England gets it first Muslim Minister of State

Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik, has been promoted to the department of justice as part of Gordon Brown's cabinet reshuffle.


The Dewsbury MP, who is currently a minister for international development, said he hoped to make Britain "a more just society" in his new role as a minister in the department for justice.


"While I have truly loved my international role working to deliver justice for the poorest around the world, I'm now relishing the opportunity to make Britain an even fairer and more just society for all its citizens," he said.

Ah yes, yes indeed. No doubt in my mind. None. Absolutely none.... well maybe just a little bit...


Link

Herb Moses, Barney Frank and Fannie Mae

Just when you think it this couldn't get any worse, here comes this.


As with Nancy Pelosi's investment in CNLE this is about a clear case of conflict of interest as can be found. Where is the calls for a Special Prosecutor?

WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

"It’s absolutely a conflict," said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

"If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least what’s not in the stock market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard."

A top GOP House aide agreed.

"C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws."

Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.

Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.

Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.

Link

Hat tip to mightymom.

The subprime mess

As you look at your 401K and IRA this weekend, take time to click on this link and watch it.

It is a video and moves very fast. Get a pen and paper to take notes because it will give you other sources you will want to look up.

Who caused the subprime mess

Try not to have a stroke as you view it. McCain needs your vote.

The game is crooked....

I am not paranoid. Really, I'm not.

But if you wanted to elect Hussein, the best way is to make Bush, and by party association, McCain look bad.

First you torch the economy by driving up the price of oil.

When the economy starts to tank who gets hit first? Those on the margins. Those with the subprime loans....which about four months ago it was announced that problem was solved. But now the defaults really mount and Fannie Mae and Mac claim they are failing.

With the crisis comes demands for bailouts.... a bill is introduced and is then not passed in the House. Even though 95 Demos don't vote for it, the Repubs are blamed by the press... The market plunges to its biggest ever one day point loss and then goes up and down as a new bill is written.... and with the market up 288 points when the House passes it, it falls 445 points to close at 157...

Chums, something isn't right here.

I am known as Poker Player on some sites and have played a few hands in my day. And if I was in a game with so many odd things happening I would immediately know the game was crooked and leave.

Palin 10 Biden Zip

Biden reminded me of a super football team with this great QB and running backs and wonderful coaches.... He marched up and down the field showing everyone he was just so much smarter than the "little lady."

But when the game was over, he lost.

He lost because people don't pick a leader because they know the infinite details of gossip in the barracks. They pick a leader who says, "To heck with the gossip, follow me and I will lead you through the mine field."

And they know that the leader can do this because the leader has been through the minefield.

Watching the two it was like watching a Mom explaining things to a teenager.

"Joe. I don't care if all the other kids are doing it. It's wrong. We are not going to."

McCain is trouble, but Palin has breathed life back to the campaign. She won by being herself. McCain needs to start being himself and not worrying about hurting Hussein's feelings.

Time to start letting the chips fall and speaking plainly. This isn't Kansas, Dorothy and it damn sure isn't the Senate.

Tell you what Senator McCain. Next week when Hussein calls you "John," face him squarely and say, "We are both US Senators. Why do you call me John when I have called you, until this moment, Senator? If you want to play one upmanship games I will hence forth call you Hussein. That is your name I believe."

The return of harrogate - bump and update

More harrogate:

Hmmmm. I Look at it this way. McCain clearly shares your opinion of Obama's inadequacies to stand up to Iranian leaders. But then, McCain's got a pretty damned fine opinion of his own toughness and experience, doesn't he? And yet. His policy for his own Presidency would be the same as what he would want from Obama--SILENCE.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But yes, it is best to not threaten "almost" allies like Pakistan. Hussein doesn't understand that.

Is McCain tough? I think the record speaks for itself. Hussein has no record.

Which brings us back to where our disagreement really is. No surprises. You want a war with Iran right now, just like you wanted a war with Iraq Right Now, moons ago. I watched you replicate all the standard Talking Points on TalkLeft in those days. And now the same crowd is at it again. But what of that crowd's track record? How embarrassing that Charles Krauthammer, for God's sake, is taken seriously by anyone other than his mother. But anyway.

First, I never "wanted" a war with Iraq. I felt then, and now, that Bush took the correct measures based on the information he had.

No, I do not "want" a war with Iran. I do feel that Iran will not give into pressure and will respond to force only. The amount of actual force is not known. Hopefully it would be small. That does not mean I am in favor of limited wars. Wars, when fought, should be fought with all resources necessary to win as quickly as possible and with as few causalities as possible.

The desire for War with Iran is the basis for your disparagement of Talks. Same with McCain. It has nothing. I repeat nothing. to do with how Obama would fare in Talks. It is that you do not want Talks to take place. Period.

Wrong again. The west has had "talks" with Iran for years with no results beyond Iran becoming even more convinced that they can do as they please. The time for "talks" has come and gone.

Which, considering the stakes, is pretty sad from where most Americans are sitting today.

Well. There is a reason that the Constitution requires that Congress declare war. Not one guy and a small circle of ideologues. But the Congress declares war, as everyone knows. Heh.

The same thing can be said regarding the reluctance to go to war of the English under Chamberlain and the French in the run up to WWII. The result was not peace but war. A global war that killed perhaps 20 million people. If that is the result of "wisdom" then I hope I will be left off the "wisdom" list.

I will give you a fearful forecast. If Hussein is elected we will be severely attacked within 18 months within the US. I pray that I am wrong.

