Links and Minifeatures 2009 05 11 Monday

I'm hosting this week's Carnival of Real Estate over at my "professional voice" website. My third time hosting; first time at the other site. Read it here: Carnival of Real Estate #141

HOW CHURCHILL DEALT WITH THUGS

But Churchill also understood that, if barbarism was one enemy of civilization, another was a moral cowardice disguised as moral qualms -- an instinctive flinching in the face of danger, dressed up as "upholding our values."

Churchill had seen this flinching in such 1930s appeasers as Neville Chamberlain, and he feared that he'd see it again among Britons and their leaders after the war.

"There is no place for compromise in war," Churchill wrote. In choosing between civilized restraint and the British people's survival, he never hesitated. He contemplated using mustard gas if the Nazis invaded England. He authorized the fire bombing of German cities, the so-called terror bombings, in order to cripple the German war effort and morale. He was prepared to let Mahatma Gandhi die during his hunger strike in 1943 rather than be blackmailed into abandoning India, the last bastion against Japanese domination of Asia.

It isn't easy, or something to make you proud when you make a decision to do something you see as uncivilized. If the consequences of not doing so are worse, however, you are becoming even more uncivilized when you fail to do them.

Thomas Sowell: 'Empathy' Versus Law

Justice David Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court presents President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to appoint someone to the High Court. People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group "representation" is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Read the whole thing.

A Litmus Test That Counts

As the time approaches for President Obama to choose a successor to Justice David Souter, the term "litmus test" will be heard throughout the land. The White House will deny applying any such thing, but the nominee will undoubtedly be chosen according to where she stands on abortion, unions and other issues beloved by liberals. This is fine with me, but what I want to know is where she stands on Frank Ricci. He's a fireman.

He is also the lead plaintiff in a case recently argued before the Supreme Court. It was Ricci's misfortune to take -- and pass -- the New Haven, Conn., fire department's promotion exam for lieutenant, and then have the job denied him because he is white. Others will argue -- fatuously and, when they are before St. Peter, with head bowed in shame -- that race had nothing to do with what happened to Ricci, but the fact remains that had he been black, his uniform would already sport a lieutenant's bar.

Jeff Jacoby, definitely left of center, has no sympathy for an empathy standard either.

Michael Barone: White House Puts UAW Ahead of Property Rights

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. "One of my clients," Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."

This is vile, for two reasons. One, that the President would resort to such tactics at all, threatening private citizens with the power of the press. Two, the expectation that the White House Press Corps would actively cooperate with that agenda. This is not the way it's supposed to happen, not the reason why the press enjoys a privileged position (no other profession has a shield law). Would the press have cooperated thus with any previous administration? Would there have been any expectation they would do so?

a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors -- those who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they'd get specific property back -- get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.

The reason is plain and simple: UAW's political support for the Democrats.

A hedge fund manager lays it all out: Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut

He speaks truth to power, taking more risk in standing up to Obama than anyone did during the eight years of the Bush Administration. We've already seen how Obama deals with dissenters - going after them personally, abusing the power of the government - something George W. Bush (for all accusations to the contrary) never did. But somehow I don't think that those who lauded the idiot conspiracy theories accusing the Bush Administration of everything from silencing opponents to faking 9/11 will laud this man who has objectively taken more risk than all of those nitwits together in order to publicize the simple truth.

Q and O reports more government threats and intimidation

Confronting the head of a non-TARP fund holding Chrysler debt and unwilling to release it for any sum less than that to which it was legally entitled without compelling cause, this country's "Car Czar" berated the manager of said fund with an outburst of prose substantially resembling this:

Who the f*** do you think you're dealing with? We'll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with.

Faced with these sorts of threats, in this environment, with valued employees in the crosshairs and AIG a fresh, open wound upon the market, the fund folded.

I knew this clown Obama and his administration would be bad. But I didn't think it'd get this bad this fast. This is clear impeachment material - of the person uttering it, and all the way up the chain of command if they were complicit or instructed to say it by their superiors. Extortion is a felony, the more so because there were billions of dollars at stake.

Our Have-It-Both-Ways Generation

The Obama Lexicon

Washington always has been a thermonuclear cliché generator. But the Obama administration, with all its super-smarts, has taken the exploitation of the euphemism to spectacular new heights.

