Right Juris

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to order a “broad, swift” investigation of the Bush Administration and Wall Street.  Supposedly they want to explore whether further regulation is needed in the wake of the fall of Fannie/Freddie and other financial institutions.  Of course, what this really is, is an attempt by the Democrats to place blame on George Bush and Republicans for the current financial melt-down.  Would anyone care to place a bet whether they will look at Andrew Cuomo’s role as the HUD secretary under Clinton?  What about Chris Dodd’s role at enabling the fall of Freddie/Fannie?  Will Barney Frank look at his own dereliction of duty as the Chairman of the Banking Comittee in the Senate?  Of course the answer to these questions are no.  This worthless Congress has probably done less then any Congress in the history of the United States. 

If McCain were smart he would pounce on this and get it started now.  Lets bring to light what exactly happened.  I hope they make the American peopel fully aware of who was responsible for this current financial situation and the mortgage problem this country is facing.  Bring it on.

Once again the liberal media is blowing a story about Sarah Palin way out of proportion. As the story goes, Palin is accused of seeking to have a librarian remove books from the city library while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Palin says that when she was first elected Mayor, she was confronted by her constituents about books at the library, so she inquired with the librarian about it’s policies for choosing what books it would and would not have available, especially to children, at the library.

Is this a valid question for a mayor to be asking? Why not. Governments are asked to run libraries in this country. Libraries are inevitably left with the question of what books should and shouldn’t be contained on the shelves. What do they base those decisions on? Popularity, cultural and social norms, and especially for children, decency and appropriateness. In deed, you won’t find Hustler, or even Playboy in a public library. You won’t see a copy of Mein Kampf in the children’s section of a library either. You see, librarians and school boards have to make value judgments about these things. Yet no one accuses them of book banning. The questions and their answers becomes a bit more subjective when we talk about things more controversial in this country, like homosexuality in children’s books. Is this appropriate, and even more importantly, who makes that decision? Certainly the tax payers are paying for the libraries, so should or shouldn’t they have a say in what types of books go into their library? Or should we just leave that up to one or more librarians? Then if we fire them for bad judgment, are we labeled Nazis? By the way, what qualifies the librarians to make these kinds of decisions? Are they trained in child psychology? If a Christian librarian starts choosing anti-gay literature to put on the shelves, is that okay? If people try to stop that, are they “book banners?”

The photo above is used on web pages that are discussing this issue, as if to make a comparison. People often make the Nazi comparison (also known as reductico ad hitlerum) when they don’t have a real argument.

Certainly Sarah Palin had a right and duty to inquire into the library system that her constituents were paying for. As a political leader, she had a duty to be involved in public library policy. There is no first amendment issue here. The Supreme Court has not decided on the issue of whether choosing not to carry books, or removing books in public libraries would violate the 1st amendment. My analysis is that the court would be very flexible with local leaders to decide the appropriateness of books on the shelves. There are some circumstances where they would step in. For example, if a group of Democratic librarians removed anything written by Republicans or that praised Republicans, or visa versa, this would be problematic.

The simple truth is that Sarah Palin removed no books from that library. That’s the facts. She made an inquiry. Still, she is being painted as a “religious nut who will ban our books” by the liberal media. The funny thing about some of the rumors, is they purport to have a list of books she allegedely wanted banned from the library back in 1996. If you look at these lists, many of the books weren’t published yet. Let the lies and distortions come as they most certainly will. America will see Ms. Palin for what she is, because they relate to her. If you don’t, you are in the minority.

There is probably much fault to go around in relation to the mortgage meltdown and the government consolidation of Fannie and Freddie.  Obama wants to blame Bush and McCain wants to blame the Democrat Congress.  However, the truth is that the mortgage meltdown goes back further then the Bush administration, right to the Clinton years in office.  As Wayne Barrett points out, it was the Clinton appointment of Andrew Cuomo as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that led directly to the crisis we are in today. 

