The Many Lessons of the Mortgage Crisis

As we begin to try and pick up the pieces and attempt to find a way out of the economic crisis caused by the mortgage meltdown, we should also look at what lessons we can draw from the events that caused the crisis itself.

1) Government intervention is dangerous and should always be implemented with care.

The left is screaming about deregulation (something I will address in a bit), but it was in fact too much government intervention that played a far larger role in creating this crisis. When Alan Greenspan lowered the Fed Funds Rate to 1% and kept it there for about two years, he opened the door to allow banks to perform exactly the sort of risky behavior that caused this crisis. The Fed Funds Rate is an overnight borrowing rate. By making it so low, he literally invited banks to take risks they shouldn't have taken. Banks need to borrow overnight for one of two reasons 1) to make up for a mistake or 2) to take an unnecessary risk. Such borrowing should come with a price. Instead, Greenspan made it nearly free. As such, banks began to borrow short term and flush with cash, they put a lot more money into mortgages. The ball started to roll.

On a smaller scale, the Community Reinvestment Act and Congress' pressure on Fannie/Freddie to lend in low income areas also gave those entities even more license to create and support exactly the sort of loans that are causing trouble now.

In both cases, what we had was government intervention and manipulation into free markets. The free market would never have called for interest rates so low or to have these low income borrowers get loans, and yet the government insisted that all of these things are a good idea. All of this is very important for several reasons. For instance, Arianna Huffington proclaims that this crisis is proof positive that free market capitalism is a failure as a system. Given what I have shown about the role of government intervention in this crisis, that is a far too simplistic idea. Yet, we should expect folks like Huffington to continue this drumbeat. We can also expect the Obama administration to try and move this country dangerously far away free markets.

It's most important because currently the government is intervening in free markets in a much more active way than they ever did to create the crisis. The Federal Reserve has lowered the Fed Funds Rate to .25% and that's only the beginning. They are buying up Fannie bonds in order to manipulate mortgage rates lower. The Federal government is about to embark on trillions of Dollars worth of spending. Finally, the Obama administration has promised a new "regulatory framework". All of this amounts to significantly more government intervention than anything we had to get us here. We are in danger of allowing the government to manipulate the market into something much worse than it is now. We may allow it because we don't recognize one of the lessons of this crisis.

2) Government oversight and enforcement is key not regulations.

Anyone that claims that this crisis was caused by deregulation is 1) naive and 2) a partisan. This crisis wasn't caused by a lack of regulation. It was caused rather by a lack of oversight and enforcement of basic and common regulations. The financial industry is one of the most corrupt we have. Yet, the regulators in charge of watching the industry stood by while fraudulent loans were created en masse. The amount of fraud in mortgages increased exponentially in the last half a decade, and yet, the enforcement of this fraud was nearly non existent. From time to time, we would hear about Federal prosecutors busting up a ring of fraudulent mortgage schemers. In reality, it wasn't the sophisticated plot that caused this crisis. What caused this crisis was that it became common place to lie about income, assets, and occupancy. The bulk of the problem loans were done fraudulently. Yet, nothing was done even though it became nothing less than an open secret.

Business can't function unless there is an atmosphere of fairness. That can only happen if the regulators are aggressive in investigating and prosecuting fraud, theft, and other crimes. What happened in the mortgage industry for about three years was nothing less than a wholesale fraud and that fraud was looked the other way by those responsible for prosecuting it.

3) Speculative markets are always obvious and they always end badly

There is that gold rush mentality during any speculative market. What I mean is that everyone wants to get their piece because there is so much money to be made. This sort of behavior is born of greed and laziness. It is much easier to try and make the quick buck than to work hard for it. That's in part what creates a speculative market in the first place.

There was never any doubt by the end of 2004 that real estate was speculative. Yet, its speculative nature only only fueled more buying. Often people were buying properties to "flip" out of their own home state before they owned their own property. Does this really sound like a good idea? Yet, this sort of behavior was often encouraged. Real estate investment became the topic of water cooler and dinner conversation. In other words, novice real estate investors were sharing their non professional ideas in how to make money in a speculative market. Like all speculative markets, this one crashed and it crashed hard. Like all speculative markets, this one could easily be understood for its speculative nature throughout the speculative portion of the market. If your property suddenly became forty percent more expensive in a year, that is the hallmark of a speculative market. Instead, folks watched real estate prices go up literally with no end and saw this as a buying opportunity.

