Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailouts could hit $363 billion, report says

This story was sent to you by: J Ruse

7 million good salaries will be psosibly going into bailing out the government-private hybrid. And Democrat believers think heavy gov't regulation works?!! Please explain, or shaddup, better.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailouts could hit $363 billion, report says

That figure, projected through 2013, represents a worst-case scenario that assumes a double-dip recession, the Federal Housing Finance Agency says. The finance giants have so far received about $148 billion in taxpayer funds.

By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times

October 21 2010, 8:27 AM PDT

Reporting from Washington -- The taxpayer bailouts of housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could cost as much as $363 billion through 2013, according to government projections released Thursday.

The complete article can be viewed at:,0,5250999.story

Visit at

NPR Ends Juan Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks

NPR executives have joined "The View" liberal goofballs, and the gaggle of tight-britches, politically correct liberals in seeking punishment for those who insist in pointing out that certain crazy Muslims committed the murders of Sept. 11, 2001. 

The apparent lesson for our times, liberal politically speaking: you can bash Bush, despise conservatives, reject the Tea Party movement as moronic and racist and disingenuous, ignore the abuse of non-Muslims by Muslim regimes all over the world, but don't even hint at referring to the Muslim-based ideology of the extremist, fundamentalist Muslim terrorists who committed 9-11 and a host of other killings and attempted killings for many decades. Williams even specified that all Muslims were not to blame for extremism. But that was not enough for NPR's weak-kneed, government, foundation and nonprofit-sponsored executives. 

Why was this appearance one too far? Well, in their own story about it, NPR gave no actual reason, so one can only assume it was a PC reaction. An excuse to rid of him, as it does seem NPR executives resented Williams' appearances in Fox News shows (see NPR article, quoted below). Was it because he is an impressive speaker and not always taking cover behind a closed-minded ideology of the far left? Was it a, God forbid, "black thing"?! 

So, which NPR employee is next? Or will it be NBC next? CNN?

NPR Ends Juan Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks
by David Folkenflik

- October 21, 2010

NPR News has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims.

Williams appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," Monday and host Bill O'Reilly asked him to comment on the idea that the nation was facing a dilemma with Muslims.

O'Reilly has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC's "The View," in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set in the middle of his appearance.

Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Tim McVeigh

But strong criticism followed Williams' comments.

Late Wednesday night, NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it was severing his contract. "His remarks on "The O'Reilly Factor" this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," the statement read.

Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.

His status was earlier shifted from staff correspondent to an analyst after he took clear-cut positions about public policy on television and in newspaper opinion pieces.

[Copyright 2010 National Public Radio]

- jR 

Raw info: Percent of Nations' GDP that goes to military expenditures

"... most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations." 

The CIA World Factbook provides many bits of information about the world we live in, such as the discernible numbers for a variety of subjects, such as population, average income and GDP - gross domestic product. (Just think of GDP as similar to household annual income, from all sources, but for a whole country. Before expenses. That's not exactly right, but you can read up on GDP on your own.)  

An interesting thing gleaned from the information provided on military expenditures is that most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations. In there among them is Israel. In the top, I caught 15 predominantly Muslim countries in the first 20.

So are those nations insulating themselves from the non-Muslim world, mostly concerned about their safety from enemies who would come at them from the outside, or more worried about internal enemies? 

The world average is 2% of GDP, which the US more than doubles, at 4.06%. The UK is matched with India and Iran, at a mere 2.50%.

The US commitment is massive, of course.  So is its GDP. US production output is about three times that of China, our closest competitor. China's military outlay is 4.60% of GDP.

