Obama Likes Corporate Seizure of Private Property

Well, maybe that's a little misleading, but he does support the type of Justices for the Supreme Court of the United States who did just that in the Kelo v. City of New London case.

So to all you "civil libertarian" minded lefty's I ask: How does this sit with you?

Good News -- A Dead Terrorist

A terrorist was killed. Hooray. His death was followed by the usual muslim reflex -- Blame the Jews. Then speculation turned to back-channel dealings between the US and Syria. If this is true, it's unfortunate. The US would do far better to take a page from The Godfather and make offers to middle-east thugs that they cannot refuse. Offers like that would have them all in a line and quacking like good ducks in a matter of hours.

Hezbollah Commander, Wanted by U.S., Killed in Syria

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) --

Imad Mughniyeh, a commander of Lebanon's Hezbollah militia wanted by the U.S., was killed by a car bomb in Damascus, the Shiite Muslim group said. ``The martyr Mughniyeh was killed late yesterday evening'' in the Syrian capital, Ghalib Abu Zainab, a member of the Political Council of Hezbollah, said in a telephone interview from Beirut today.

Mughniyeh was indicted in the U.S. for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA Corp. airliner, during which an American Navy diver was killed. Israel has accused him of involvement in the 1990s bombings of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina that killed more than 120 people. The U.S. also wanted Mughniyeh for the April 18, 1983, bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut, al-Arabiya television said. Seventeen U.S. officials, including Robert Ames, the Central Intelligence Agency's top Middle East analyst, and other CIA staffers were among the 63 people who died in that attack.

In a statement, Hezbollah said Mughniyeh was killed ``by the Israeli Zionists.''

His funeral will be held tomorrow, it said. Mughniyeh was 45, according to al-Arabiya.

``There are so many countries and intelligence organizations that had an account to settle with this guy that it could be a great many people,'' Yossi Alpher, a former official with Israel's Mossad intelligence agency and one-time adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, said in an interview today. ``Anybody who has an interest in stopping global terrorism should be satisfied that he's removed from the scene.''

Israeli Denial Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said in a pager message, ``Israel rejects the attempts being made by terrorist groups that try to tie Israel to the incident.'' Mughniyeh, who also went by the name of El-Haj Radwan, was on the FBI most-wanted terrorists list, with a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture or conviction.

``It's a big blow and very significant blow no matter who did it,'' Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, said in a telephone interview from Beirut. ``This was done in Damascus,'' he said, adding that, if the Hezbollah commander was killed by Syria, ``then it's enormously significant and, if not, then who was able to penetrate Damascus so coolly and comfortably?''

Mughniyeh was a hard target and his killing could be part of a deal between the U.S. and Syria, Salem said. ``He was one of the figures that was always asked for by name by the U.S. If, and it's a big if, it's part of a Syrian agenda, it means that the U.S. and Syria must be making progress and there is some deal- making on Lebanon.''

Unrealistic

Abdel Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president and once a right-hand man to late President Hafez al-Assad, said he doubted the likelihood of such a deal. ``Such a deal is unrealistic in this day and age,'' Khaddam said in an interview today from his home in Paris. The site where Mughniyeh was killed is in a security area, in close proximity to an Iranian school and the offices of the Syrian intelligence services and military intelligence unit, Khaddam said.

Mughniyeh's death comes before a rally tomorrow that is expected to draw tens of thousands of Lebanese to central Beirut to mark the third anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. United Nations investigators said Lebanese and Syrian intelligence officials, including the brother and brother-in-law of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, were implicated in the truck bombing that killed Hariri. Syria has denied any involvement.

Asserting Authority

``There seems to be a steady attempt to push Syria, and right now the United States and the West has very little leverage over Syria, and I think this is frustrating everybody in Washington as they see Syria asserting its authority in Lebanon,'' said Josh Landis, a specialist on Syria and director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

``They've run out of tools and the only thing Bush can say now is that he's going to get a fully funded investigation'' into Hariri's assassination. The fact that Mughniyeh was killed just before Hariri's anniversary ``means that there could be demonstrations by Hezbollah supporters today and tomorrow,'' Ted Karasik, senior political scientist at the Rand Corp. consulting company, said in an interview today.