This will not be the last speculative market. The next one will be just as obvious and it will end just as badly. Hopefully, some will heed the lesson of this one and not join the gold rush of the next one.

4) Moral hazards are real, dangerous, and corrosive to our economy

For years, borrowers bought properties they couldn't afford. Banks took on risky loans. Both were rewarded with good properties, and a basket of loans that they then sold at massive profits. Furthermore, borrowers were often able to refinance out of loans that were affordable into brand new loans only slightly less afordable. While these borrowers held onto unaffordable mortgages, they were also given access to an endless stream of credit to buy a new car, television, or to fix up their place. Meanwhile banks made so much money on these risky loans that the more risk they presented the more money they made. All of this is known as a moral hazard in which risky behavior that should have been punished was in fact rewarded. All this did was create even more risky behavior.

Today, our government continues to engage in even more risky behavior. Companies that suffered, finally, because of all this risk were rewarded with $700 billion bailout. The automakers, suffering from years of mismanagement, were also given a bailout. Now, borrowers are being given a bailout in the form of loan modifications in which borrowers struggling to make their mortgage payments are given brand new loans that are more affordable. All of this presents a moral hazard even more expansive than the ones that we had in place during the run up to the crisis. Given what the last set of moral hazards created, is there any doubt what is happening now will make a crisis even worse down the road.

5) Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac need a serious overhaul

Our entire mortgage market is perverted and most people don't know it because 1)it's always been this way and 2) because it happens behind the scene out of the view of the consumer. Much of the problem was created because Fannie/Freddie have a monopoly on mortgage securitization. By securitizing loans, these two make all the rules. As such, these two control the entire mortgage market. Such a dynamic is open to manipulation and corruption. Unless there is a major overhaul of both Fannie/Freddie, the mortgage market will be in constant threat to the kind of dynamic we saw over the last few years. In my opinion, these two must be broken up and fully privatized as soon as possible. Without such wholesale changes, they will continue to wreck havoc on the mortgage market indefinitely.

6) Major financial revolution must be performed carefully.

I don't believe that the bank deregulation bill of 1999 was in and of itself a bad idea. It was however, very revolutionary. Furthermore, those that created and oversaw its implementation had no idea its effect. The bill essentially broke down the figurative wall between banks, brokerage firms, and other financial services companies and allowed most of them to cross sell each other's products. One of the by products was that more financial services companies became involved in mortgages. Limits on capital and diversification were disregarded by regulators and so the end result was that far too many financial services companies got far too heavy into sub prime and all of them busted when it did.

There is something called the law of unintended consequences. It was on display with the bank deregulation bill of 1999. No one involved with its passage thought it would be used to get far too aggressively in one area of finance. More likely, its backers thought the exact opposite. This happened because those entrusted with overseeing the industry after its passage were totally blind to the monster it helped create. Had regulators taken more care to limit leverage, capitalization, and a lack of diversification, a lot of this wouldn't have happened. Instead, regulators looked on while nearly every single financial services company not only got far too heavy in sub prime, but many of them did it with an obscene amount of leverage. Such a lack of oversight cannot happen the next time any law revolutionizes any industry.

Mortgage Demand Up: Now What

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, mortgage applications hit a five year high last week.

U.S. mortgage applications surged to the highest level in over five years in the latest week, as potential borrowers came out in droves to refinance as government interventions helped push interest rates down to record lows, data from an industry group showed on Wednesday.

The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage applications, which includes both purchase and refinance loans, for the week ended Dec. 19 soared 48.0 percent to 1,245.4, the highest reading since the week ended July 18, 2003, when it reached 1,284.3.

Potential borrowers were lured by mortgage rates that have dropped dramatically since the Federal Reserve unveiled a plan last month to buy up to $500 billion of mortgage securities backed by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae. The program also entails buying up to $100 billion of debt issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Now, I have long said that the best way out of this recession is through another mini refinancing boom. On the other hand, I warned that manipulating mortgage rates would be a bad idea. I had hoped that the bad economy would drive rates down on its own. Now, it appears the Federal Government is motivated to do this on its own. Now, we will all see if I am right.

Now, the data is not very specific. In fact, while mortgage applications are up, the report doesn't distinguish between refinances, purchases, and those that are trying multiple times to get a loan. With guidelines more restrictive, the same borrower trying over and over to get the same loan will become a bigger phenomenon.

The refinancing boom is in full swing but what isn't clear yet is its effect. It certainly isn't clear if the refinancing boom has had any effect on buying. Furthermore, because only those with a perfect credit profile can now get financing, it isn't clear what lowering their rates will do. Anecdotally, I have found that many of these borrowers are simly shortening the term from 30 years to 20 years, etc.