1    Oman        11.40
2    Qatar        10.00
3    Saudi Arabia        10.00
4    Iraq         8.60
5    Jordan         8.60
6    Israel         7.30
7    Yemen         6.60
8    Armenia         6.50
9    Eritrea         6.30
10    Macedonia         6.00
11    Burundi         5.90
12    Syria         5.90
13    Maldives         5.50
14    Mauritania         5.50
15    Kuwait         5.30
16    Turkey         5.30
17    Morocco         5.00
18    Singapore         4.90
19    Swaziland         4.70
20    Bahrain         4.50
21    Bosnia & Herzegovina         4.50
22    Brunei         4.50
23    China         4.30
24    Greece         4.30
25    United States         4.06
26    Libya         3.90
27    Russia         3.90
28    Tajikistan         3.90
29    Cuba         3.80
30    Zimbabwe         3.80
31    Djibouti         3.80
32    Cyprus         3.80
33    Namibia         3.70
34    Angola         3.60
35    Colombia         3.40
36    Turkmenistan         3.40
37    Egypt         3.40
38    Algeria         3.30
39    Botswana         3.30
40    Guinea-Bissau         3.10
41    Lebanon         3.10
42    United Arab Emirates         3.10
43    Australia         3.00
44    Sudan         3.00
45    Solomon Islands         3.00
46    Pakistan         3.00
47    Indonesia         3.00
48    Cambodia         3.00
49    Rwanda         2.90
50    Comoros         2.80
51    Kenya         2.80
52    Chile         2.70
53    Korea, South         2.70
54    Azerbaijan         2.60
55    Sri Lanka         2.60
56    Lesotho         2.60
57    France         2.60
58    Bulgaria         2.60
59    Congo, Democratic 

        Republic of the         2.50
60    Iran         2.50
61    Vietnam         2.50
62    India         2.50
63    United Kingdom         2.40
64    Croatia         2.39
65    Portugal         2.30
66    Sierra Leone         2.30
67    Uganda         2.20
68    Taiwan         2.20
69    Burma         2.10
70    Malaysia         2.03
71    World         2.00
72    Seychelles         2.00
73    Uzbekistan         2.00
74    Estonia         2.00
75    Finland         2.00
76    Afghanistan         1.90
77    Mali         1.90
78    Norway         1.90
79    Romania         1.90
80    Fiji         1.90
81    Slovakia         1.87
82    Guyana         1.80
83    Zambia         1.80
84    Thailand         1.80
85    Italy         1.80
86    Hungary         1.75
87    Poland         1.71
88    Brazil         1.70
89    Chad         1.70
90    Ghana         1.70
91    Slovenia         1.70
92    South Africa         1.70
93    Nepal         1.60
94    Netherlands         1.60
95    Uruguay         1.60
96    Togo         1.60
97    Cote d'Ivoire         1.50
98    Sweden         1.50
99    Peru         1.50
100    Nigeria         1.50
101    Germany         1.50
102    Albania         1.49
103    Czech Republic         1.46
104    Belarus         1.40
105    Belize         1.40
106    Kyrgyzstan         1.40
107    Papua New Guinea         1.40
108    Tunisia         1.40
109    Ukraine         1.40
110    Senegal         1.40
111    Mongolia         1.40
112    Bangladesh         1.30
113    Cameroon         1.30
114    Denmark         1.30
115    Liberia         1.30
116    Niger         1.30
117    Malawi         1.30
118    Bolivia         1.30
119    Belgium         1.30
120    Burkina Faso         1.20
121    Spain         1.20
122    Venezuela         1.20
123    Ethiopia         1.20
124    Lithuania         1.20
125    Latvia         1.20
126    Canada         1.10
127    Guinea         1.10
128    Benin         1.00
129    Switzerland         1.00
130    Paraguay         1.00
131    Panama         1.00
132    New Zealand         1.00
133    Madagascar         1.00
134    Bhutan         1.00
135    Central African Republic         0.90
136    Congo, Republic of the         0.90
137    Ecuador         0.90
138    Gambia, The         0.90
139    Ireland         0.90
140    Luxembourg         0.90
141    Tonga         0.90
142    Somalia         0.90
143    Philippines         0.90
144    Kazakhstan         0.90
145    Gabon         0.90
146    Argentina         0.80
147    Sao Tome and Principe         0.80
148    Mozambique         0.80
149    Japan         0.80
150    Austria         0.80
151    Barbados         0.80
152    Bahamas, The         0.70
153    Malta         0.70
154    Dominican Republic         0.70
155    Costa Rica         0.60
156    Honduras         0.60
157    Suriname         0.60
158    Nicaragua         0.60
159    Jamaica         0.60
160    El Salvador         0.60
161    Georgia         0.59
162    Antigua & Barbuda         0.50
163    Mexico         0.50
164    Laos         0.50
165    Cape Verde         0.50
166    Guatemala         0.40
167    Haiti         0.40
168    Moldova         0.40
169    Mauritius         0.30
170    Trinidad & Tobago         0.30
171    Tanzania         0.20
172    Bermuda         0.11
173    Equatorial Guinea         0.10
174    Iceland         0.00

-jR (AirFarceOne)

The shame: Trashing the National Mall, that's the "hopey changey" way, it seems!