This week, we learned a bit more about what the terms "sacrifice" (do what we want, you filthy, unpatriotic swine), "era of responsibility" (double the "sacrifice," half the prosperity) and "investments" (we squander money so you don't have to) really mean.

I have never heard such a double-speaking tale-spinning opportunist as our current President and his administration. David Harsanyi lays it all out.

The Obama Girls Aren't Like You and Me

If you know me on this issue, you know that I am very, very upset. And that I think that there is probably a special place in hell reserved for politicians who betray our nation's most helpless children for the benefit of a sullen and recalcitrant teacher's union. There they spend all eternity explaining to their victims why they couldn't possibly have risked their precious babies' future in the public school system, yet felt perfectly free to fling other peoples' children into it by the thousands.

Megan is definitely left of certer, politically. But she's willing to examine the facts and where they lead honestly, and she is not buying the difference between Obama's speech and his actions.

If we're going to prosecute the Bush Administration for illegal torture, it looks like we're going to need to prosecute the Obama Administration right beside them

As the Holder Justice Department puts it on pp. 20-21 of the elusive DOJ brief:

[T]orture is defined as "an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . " 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires "a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured." Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act "be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering"); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) ("This is a 'specific intent' requirement and not a 'general intent' requirement" [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that "his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose" to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 ("The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.")

I can see where the left would get upset that a Republican president would claim that something is not legally torture because there is no specific intent. I disagree with them, but I understand the merits of the position and the fact that they're using an available means to oppose someone of the opposing political viewpoint. Now it turns out that the Obama administration is making the exact same argument after condemning it (and still condemning it in speeches) in Bush's.

Once upon a time, I thought Obama might be an interesting guy to hang with. I take it back. I may have respect for the office of the President and the fact that he won the election, but it is hard to express my personal contempt for the deliberate bifurcation between words and deeds that has become the hallmark of the Obama administration.

President of Yemen Personally Issues Death Threat to Former President of Yemen

Vienna - London, "Aden press," Special: 9-5 - 2009

Yemeni authorities have today carried out a telephone conversation with President Ali Salem Albied in the country, who lives in Austria and threatened him by physical liquidation by an official way , and accused President Ali Salem Albied in a telephone conversation with the "Aden press," Immediately after receiving the call, that the people spoke, by SANAA formal way and by the President regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh spoke to him this morning and told him explicitly that we know where you will be, where do you get rid if it did not stop what he described as "a farce and the storm," which raised Albied since announced his departure from Muscat and his call for the people of the South to unite behind their cause, just published in the In an earlier statement, "Aden press ."

Saleh Urges Real Dialog (after muzzling opponents)

Perhaps you buffoon, if there had been electoral reform as promised in 2006 and under the guidance of the EU, then the growing tensions would have been short circuited by authentically contested Parliamentary elections. Duh!

Are we all getting the causal relationship between the delayed elections and the uptick in tensions? The elections were delayed because...Saleh lied again.

Why would anyone, anywhere believe Saleh? Everything is smoke and mirrors, lies, propaganda and threats. Closing the newspapers while calling for dialog is the supreme example of hypocrisy.

Corruption Undermines Yemeni Unity

These three data points all tell you the way Yemen is heading - to a civil war.

It could happen here. I can make a very good case that our current administration is moving us in that direction. There is only a difference of degree between Saleh and Obama, and I have no reason to expect that said difference of degree will persist.

The left accused George W. Bush of wanting to create a theocracy and hang onto power after it's term was up. Here we are, four months after George W. Bush gave up power precisely when he was supposed to. However, Obama's quick moves to concentrate all power in his own hands - economic power, financial power, census power, together with his encouragement of voter fraud, his unwillingness to negotiate meaningfully with the minority party (something George W. Bush was often accused of, but in actuality negotiated far more than either his successor or predecessor), Obama's threats and actions against private citizens, his administration's attempts to define opposition as terrorists and threats and worthy of law enforcement intimidation - all of this paints a very coherent picture, and I don't like what it shows.

Before Congress considers any form of government-run health care, they should hear the voices of patients denied care because the government deemed it too costly or delayed care because of long waiting lists for surgery or diagnostic tests.