The problem as I see it with manipulating rates down is that ultimately their will be a very big boomerang on interest rates. Since this is being done with extremely loose monetary policy, at some point that will be inflationary and cause all long term rates, including mortgages, to go up. If this doesn't have its desired effect now, it may be disastrous later on.

As such, the most important data will be the next round of data on housing sales? If the lower rates transfer into more housing sales, then this new refinancing boom may go a long way toward stabilizing housing. If, on the other hand, it's only a refinancing boom, it may ultimately have a counter productive effect. That's because this new boom will fit folks with unusually low rates and cause many not to want to move because rates in the future will be much higher.

What Great Political Theater It Would Be

According to local news reports, Governor Blagojevich's lawyers are planning to subpeona several member of the Obama team in upcoming impeachment hearings.

In a dramatic development in the ongoing impeachment proceedings, lawyers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich want two key aides to President-elect Barack Obama and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to testify before the House impeachment committee.

Sources tell CBS station WBBM-TV that a letter sent by Blagojevich's lawyers to committee chairman, State Rep. Barbara Currie, asks that the committee subpoena Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Jackson.

On Tuesday, a transition official disclosed that Obama, Emanuel and Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the federal investigation into Blagojevich. The transition official, speaking on a condition of anonymity, also confirmed that Emanuel had been captured on wiretaps taken as part of the investigation.

While this would certainly make for great political theater, it is not great for Blagojevich's party, the state he governs, and certainly not for the President he supported. Impeachment will be a very long process. Here is how my State Rep Sarah Feigenholtz described the process.

I would like to update you about the governor and the state of affairs in Springfield. As you know, the legislature met last Monday and decided to take the first step toward impeachment by forming an inquiry committee. Click here for a link to the resolution. Consisting of 21 Democrats and Republicans, the committee is charged with reviewing evidence surrounding the governor's alleged conduct and ultimately making a recommendation regarding his impeachment. This committee, which worked all last week, continues its work today and will meet daily (except for holidays) until a recommendation is made.

If the committee ultimately recommends an impeachment hearing, the next action will be taken up by the full House where a majority vote is needed to move the process to the Senate. At that point the Senate would conduct a full impeachment trial and be responsible for making the decision to remove the governor from office.

What the Representative is describing is a process that may take the better part of a year. Furthermore, it is a process in which all sorts of "dirty laundry" will get aired, including likely by Blagojevich himself. All the while, the state's entire political apparatus will be crippled and unable to do much of anything besides impeachment.

Most politicians when they begin to lose support within their own party know their time is past. It happened with Nixon and with Spitzer more recently. With regard to Blagojevich, he is determined to hold onto power no matter how bleak the prospects for himself, his party, his state, and the nation at large. It's clear that Blagojevich has forgotten, if he ever knew, that he is a public servant. It appears the only one he is serving with everything he has done since he got into office is himself. In that respect, his most recent behavior is really not so out of the ordinary. It may all make for great political theater, but that's the only good thing that will come out of this.

The Imperial Presidency?

Now that the Bush term is near it's end, everyone it seems is looking to make the first draft of history. (even myself) For Bush's biggest critics, one common criticism is that he has turned the Presidency into a pseudo Monarchy. For instance, there is this piece from the Nation.

The most significant Bush/Cheney innovation was planted at the taproot of our Constitution. It was the insistence that the president can exercise what Cheney in 1987 called "monarchical notions of prerogative." That he can, in other words, override validly enacted statutes and treaties simply by invoking national security. This monarchical claim underwrote not only the expansion of torture, extraordinary rendition and warrant less surveillance but also the stonewalling of Congressional and judicial inquiries in the name of "executive privilege" and "state secrets."

The Bush/Cheney White House leveraged pervasive post-9/11 fears to reverse what Cheney called "the erosion of presidential power" since Watergate. Relying on pliant Justice Department lawyers for legal cover, it put into practice a vision of executive power unconstrained by Congress or the courts. It achieved what James Madison once called the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands," which he condemned as "the very definition of tyranny."

Radical change is needed to re-establish legitimate bounds to executive power. We must again place beyond the pale Nixon's famous aphorism that "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal." But radical change--as early appointments and policy signals from the Obama transition team suggest--comes easier as campaign slogan than governing practice. And there are many reasons to fear a go-slow approach from Obama when it comes to restoring the constitutional equilibrium.