There's a video I saw in September of the WW II Memorial in Washington, DC, of OneNation's supposed grass-roots, caring, free-thinking Americans leaving their one-sign-fits-all signs all over the memorial.

I was very disheartened to see that these people don't even have an awareness to complacently respect their own great-grandparents or any others who served in Europe and Asia, etc., and respect the WW II installation. It was not unbelievable, but despicable, that the apparently concerned citizens didn't even have the decency to find a trash can. It was a if they were a group of junior high students forced to go on a field trip because that was what the teachers and parents agreed on for that day. In a casual, apathetic act of rebellion, they dropped the "dumb signs" that they were handed when they had arrived and stepped off of the busses for yet another day of unpleasantness in their directed lives. And perhaps that characterization isn't far from the truth.

I heard many participants were told by their unions that they had to go, and many were corralled for the event, ad if they were just warm bodies needing to go because regular school wasn't in that day. The point being that they cared as much as junior high kids who'd have much rather been doing something else that day.

The way they left the National Mall, including the WW II Memorial, was shameful. It seemed to me to suggest that the event was a lazy, feckless, cardboard display of numbers.

To what end? The event opened with a fellow named Ed Schultz, a radio and TV talk show host who is often seemingly unprepared, and whenever I've caught his show is factually wanting. It was billed as a nonpartisan event, but Schultz, from MSNBC, proved that wrong at the outset: he said they needed to fight "the evil... conservatives". Uh-huh. That's uplifting, positive, understanding speech.

The carelessly tossed signs, and ridiculous claims of extravagant head counts, showed me that this was a cynical effort: It was a leftist attempt to try to one-up the many Tea Party rallies and especially conservative radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" event which had been held in August at the same location.

The thrown-down signs were shameful, but the real proof of the organizers' cardboard intent was the blatant vitriol coming from many of the speakers that day.

If the crass, complete words from that day of Ed Schultz, Harry Belafonte and others, the booths of socialist, communist, and other far left groups, and thousands of careless, disinterested, bussed-in union workers are the pinnacle of the American political left's idea of the goodness of this "one nation", then OneNation is not a promising movement for this nation's future.

I'll stick with the folks who were inspired by an act of rebellion from 1774, in Boston Harbor.

- jR

Chicago's Real Crime Story - Failure of Leaders

Something to look at, showing a less favorable side to Obama's intent, from early on in his pie-eyed activist "career" of community organizing and playing Chicago-version politics, versus the realities of statist, collectivist thinking.

Is it all bad? No, and it is not evil. But it is clouded by wishes rather than clarified by evidence of great success. Supporting the weak does not involve making them feel like they are one if those they envy, but to teach them to not envy. And to teach them how to succeed.

Below is a piece of a lengthy article looking at Obama's, and Chicago's, failure to succeed at community organizing to achieve civility in needy communities. It is perhaps tragic in p
international and local scales that Bush wanted to bring democracy to the Afghans and the long-abused Iraqis, and Obama attempted to bring what I would suppose is civility to south Chicago, and they both could not achieve it in their time in office.

By Heather Mac Donald
in City Journal, Winter 2010
from the Manhattan Institute

...A year after these widely publicized killings, and on the eve of Obama's first political campaign, the aspiring state senator gave an interview to the Chicago Reader that epitomized the uselessness of Alinskyism in addressing black urban pathology—and that inaugurated the trope of community organizer as visionary politician. Obama attacks the Christian Right and the Republican Congress for "hijack[ing] the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility." Yeah, sure, family values are fine, he says, but what about "collective action . . . collective institutions and organizations"? Let's take "these same values that are encouraged within our families," he urges, "and apply them to a larger society."


Why do people who poo-poo detractors of the presumptuous claims by Obama and powerful liberals not take a harder look at his early politicking, as this article does?

They invented his greatness, as apparently another cardboard-quality effort of how they want the poor, and non-whites and non-Asians, to feel good and believe in themselves, magically. Or some such hopeful, but unrealistic mission that made some feel good, propped up his ego, and accomplished nothing, it would seem.

- jR