``He was killed in order to ignite confrontation on streets.'' Lebanon has been without a head of state since Nov. 23, when Syrian-backed Emile Lahoud left office at the end of his term. The dispute over the post has threatened to ignite civil strife in the country. The crisis is the worst since the end of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. Lebanese lawmakers have failed to elect a president on 14 occasions.

Mark Twain Redux

Many are familiar with Mark Twain's anecdote about words and their differences. As he famously noted, the difference between Lightning and the Lightning Bug. However, as usual, reporters don't know about stuff like that.

BUFFETT BUCKS UP THE BUCK

February 8, 2008 -- What a difference a space makes.

Just ask billionaire Warren Buffett after Dow Jones news service ran a headline yesterday quoting him as saying the US dollar would be "worthless" in five to 10 years if the country's account deficit wasn't brought under control.

Anchors for business news network CNBC spent some time dissecting Buffett's "worthless" quote before the Oracle of Omaha personally called to set the record straight.

CNBC's Becky Quick took Buffett's call on-air, although viewers couldn't hear Buffett's side of the conversation. She offered this correction: "He said it would be 'worth less' - two words."

It's no secret that Buffett has been negative on the US dollar, but the Berkshire Hathaway chief executive didn't go quite as far as the headline suggested.

"If our current account deficit keeps running at present levels, the dollar I think is almost certain to be worth less five to 10 years from now compared to other major currencies," he said at a business conference in Canada.

The Dow Jones story that followed the erroneous "worthless" headline reported his comments accurately as two words.

Peak Microsoft?

Steve Ballmer and his crew at Microsoft are looking like Indians (feather) getting ready for a last stand against the invading force of Google. It looks like the Indians are showing their weakness. They want help, a buffer, protection against the forces of the Manifest Destiny of Google. The Indians have sought help from Yahoo.

Like generals fighting the last war, corporate leaders are always ready to take down the old competitors. MSFT once dismissed the Internet as inconsequential and irrelevant to its corporate purpose. But the stunning success of Netscape changed all that. After MSFT's furious assault on Netscape with the Internet Explorer, it was clear an awakening had occurred. It worked. Next month Netscape shuts down for good.

But fighting the last war means fighting to advance the New World Business Model that is fading. The New World Business Model is now Old. Consumers don't pay for content these days. Not all of it, anyway. The online version of the New York Times is free. Most online versions of newspapers are free. Who's paying? The advertisers.

Google is free to the consumer. That includes its word processing software as well as its spreadsheet software. Imagine free Word and free Excel, free Microsoft Office -- with advertising. Is there a chance MSFT will give consumers online access to Word, Excel and the rest while charging advertisers for the opportunity of displaying their goods to billions of users?

Based on MSFT's willingness to pay almost $45 billion for Yahoo -- and taking the extra step of BORROWING to cover the expense -- the answer is NO.Welcome to the last war. Microsoft's Last Stand. Peak Microsoft.

To protect its Office franchise, MSFT will buy Yahoo for $45 billion. That's a massive insurance premium. Worse for Ballmer and Gates, the payment is a premium on a term insurance policy. But the duration of the term is unknown and shrinking at an accelerating rate.

Though it's estimated that Internet advertising is likely to double by 2012, the number of Internet advertising dollars is expected to reach an annual figure of $80 billion in four years. How much of it will flow into MSFT? Enough to justify the purchase of Yahoo? Maybe yes, maybe no.But one point is clear. MSFT is not use one of its chief assets -- Office -- to fight Google. The company's tolerance for risk is gone. These days MSFT wants Washington to referee. The bell is ringing. Microsoft has peaked.

The Housing Sky is NOT Falling

Defaults. Foreclosures. Evictions. Every media venue is clogged with stories about people behind on their mortgage payments, who have defaulted, who are facing foreclosure and eviction from their homes. How bad is it?

According to today's (12/7/07) Wall Street Journal:

"Subprime adjustable-rate mortgages continued to have the most problems, with 4.72% of those loans starting the foreclosure process during the quarter. Those mortgages represent 6.8% of loans outstanding but accounted for 43% of new foreclosures during the quarter."