Joe Biden said something similar when he referred to Dick Cheney as the most dangerous Vice President of all time, and condemned a "unitary Executive branch".

Such criticism not only lacks historical context, but Constitutional context, as well as all other context, in my opinion. First, all Presidents accumulated more power during war time. They are after all the one and only Commander in Chief and so they will naturally have more power during war time. Lincoln, for instance, suspended habeas corpus, created military tribunals, and even installed martial law while prosecuting the Civil War. FDR created an office of Censorship during WWII. Wilson created the Creel Commission which counted among its duties: spying on war opponents, opening mail, and conducting warrant less searches of Americans. LBJ created a draft during the police action known as the Vietnam War. Compared to these other Presidents, Bush's "power grab" is rather mild. Either they are all imperialists thirsting for power, or those that call Bush an imperialist lack any historical context.

Second, the Constitution gives the Congress all the power that it needs in providing a check on the President's so called imperialism. That power is in the power of Congressional oversight.

Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

All those screaming about a usurping of power should realize that if Congress isn't exerting enough authority it is by choice only. Any and all of the aggressive GWOT measures like warrant less wiretapping, enhanced interrogations, GITMO, and the Patriot Act, should have been monitored by the Congress through their role in oversight. The likes of Nancy Pelosi knew about each and everyone of these programs, and they only complained when it became politically advantageous.

Everyone that screams that the President can snatch anyone off the street and declare them a terrorist even though they are totally innocent knows absolutely nothing about our Constitution. The President could only do this if the Congress allows him to. The reason that Congress has oversight responsibility is to make sure that exactly such a scenario never occurs. Bush's detractors often use a vague hypothetical about how such a thing "might happen", but in reality, it never would. That's because the Congress would be there to investigate and stop it. That there hasn't been a case speaks to the system working.

Finally, it is amusing to see someone go on the Internet and post something calling the President a "monarch", "imperial", or "tyrant". How many such systems would allow for such vicious dissent? That journals like the Nation are allowed "with impunity" to print over and over that the President is a tyrant is the best proof that he isn't. FDR would never have allowed for such dissent and so he created an office of Censorship. In any real tyranny, such dissent would be unheard of. That's why we have a first amendment. It's to keep our Presidents from becoming tyrants. The President has done absolutely nothing to silence his critics. In fact, criticism of him has become a cottage industry. Yet, all these critics speak in a duplicitous, hypocritical and totally ridiculous manner about his own imperialism, knowing full well that if their words were true they'd never be allowed to speak them.

The Integration of Fort Stockton

Introduction: I recently spent some time in West Texas. This is one of a few stories I will do that I found interesting on my travels there.

The area of land that is now Fort Stockton, Texas was originally settled by Native Americans. Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries explorers like LaSalle and Coronado travelled through this area of what is now West Texas. By the mid 1800's, the area was mostly settled by those of Mexican descent. Named after Robert Field Stockton, it was originally used by soldiers to protect settlers heading West from Indian tribes like to Comanches. In fact, several towns in this area of West Texas have Fort in their name and all of them were used for the same purpose. By the late 1860's, Fort Stockton became the home base of several of the regimen of the Buffalo Soldiers, a group of trailblazing black soldiers that became legendary out of the Civil War.

By the turn of the twentieth century, the demographics of Fort Stockton had evolved dramatically. By this point, a significant portion of Whites had settled in the town. By now, Whites accounted for about 70% of the town with Mexican Americans accounting for most of the rest. Fort Stockton also became a flash point for not only a bitter culture war, but a bitter battle over civil rights.

The town was essentially divided up into two. North of the railroad tracks was where the Whites lived. This was also the posh area of town. South of the railroad tracks was where the Hispanics lived and this was also the poor blue collar area. Furthermore, with no laws, the White population created their own brand of Jim Crow laws. Everything in the town became segregated: the restaurants, the movie theaters, and even the churches. They were segregated not because of specific laws but rather because the White population ran the town and that's how they wanted things.

