Racial Politics to Rule of Law

By John W. Lillpop

With unemployment now at 8.5 percent and the economy in complete shambles, the last thing this nation needs is to legitimatize 12-38 million uninvited guests, the vast majority of whom are uneducated, unskilled, impoverished, and non-English speaking, all of whom are here illegally.

What possible benefit could accrue to the American people by willingly taking on such needy people when thirteen million American citizens are already out of work, millions more are losing their homes to foreclosures, and millions more are losing their 401(k) accounts and life savings?

What politician, with even the slightest regard for the rule of law, U.S. Sovereignty, homeland security, or preservation of American culture would propose amnesty when such a move will only cause additional tens of millions of impoverished peasants to invade from points south of our borders?

The simple answer is that most Democrats do not give a damn about American anything when it comes to securing greater political power to advance their own selfish interests.

Even more blatantly un-American is the behavior Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) who is far more passionate about increasing the number of people who share his ethnicity--Hispanic--than he is in doing what is best overall for America and her citizens.

In other words, race above all else.

As reported, in part at Yahoo news:

"Amidst a backdrop of rising unemployment and increased costs of illegal immigration, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has been on a five week tour visiting 16 American cities - including Philadelphia this Saturday - promoting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and the dismantling of immigration law enforcement. Rep. Gutierrez describes the Family Unity Immigration Outreach Tour as an effort to 'document the harm caused to citizens across our nation in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform.'

What is notably missing in Rep. Gutierrez's tour is any mention of the harm mass amnesty would have on citizens and legal immigrants, or the economic toll illegal immigration has on American workers. With a national unemployment rate of 8.1%, over 12 million Americans are scrambling for jobs. Yet according to the Pew Hispanic center, an estimated 7.7 million jobs, desperately needed by U.S. workers, are held by illegal aliens. To be sure, unless worksite enforcement is continued, E-Verify reauthorized, and laws enforced, Americans will continue to compete against illegal aliens in ever greater numbers. The amnesty initiative advocated by Rep. Gutierrez would simply reward those who have broken the law, encourage more illegal immigration, and exacerbate a labor market already in distress."

As further evidence of his race-based hysteria to achieve undeserved amnesty for millions of invading Hispanics, Rep. Luis Gutierrez berated an American citizen who referred to illegal aliens as "banditos" in testimony before a House panel.

As reported at CNSNEWS, in part:

"In emotional testimony before a House joint panel this week, a Virginia man recalled the death of his teenage daughter in 2007 – a death caused by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and who had been arrested twice before the crime, but was not deported.

'Two years ago this week, my 16-year-old daughter, Tessa, and her best friend Allison were killed as they were sitting at in intersection waiting for a red light to change,' Ray Tranchant said, as friends placed a photograph of Tessa Tranchant on an easel behind him.

Since his daughter’s death, Tranchant, a professor from Virginia Beach, has become an advocate for the enforcement of immigration law.

On Thursday, as Tranchant applauded local law enforcement in Virginia for its increased efforts to work with federal immigration authorities since his daughter’s death, he referred to individuals listed on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s database of illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds as “banditos.”

That comment drew a rebuff from Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D- Ill.).

'Mr. Tranchant, can I share with you as the father of two daughters, I thank you for bringing your testimony here, but I suggest to you that if we refer to people as banditos, as you referred to them in your testimony, it does not help to solve the problem,' Gutierrez said."


The ideal rejoinder would have been:

Rep. Gutierrez, I suggest that if one of your daughters had been slaughtered by a drunken illegal alien who has no legal or moral basis for being in America, instead of working to reward outlaws with the greatest prize on the planet--American citizenship--you would be on the front lines of enforcing our borders and immigration laws, including mass deportations.

I further suggest that it is because of people like you, Representative Gutierrez, that our nation is being destroyed in order to manipulate our population based on race, rather than rule of law.

In that regard, YOU pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and to the rule of law in America.

With all due respect, sir, YOU are among the most despicable "Banditos" in America!

And THAT does not help solve the problem!


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46085

W. Looks World-Class Compared to Hayseeds from Illinois!

<










Satire By John W. Lillpop


OK, so maybe President George W. Bush was not the most polished president to represent America on the world stage. Perhaps he was a little rough around the edges from time to time, and, yes, he found proper English to be an avoidable distraction on many an occasion.