.................................................................................

harrogate comes back and you can read the comments listed in reverse order below.
The first is:

First off, I got no problem with the President of the United States meeting with anybody, friend or foe. This isn't high school. You don't gain anything by not talking.

Well, you are correct in that this is not High School. The problems with no pre-conditions meetings are numerous. The most imfamous one is the one between Kennedy and Krushchev:

"Kennedy's aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was "just a disaster." Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed "very inexperienced, even immature." Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak." The Soviet leader left Vienna elated -- and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy's assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the "roughest thing in my life." Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."


A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to "throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam's pants": nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna -- of Kennedy as ineffective -- was among them."

Along with the wall came Kennedy's determination to not appear weak. To that end he increased our commitment to South Vietnam and increased the number of military advisers.

"He now needed to convince Khrushchev that he could not be pushed around, and the best place currently to make U.S. power credible seemed to be in Vietnam."

So yes. This isn't high school and off the cuff meetings and discussions can, and have, caused disastrous results.

Link

But it's pretty clear that Barack Obama aint trying to personally meet with I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket.
But fine, if you want to interpret his answer as a statement that he Personally would meet with the Iranian figurehead, then fine. The point is yours.

No. That doesn't fly. As plainly stated in the video I provided the link to, the question was would Obama meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea with no pre conditions. Obama's response was that he would. He can end the discussion at anytime by saying that he has changed his mind.

But, so what if they were to talk? Why is it so terrible? I mean, seeing as how you don't see talking as a reward and all, or silence as a punishment....

Go back and read my comments, and link, on Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev showing what really bad things can come from ad hoc no agenda type meetings between leaders.
You must understand. This is not a game. This is not a debate. These type meetings have real consequences that can be very, very, very bad.

Hussein doesn't. God help us if he gets elected.

I just wish all the War Dogs, from McCain on down to bloggers like you, would stop going on and on about the proriety of talking and who said what and about who.

McCain should have the cahones to tell the American people, if elected I'm going after Iran. Instead of the kinds of distractions you are putting up in this Post.

What distractions? I clearly stated my belief that we should immediately go after Iran and its nuclear weapon program and that Hussein is too inexperienced and timid to do that. He thinks he can "charm" the terrorists of the world because he has always "charmed" the power structure around him. He can not.

And I wonder if the two dead gay men and the dead female rape victim would consider their agonizing death a "distraction." That you appear to is really a terrible comment about you.

Previous comments from 1 through 4:

harrogate - Because not talking is an effective form of "punishment" HOW, exactly? It's just so high school, this use of the "silent treatment."

And BTW, be honest and admit that Obama doesn't talk about meeting between Presidents "without precondition," he talks about having talks between the countries. They used to call such talkers Diplomats.

But anyway. We know what the crux of the Issue is. You are with the Neocons (same people who gave us the wonder of Iraq) who Actively Desire to start a war with Iran. Obama, like most Democrats and indeed like the vast majority of Americans, does not Actively Desire to start a war with Iran.

That's where you're peeved.

October 1, 2008 4:28 PM

ppjakaJim said...
You know, if you go the link you will find the question is:

During the FIRST year of YOUR Presidentancy will YOU meet with the LEADERS of IRAN, SYRIA, VENEZULA, CUBA and NORTH KOREA without preconditions...

And Hussein replies that he would.
So please, don't make false claims and try to parse words.

As for starting a war with Iran, you don't know it yet, but you will, that we are already at war with Iran. We have just refused to return their attacks.

I pray that we act before they kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and Israelis...

Am I a neocon? well, since I am not a conservative I don't see how I am... I am what used to be called a liberal. But in 1968 the Lefties, with the aid of some Democrats, stole my party. Being a hard headed type I voted for Carter in 1976 but that cured me from being a Democrat forever, or at least until they run off the Lefties who are now in charge of a once great party.

Yes, dear harrogate it is possible to be for minority rights, National Health Care, etc. and a strong national defense. Think Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey, etc.

October 1, 2008 5:04 PM

harrogate said...
You're the one who's parsing. Just say you want to attack Iran and be done with it, like you did in that last comment.

Saying oh, we can't reward them by talking to them is stoopid on its face. Talk between countries in this kind of a situation is not a reward, it is an effort to see what can be done short of going to war.

Again. You want war. Iraqis greeted us as liberators just as you predicted, and things are swell there. Time for phase two.

There is a problem this time, though, that did not exist before. This time Americans know better. Your desire to attack Iran puts you in the decided minority in this country.

October 1, 2008 5:21 PM

ppjakaJim said...
Dude, I just proved you wrong. The adult thing would be to acknowledge your error.

Parsing? Was there something about:
“I pray that we act before they kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and Israelis...”
that you didn’t understand?

And where did I say anything about “rewarding” them or “not rewarding” them?
And where did I say the Iraqis would greet is as “liberators?” I didn’t.

Let me give you first and last warning. If you want to comment, please do so. But when proved wrong, at the minimum, don’t come back with false claims and personal attacks. Next time you do it your comment will be deleted with nasty remarks by yours truly.

Obama and open borders and dead females

Don't we have enough native born criminals??

KNOXVILLE — A man police say was in the country illegally and working at a Knoxville motel where a former Alabama homecoming queen was staying before she was found slain has been charged in her killing.

Valentino Vasquez Miranda, 19, was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder in the slaying of Jennifer Lee Hampton, 21, of Muscle Shoals, Ala.

Evidently we don't.

Oh I know, I know. We mustn't condemn illegal aliens because of what one did.

But the facts remain.

If the border had been secured this killer wouldn't have been in the country.

McCain has promised to secure the borders. Hussein, as a Leftie, believes in open borders.