Starting in about 1910, the Mexican/American community lead by Manuel Ramirez Gonzalez began a long and difficult trek toward civil rights in Fort Stockton. Gonzalez created the ultimate grass roots campaign long before that was in fashion. He did everything to draw attention to the injustice of the pseudo Jim Crow laws in Fort Stockton. Often, he would merely stop Whites on the street and challenge and question them on the injustice of separating the races. He also began organizing the Mexican/American community. By the 1930's, Mexican/Americans began running for local and regional offices. They would lose, and lose big, because the demographics were still not in their favor. Furthermore, the powers that be in Fort Stockton also instituted a poll tax of about a Dollar to vote. Much like all poll taxes, this was nothing more than a way to keep the poor minority, in this case the Mexican/Americans, from voting. The Whites, the aristocracy in Fort Stockton, had no trouble paying a Dollar to vote. Meanwhile, the poor working class in the Mexican/American community considered such a tax a burden. Furthermore, the Mexican/American community was largely uneducated and often illiterate. As such, many in the community weren't registered, didn't know how to vote, and often couldn't read the ballot. As such, Gonzalez had to organize efforts to get people registered, explain the voting process, and even have them understand which candidates were on the ballot.

The White population, on the other hand, often used standard operating procedures of all tyrannical classes. In the mid 1930's, the power structure in Fort Stockton came to Gonzalez and other Mexican/American leaders and offered to build them a brand new, state of the art, Catholic Church. Gonzales and other leaders refused. They refused to be bribed in order to look the other way. Gonzalez reasoned that a Catholic Church should welcome all people in the town and shouldn't be separated, no matter how nice it looked.

By the 1940's, Gonzalez' tactics became even more confrontational. His son, Abe, was of fairly light skin. Gonzalez would often send in his son into restaurants and movie theaters. Abe often wasn't recognized for his heritage and saw the White owners would serve this Mexican that looked as white as them. Once he brought his entire family to a movie. When the theater owner refused to let them sit on the bottom level. (the bottom level was reserved for Whites while the Mexicans sat in the balcony), Gonzalez took out a letter from the owner of the entire chain of theaters this particular one was a part of. The owner, from up North, wrote to Gonzalez and told him that anyone was welcome to sit anywhere in any of his theaters. The theater owner had to relent and one figurative wall was broken in the long struggle for integration in Fort Stockton.

Finally, the final straw came in the 1950's. The State Legislature of Texas passed a law that each municipality had to have legislature make ups that were representative of the demographic make up of the town. In other words, now Fort Stockton would have districts in which Mexicans were the majority. From then on, Mexicans finally had the political power necessary to finally end the segregation.

In the last fifty years, the demographic make up of the town has transformed again. Now, the Demographics have done another 180% reversal. Because of the Migration of Mexicans up North, the town is now about 70% Hispanic and only 30% White. The power structure is now dominated by Hispanics. Gonzalez work was not without its own fruits. A large stretch of land is named after his family. (Gonzalez Loop)

The court house is called Alex Gonzalez Court House, for his son a former District Judge, Alex Gonzalez.

Finally, the most successful (and from my own experience most hospitable) restaurant in town is Mi Casita, owned by Gonzalez' grand daughter, Adonna.

The struggle for equality and civil rights in Fort Stockton maybe in the past but reminders of its sacrifice can be seen all over Fort Stockton, if you know the story of how we got here.

The Obama Campaign Fails Media and Crisis Management

If the Obama campaign thought that releasing their internal investigation would put to rest lingering questions about its own involvement with the Blagojevich scandal, they thought wrong. In fact, the way they have handled this scandal so far, it makes me start to wonder if they really don't have something to hide. The whole entire affair has been mishandled from the beginning, and this report is just the latest misstep. Obama's initial reaction in which he described himself as sad was a small misstep. The proper response should have been anger and outrage. Then, he spent the better part of the next several weeks playing word and lawyer games with the media. It culminated with this exchange.



There are several things that in my estimation the Obama campaign needs to understand that they seem to be oblivious to. First, this scandal is salacious. That means it isn't going to go away if they simply ignore it. Second, this scandal is on the one hand simple to understand, but on the other hand, it has all sorts of lingering questions. The Obama campaign seems to think that as long as there is no evidence that they participated in a quid pro quo, that means that the scandal has no relevance to them. That's just not the case. There continue to be a lot of unanswered questions. Did they know that Blagojevich wanted a quid pro quo, and did they report this? Not reporting a crime in progress is not proper Presidential behavior. Questions regarding contacts between Blagojevich, Valerie Jarrett, the SEIU, and Rahm Emanuel continue to be murky. For instance, their own internal report revealed that President Obama himself, Rahm Emanuel, and Valerie Jarrett were all interviewed by U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald. Yet, the report gives absolutely no details about what was asked. Do they really think that such half measures will do anything but fuel endless speculation? If the public is left with half a story, you allow everyone, opponents included, to define the other half.