Okay. The Journal claims that 6.8% of all mortgages are Subprime Adjustable-rate Mortgages. Thus, out of 1,000 existing mortgages, the Subprime Adjustables financed 68 homes. The Journal also states that 4.72% of the Subprime Adjustables went to foreclosure in the latest quarter.

In other words, 4.72% of the 68 homes purchased with Subprime Adjustables entered foreclosure. That's 3.2 mortgages out of 1,000. Or, since it's not likely a fraction of a mortgage is in foreclose while the remainder is healthy, 32 out of 10,000 mortgages went into foreclosure in the latest quarter.

The article also says the 32 troubled Subprime Adjustable Mortgages amount to 43% of the total entering foreclosure. Thus, out of 10,000 mortgages, 74 entered foreclosure.

Is this a problem?

Putting it another way, the numbers show that 99.26% of all mortgages are performing. More significant is the fact that as foreclosures rise, the number of non-performing mortgages will decrease as the foreclosed homes are purchased by solvent buyers.

Where's the problem?

A small group of former owners may once again become renters. Meanwhile, it's just as likely that a small group of former renters will become owners if they purchase the foreclosed homes at discounts to recent neighborhood prices.

Where's the problem?

How did we get here?

There was a time -- a few decades ago -- when a bank issuing a mortgage held that mortgage on its balance sheet until the home was sold or paid off. Secondary markets did not exist. Thus, if a bank issued a mortgage to a borrower who later defaulted, the bank was stuck with real estate it did not want.To minimize the risk of defaults, banks offered mortgages to only their most creditworthy customers. Banks further insulated themselves against real estate risks by refusing to lend money to purchase houses in questionable neighborhoods.

The upshot of these sensible policies was twofold. First, non-whites were far less likely to meet the credit standards of banks. Thus, they got few loans. Second, whole neighborhoods were judged as bad bets for lenders. Hence, red-lining. Banks are in business to make money for their owners. To lend money to borrowers who will return it with interest. Better to be safe than sorry is the banking mantra.

What did these policies bring?Polarized enclaves. New York City evolved into a collection of neighborhoods that were either good, starting to decay, or in some state of despair and delapidation. The race of residents usually told the story.

But today, NY City is a city of well over 8 million citizens, all of whom are living in neighborhoods that have been on an upward economic trajectory for the last 15 years.

What changed?Mortgage lending. Why? Declining crime rates, improving economy. But a key change occurred in the credit process. Securitization became the standard practice. Secondary markets for all forms of financial assets arose. Thus, bankers were able to issue mortgages and sell them in new secondary market, freeing the banks from certain risks.

Investment companies were able to buy those mortgages and bundle them into huge pools of interest-paying securities, minimizing the impact of the occasional defaulted mortgage.Banks were free to issue mortgages on properties in troubled neighborhoods. They were relieved of the risk of holding mortgages on questionable properties. But they were able to obtain funds for buyers and earn fees. The arrival of secondary markets and securitization was the end of red-lining. No neighborhood was off-limits to buyers who needed a loan to acquire property.

Moreover, other antiquated banking rules were repealed. Many old banking rules put geographical limits on lending by individual banks. Thus, a bank often held a near monopoly on lending in the neighborhoods surrounding its branches. But secondary markets, securitization and new banking regulations that increased competition changed all that. Buyers were given choices. Instead of one or two local banks from which to seek a mortgage, buyers were faced with too many to count. Commercial banks, savings banks, savings & loan associations, credit unions, mortgage banks, mortgage brokers, Wall Street brokerage firms, credit card companies. All of them in the mortgage business.

There were still questions, however. Buyers were rated. What's today's most often asked question? Once it was your zodiac sign. Today it's your credit score. Like it or not, almost everyone has been profiled for creditworthiness. As consumers we might have a long history of borrowing and repaying. Or no history.