Cuomo, who was the youngest HUD secretary ever, was appointed by Clinton, despite the fact that he had almost zero banking or real-estate experience. This was an appointment of political cronyism if there ever was one.  Cuomo’s main qualification seemed to be that his father was governor of New York and a friend of Bill Clinton’s. Barrett points out that Cuomo made a series of decisions that helped Fannie and Freddie to collapse.  Among other factors he:

• Turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a cake-walk for borrowers, with very high loan limits and requiring little or no money down.
• He legalized “kickbacks” to brokers, which have probably resulted in the sale of overpriced loans.
• Required a “quantum leap” in the number of affordable loans that Government Sponsored Enterprises would have to back.

Cuomo was not shy about pushing Fannie/Freddie into the business of providing loans to low-income families, increasing the risk and the amount they were leveraged with.  However, Fannie/Freddie knew they were not in any real trouble, because they had the cushion of having the government bail them out if they ran into an economic downturn.  If we boil this all down, the fact remains that if you eliminate the risk, banks are going to make all kinds of dumb loan decisions because they know the government is going to guarentee and subsidize these loans.

When my parents bought their first house, they had to put 10% down.  This gave them a vested interest in their property.  If they decided two years down the road that they just wanted to walk out of the deal, they would have to think twice because then they are out a significant chunk of change from that down payment.  When Cuomo changed the rules and made it possible to get loans with zero down, that economic incentive to make sure you make that mortgage payment is gone.  From the lenders point of view, they would look at my parents credit score.  If my fathers salary was too low, or if they had a poor history, forget about it, they were not going to get the loan.  However, when Cuomo changed the rules, someone in that situation suddenly would qualify for the loan, and the bank would make the loan, because Fannie/Freddie was going to guarentee that loan for them.  Even if my folks defaulted on the loan, the government was going to back it and make sure the bank got their money.  It was essentially a win/win situation for the banker.  No downside and all upside. 

Well, hopefully we see the foolishness of this mind set.  I thought with the collapse of the Soviet Union we were shown that a government cannot successfully manage an economy.  These government regulations and oversight are directly responsible for the mess we are in now.  McCain and Obama suggest we need more government oversight and regulation.  I say we need less.  Just let the market regulate these things.  Had we let the market do its job in the first place we would not be in the mess we are in.  Why do I get the feeling that government is not going to learn its lesson?

Technorati Tags: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Cuomo

The Justice Department announced new proposed rules that would go in effect this fall for how the FBI handles investigations. These rules would be the first major change in years with the goal is to apply the same rules for criminal, terrorism and foreign intelligence.  Among the proposed rule changes, agents would be able to use informants, do physical surveillance and conduct interviews without identifying themselves or their true purposes.  Well this make sense, its hard to bust up a terrorists cell by announcing “Hey, we’re from the FBI, mind if was ask you a few questions?

The new rules would also allow investigators to use a person’s race or ethnic background as a factor in opening an investigation, or “racial profiling” as the ACLU calls this.  Wait wait wait!  You mean investigators have not been able to take a person’s race or ethnic background into consideration before?  Is that why my 80 year old white female neighbor got the strip search treatment at the airport?  The fact that we are not racially profiling now is beyond incredulity.  Look, as soon as anyone besides an Arab Muslim drives an airplane into a large building, or blows themselves up in a crowded area, maybe we could open the investigation up a little.  Until that time comes though, why in the world would we not be concentrating all our efforts on that segment of society.  You may call it racial profiling, I call it common sense.  The Israelis use racial profiling to great affect in Israel, but of course with threat they face, they have to.  The thing is, we face the same threat, yet the ACLU doesn’t see it that way.

Franklin once said that those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little security would deserve neither.  I appreciate that sentiment, but I am willing to make this sacrifice where common sense dictates.  In all honesty, I don’t feel like I’m even giving up much, particularly under these new rules.  We need to give law enforcement and investigative agencies actual power and ability that will allow them to get the job done and keep us safe.  To quote Pamela Anderson, “the ACLU can suck it.”

Technorati Tags: ACLU, FBI, Racial Profiling

Presidential contender Sen. John McCain waded into enemy territory this week by appearing on The View.  While there, he had to face down mental midgets Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg.  Showing her vast knowledge of the 13th and 14th Amendments, Whoopi asks McCain, “Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change?”  Very insightful question Whoopi, I think you should stay up at night and worry about that.

In seriousness, what she was trying to get across (besides the fact that she knows nothing about Constitutional Law) was challenging McCain’s stance on Roe in regards to whether the Framers’ intent should even be a consideration, especially since they included slavery in the Constitution and they were not “fully enlightened.”