Still, say what you will about W. and his gracious wife Laura , the fact is that, in hindsight, the Bushies look sophisticated and worldly compared to the antics carried out by that naive couple from Illinois.

To begin with, Michelle Obama apparently mistook the Queen of England for that dead common creature, Queen Latifah of America.

Armed with that misconception, Michelle mugged Queen Elizabeth in a horrifying example of how organized labor in America can ruin everything from an automobile industry to a proper education.

If that faux pas were not egregious enough, the president himself committed an act of treason grave enough to warrant an immediate impeachment inquiry if only Dennis Kucinich could be convinced to drop his ongoing vendetta against W.:

Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia!

Rumors are that Obama mistook the king for an ACORN volunteer and was merely expressing his gratitude for the voter fraud success that allowed Obama to hijack the White House.


Nonetheless, can you imagine the reaction if W. had bowed to the same figure?

"Bow for oil!" would have been in the headlines for days, if not weeks, had the "prostrating" president been a Republican rather than a Marxist liberal with friends in the mainstream media.

With President Obama, the offending gesture is thus understood to be religious in nature.

A bonding between Muslim brothers as it were!

"Comrade" Obama Makes His Marx at G20

By John W. Lillpop

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev confirmed that which conservatives, libertarians, and insightful independents have been shouting for over two years: Barack Obama is a dedicated Marxist.

According to Medvedev, Barack Obama is his "new comrade,"
as the Russian president was apparently pleased with Obama's willingness to waffle on the US missile shield program, which Medvedev described as a "mistake" on the part of the Bush administration.

Fret not, Comrade Medvedev, when it comes to not defending America, President Obama is all about CHANGE that Russia and other enemies of America can believe in!

Although Obama's radical anti-defense notions do little to help folks in Nebraska, Alabama and Indiana sleep safe and sound at night, tyrants in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran are reportedly sleeping like babies while savoring the hope and hype brought to the fray by America's young president.

Make that America's young "citizen of the world"!

While little or nothing of substance was accomplished at the G20, there was near unanimity among the world leaders that the conference was a smashing success and, as President Obama put it, represented a "turning point" in combating the global economic meltdown.

As reported, in part, at Reuters:

"Obama won no new promises of spending when the summit of the Group of 20 major economic powers wrapped up on Thursday, but put a positive spin on the outcome, calling it a "turning point" as he welcomed agreements on financial regulation and new cash for the International Monetary Fund."

Indeed, Obama is gaining renown as the man with the "trillion dollar touch." Spending other people's money in increments of one trillion dollars seems to the Obama strategy in all matters large and small, foreign and domestic, and important versus mundane.

Wasting money seems to be the president's only real enduring quality.

So what's NOT to like, especially to Russians and liberal Democrats?

Nicotine Addict Barack Obama Raises Taxes on the Smoking Poor!

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Barack Obama's viscous attacks on the well-to-do and overly successful have won the Karl Marx clone the unbridled adoration and respect of the unwashed masses from coast to coast.

Tax the excessive bonuses paid to professionals? Yes, we are all for that!

Fire their CEO and leave the UAW in place? By all means!

Raise taxes on the rich? Hell yes, and NOW!

However, Obama's winning streak ended abruptly when the smoking poor awakened to the dreadful new tax that our nicotine addicted president signed into law:

As reported at Breitbart, in part:

"One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

'I can make a firm pledge,' he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. 'Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.'

He repeatedly vowed 'you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.'

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children."

Mind you, 62 cents extra for a nicotine fix is nothing to a millionaire like President Obama. If worse comes to worse, Obama can always fire the CEO of Marlboro and grant himself a lifetime supply of free tobacco products.

However, there are tens of millions of smoking poor in America to whom that 62 cents will be a devastating budget breaker.

With any luck, those folks will not die due to lung cancer before 2012, and will vote mindful of the fact that Barack Obama tried to balance the budget on the backs of innocent smokers.

Asked to comment about the fact that the smoke tax disproportionately affects the poor, a White House spokesman pointed out that the tax may actually help save lives by forcing addicts to repent.

The spokesman added that the president is open to any and all suggestions--not about taxes, but on ways to kick the cigarette habit!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1