Either way, there's a lender willing to supply capital to almost any borrower. For a price.There's also another factor in play. When it comes to the price of an object, its price reflects the amount of money available to pay for it. Thus, housing prices will rise in tandem with the number of people able to obtain mortgage money. Therefore, it's no surprise that home prices have risen a lot over the last 15 years.

Will housing prices drop due to foreclosures? If so, how much? Sure they'll drop. So what? The downside isn't really a downside at all. It's nothing less than a temporary sale. A January White Sale for housing. When prices are perceived as bargains, buyers will rush in and prices will begin to rise again. Does it matter if it takes two years before prices set new records? No.

Meanwhile, for years many elected officials charged the lending industry with bias and accused it of discriminatory lending practices. The arrival of secondary markets, securitization and heavy competition among lenders solved that problem. Home ownership among blacks and hispanics has increased faster than home ownership among whites. Ironically, with defaults and foreclosures rising, the same politicians are now accusing lenders of a new form of malfeasance. Easy credit, no questions asked. The old crime was tightfistedness. The new crime is improvidence.

There ought to be signs of indignance coming from blacks and hispanics about this. The subtext of the new crime implies the victims of these easy credit schemes are too dumb to know they should not borrow money to buy homes. Apparently the troubled borrowers were expected to believe that getting a mortgage fell into that "too-good-to-be-true" cateogory of offerings.

Were some people scammed? Certainly a few were. But no lender can earn profits from people who fail to repay loans. However, there are critics who seem to think some businesses can make money by losing money.Why are people in default? Lots of reasons. Some simply cannot afford the payments they face after the Subprime Adjustable Mortgages adjust. But what is unclear is the percentage of people who refinanced existing homes with Subprime Adjustable Mortgages as a strategy to extract equity from their appreciated properties. How many of them are in trouble now? On what did they spend the money they obtained through refinancing? It matters.

How many borrowers borrowed everything, including their downpayment money? Many programs exist to help buyers get their first homes. They usually include downpayment cash. Thus, borrowers often kick-off their home-ownership with zero or even negative equity to cushion them against setbacks. If a buyer with no skin in the game loses his house, he simply returns to his previous life as a renter without losing a dime out of his pocket. Thus, he speculated on home-ownership and failed. At no cost to him.

In other words, many defaulters have shown full understanding of the value of OPM -- Other People's Money. Hey, for them, things could be much worse. They could have wagered their own money. But they didn't. Quite a few homes were financed with 100% OPM. Donald Trump applauds. Who wouldn't want to purchase valuable assets financed entirely with OPM?

Enter the Government. Washington has reluctantly agreed to step in. That's bad news. However, it appears that help for troubled homeowners will come in small doses. That's better. But any safety net will encourage more people to jump. Today it appears that only people who have not defaulted will be eligible for assistance. Imagine the surprise when people who had been prepared to pay the higher adjusted rates of their mortgage contracts opt for the free pass offered by Washington. Oh, I can pay my introductory teaser rate of 1% for another 5 years? Yippee. Where do I sign?

We are deep in the grip of a media-driven hysteria. The only role for Washington is one aimed at keeping order while the private sector develops strategies to solve the problems. Unfortunately, this is the same federal government that lacks the will to reduce the threat of punishing oil prices by expanding oil drilling in the US. The solution that would create many high-paying jobs for people who would obtain more mortgages.

D.C. v. PARKER

Some of the less talked about potentials arising from a potential SCOTUS ruling affirming that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right.

It is my understanding that visa vi the 14th Amendment; states would no longer be able to regulate firearms and would have to instead rely on federal law.

While it seems the focus is whether or not one is allowed to "keep arms", little attention is paid to the "bear arms" portion of the right. Will the Feds be issuing national carry permits?

Will civil rights organizations like the NRA (the "gun lobby" to you MSM sycophants) no longer be able to effectively lobby the government?

SPEAKING TRUTH TO IDIOCY

Truths that lefties either wont admit or simply don't understand.


The whole of Korea would likely look like North Korea were it not for the intervention of the U.S.

The NRA is a Civil Rights organization.

The ACLU is no longer a Civil Rights organization.


The notion of anthropogenic global warming is more about defeating capitalism than it is about science.


The list could go on, but lets chew on these for now.