Here is where Whoopi, and anyone else who might argue along the same line misses the boat.  The Framers knew perfectly well that they were not prescient, they could not account for everything that might possibly happen, this is why they included an amendment process in the Constitution.  Thus we have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which guarentee us that slavery could never make a come back, thus correcting the 3/5 compromise and other blunders in the Constitution.  If we were to take the road that Whoopi suggests, then would not the proper analogy be that all court decisions are inviolate, thus Plessy v. Fergusson should be the rule of the land?  Of course no one would argue that, so why do liberals insist that Roe is the end-all be all when it comesprivacy rights, something that is not protected in the Constitution (the Penumbra not withstanding).  As one blogger pointed out, “You want a Constitutionally protected right to put a fork in your baby’s brain, then pass a damned Amendment.”  That sounds about right to me.

Technorati Tags: Whoopi, Slavery, Roe

Venezuela President Hugo Chavez has kicked our U.S. Ambassadors out of his country. He has been a constant critic of the Bush Administration, and now says a new American Ambassador will not be welcome until there is an “administration that respects Latin America,” a/k/a Barack Obama. Chavez endorsed Obama’s candidacy earlier this year.

Likewise, Chavez’s neighboring buddies in Bolivia have also removed the American Ambassadors. Chavez has promised to do the same with his ambassadors in Washington. Now the reports are saying that the Bush administration is doing likewise to the Venezuelan ambassadors in the U.S. Tensions have grown recently between Chavez and Washington after two Russian strategic bombers were deployed to Venezuela upon Chavez’s invitation.

Could we be facing another Cuban missile crisis here? Will our lame duck president do anything just before an election? How will Russia respond this time around? Vladimir Putin is no Khrushchev, but he may be worse. Medvedev is just his puppet. Putin has compared the United States’ plan for a missile defense system in eastern Europe to the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have ignored his warnings so far, and perhaps he will return the favor in Venezuela. What’s to stop him from going to Cuba as well?

Meanwhile fears of rising gasoline prices due to hurricane Ike and this Venezuelan matter continue to mount. If Chavez can create diplomatic problems for the Bush administration, meanwhile influence rising gas prices, that could be helpful to Obama’s cause. That might be just what Chavez wants.

Can you imagine Obama dealing with these situations? Oh the thought is scary. We can only hope that a force greater than Obama would guide him to make the right decisions in such a situation if he somehow manages to get elected.

The Washington Post is reporting that a group of Americans are already suing to get access to Vice President Dick Cheney’s records while in office:

The group expects to file the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will name Cheney, the executive offices of the president and vice president, and the National Archives and chief archivist Allen Weinstein as defendants.

The goal, proponents say, is to protect a treasure trove of information about national security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic wiretapping, energy policy, and other major issues that could be hidden from the public if Cheney adheres to his view that he is not part of the executive branch. Extending the argument, scholars say, Cheney could assert that he is not required to make his papers public after leaving office. Access to the documents is crucial because he is widely considered to be the most influential vice president in U.S. history, they note.

Dick Cheney aka The Boogie Man to the left. Does anyone scare these people more then he does? I’m just guessing here, but I’m pretty sure anything that he thinks has even the slightest chance of being viewed as damaging to him was shredded a long time ago. One thing that everyone White House has learned since Nixon is, don’t make records of every darn thing you do. So, good luck whack-jobs, I doubt you’ll find anything in these records, certainly not the smoking gun you need to finally get your man.

Voters in several states will be considering some ballot initiatives that deal with abortion this Fall. The most strict initiative is in South Dakota. Their ban on abortion would be the most strict in the country and would essentially ban any abortion except for incest, rape, etc. The actual goal of this is to lead to a new challenge of Roe v. Wade.

The Colorado ballot could play a particular role as a wedge issue and have an impact on the presidential vote there. Their initiative will attempt to define a “person” as any human being from the moment of fertilization onward.

Finally, in California they are considering a bill that would require parental notification for underage children who want an abortion. As one activist said “In California at the moment, daughters can’t get their ears pierced without consent . . . This is not about women’s choice; it is about minor girls.”

All three initiatives are sure to garner much attention this fall, I know I’ll be watching.