Next, the media dynamic on this story will look nothing like the media dynamic they faced during the campaign. The two driving forces of this story will be the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times. In Chicago, this is story number one, two, three and four, and neither paper will spare anything simply because they happen to like the President. Obama has already shown a confrontational tone with the Tribune. Getting combative with the leading media on this story is just plain dumb. The Tribune is not going to stop asking questions just because Obama wants them to. If he continues to skirt the answers, he will just look like someone with something to hide.

Finally, this report, its release, and the manner in which it was conducted just reeks of smoke filled room conflicts and unanswered questions. Did the Obama campaign really think that an internal investigation conducted by its own people would have any credibility when it exonerated them? This article spells out rather well just how hokey the process has been. Here's another piece along the same lines. Furthermore, Politico has written this piece in which they examine all the lingering questions.

Obama's internal review was entirely voluntary and intended to demonstrate that his team had nothing to hide, and was committed to its pledge to run "the most open and transparent transition in history."

But after announcing the review, his team declined to reveal who would conduct it, who would be interviewed or whether the resulting release would include any transition e-mails or records to support its conclusions.

...

Freed from the rapid fire back-and-forth of the campaign, Obama, a stickler for preparation, resorted to his methodical instincts in trying to create order amidst the swirling scandal.But in taking his time, he's let the story linger into a third week.After drawing criticism for a listless initial response the day Blagojevich was arrested and accused of trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by the president-elect, Obama went a step further the next day by calling on the governor to resign. On the third day of the story, he announced the internal review. By the next week he acknowledged frustration over not being able to clear up inaccuracies about the case.

Still, Obama resisted the temptation to spout off and stuck to the original plan: He would allow a written report to speak for him.

Politico goes on to list five different problems they see with Obama's response. The worst part of all of this is that they released this on the eve of Christmas. Furthermore, they released it when Obama himself is vacationing in Hawaii and not answering questions while Rahm Emanuel is vacationing in Africa and unavailable. This is blatant, obvious, and old school stonewalling, covering up, and a blatant attempt to sweep it under the rug. It's happening all in plain sight with the media, for the most part, calling them on it. Since they have done it when no one is available, they are also not in a position to respond to media inquiries.

The Obama campaign was effective and disciplined and so the way they have handled it has been 180 degrees the opposite direction. It is actually a remarkable turn of events, so remarkable in fact, that it almost seems as though it's being handled so badly because there is something to hide. True or not, that is absolutely the appearance they continue to give.

The New Council Submissions are Up

Council Submissions
The Provocateur - Obama Engulfed By Pay to Play?
Rhymes With Right - Impeach Jerry Brown
Joshuapundit - Cheney Slaps Biden Upside The Head
Bookworm Room - Destruction of Property
The Glittering Eye - How to Give a Bonus
The Colossus of Rhodey - *Yawn* Lincoln “parallels” for Obama
Cheat-Seeking Missiles - Gay Anger At Warren Unwarranted
Bookworm Room - The Symbol of Oppression
Soccer Dad - Don’t get too chummy with that flaming dummy
Right Truth - Re-evaluating America’s Biggest Threat
Mere Rhetoric - Smug Liberal Sophistication Undisturbed By Decades Of Disastrously Wrong Domestic And International Predictions
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: The Provocateur - John Stossel - Arrogance and Conceit Won’t Fix the Economy
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right - Discriminations - Are Constitutions Unamendable?
Submitted By: Joshuapundit - Larrey Anderson/American Thinker - Climate Crisis = Logic Crisis
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Jewcy - Madoff the Jew: The Media’s Hypocritical Obsession With the Fraudster’s Faith
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye - Pajamas Media - The Op-Ed the New York Times Wouldn’t Run
Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey - Dhimmi Watch - Fitzgerald: If we cut off the jizya, could things become even worse?
Submitted By: Cheat-Seeking Missiles - The American Spectator - Coffee and Closure
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Babalu Blog - A Message for Cathy del Castillo
Submitted By: Soccer Dad - Counterterrorism blog - Jihad by the Shoe: Who Was Behind it and why?
Submitted By: Right Truth - Mideast Youth - Hamas, Take your hands off the people!
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric - Counterterrorism Blog - OIC’s “Defamation” declaration could be used by Jihadi Terror networks
Submitted By: The Watcher - Simon Deng - Hudson New York - Bishop Tutu and “Israeli Apartheid”

let's hope this latest entry nets me more votes than the last couple which of course were zero.