Look at our own VA system. Most vets I know prefer private health insurance and health care, going to the VA only when they have no other alternative.

This needs the widest circulation it can get. Video, 17 minutes

The True Story of the Atomic Bomb

TARP: The Tragedy Deepens

Not only is the TARP program pernicious to the banking and financial sector, but it's implications go much deeper than that, and corrupt the rest of the economy as well. And most importantly, this is only the beginning.

The corruption expresses itself in a number of ways. Take a look at the GM/Chrysler situation. In both cases, the UAW emerge as the clear winners in the bankruptcy proceedings. In the case of GM, bondholders with $27 billion in bonds are supposed to accept 10% of the company's equity, while the UAW's retirement fund, which holds $10 billion in bonds, is supposed to receive 40%, with the Government taking the remainder of the equity. In what possible way is this supportable?

TARP as Shakespearean Tragedy

By inducing banks to take TARP money, whether through tactics or intimidation, the government has neatly cornered the capital flow of the country. Much like Hamlet surreptitiously forced his uncle to publicly face scorn for his act of regicide (by having performed the "Murder of Gonzago," aka the "Mouse-Trap"), the government has successfully lured failing banks into the public square for ridicule. Whereas Hamlet sought to elicit a sign of guilt in order to justify his vengeance, however, the government seems intent on effusing guilt throughout the banking industry so as to justify its controlling moves. By tainting the public view of the financial sector, the government seeks to undermine public confidence and build a chorus calling for its heavy-handed involvement. As mentioned above, protestations by the beggars for such action protest too much, methinks, but those who truly have no need of the interference have much cause to cry foul.

California heading towards collapse, auditor warns

On the eve of a series of referendums proposed to increase taxes on Californians, the Golden State's legislative budget analyst warns that both the legislature and the governor have seriously underestimated the budget shortfall. The state has a $23 billion gap even after the legislative compromise earlier this year supposedly eliminated the red ink and could default by July:

We spend too damned much money. I'm not going to say that all of the causes are unworthy, because that is not the case. I am saying that there is no way the government (at any level) can create money without taking it from someone. Every single method the government (at any level) has of getting the money it spends hurts people at least dollar for dollar, and if you don't understand this, you are not a competent adult. We have got to limit government spending, and prioritize what we do spend. Because the whole system is near economic collapse, and if we don't do what is necessary to avert that collapse, the people we are trying to show "compassion" for will be hurt much worse by that economic collapse.

The oft-quoted Cruel versus stupid is a false dichotomy, because stupid ends up being far more cruel than "cruel" might ever consider.

Don't believe me? Read this" Hemorraging - especially Uncle Sam

What have we learned?

The point was not that Obama likes Dijon mustard -- I do, too, as does the man who named it "DijonGate" -- but rather that MSNBC and other major media are no longer in the news business. They're doing public relations for the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

I have written the following to each of my Senators urging them to work against HR 1728:

Senator*,

I write you today as a constituent and mortgage professional urging you to act and vote against HR 1728 (Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act).

Everything this act accomplishes is found elsewhere in Federal Law, with one exception: The prohibition of paying yield spread to brokers.

I'm a correspondent, not a broker. I don't get yield spread. This bill, however, will prohibit brokers from sharing in EXACTLY THE SAME PROFITS EARNED BY LENDERS UNDER EXACTLY THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. I can't see that it is any more evil for a broker to receive yield spread, paid voluntarily by lenders under no compulsion to offer it, while those lenders receive much larger premiums from the secondary loan market for precisely that same loan.

Whereas I personally stand to actually benefit from this bill, it adversely impacts consumer choice and ability to shop their mortgage around in search of the best possible loan. It removes the ability of legal adults to *choose* to pay a higher rate in return for removal of certain costs - but it only so restricts their choice if they choose to do business with brokers. I do not believe it is in anybody's best interest to do this - except possibly the major lenders themselves.

I have written a somewhat lengthy analysis of this bill at

http://www.searchlightcrusade.net/2009/05/hr_1728_proof_that_this_congre.html

if you are interested in more background.

Please do everything in your power to prevent this monstrosity from passing. If you don't succeed, at least you will be able to say that you tried when research indicates that lender profit margin per loan on the secondary market has doubled or more, at the expense of consumers.